an examination of types of delinquency through path analysis

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1980

An Examination of Types of Delinquency Through Path Analysis

Jim Mitchel l I and Richard A. D o d d e r 2

Received December 4, 1979

Relationships between father's occupation, delinquent peer association, tendency to neutralize, and self-reported delinquency are explored in a path model Self- reported delinquency are categorized into Minor, Predatory, and Aggressive delinquency. The effect o f this division is analyzed among Mexican Americans and Anglo college students (N = 694). The structure o f the resulting path models remained similar across these subsamples, although there was some variation in the strength o f the relationships. The effect o f father's occupation was minimal. The strongest relationships were between neutralization and delinquency, controlling for delinquent peers and for father's occupation, which decreased as the seriousness o f the delinquency increased. Additionally, neutralization was more strongly related to delinquency among Anglos than among Mexican Americans, explaining 39% o f the variation in delinquency among Anglos, but only 28% among Mexican Americans. Association with delinquent peers, however, was more strongly related to delinquency among Mexican Americans.

INTRODUCTION

Causal theories o f juvenile delinquency have tradit ionally focused on the social environments in which socialization takes place, the primary groups one associates with, and the normative orientations that one internalizes. Specific

1 Assistant Professor of Sociology, East Carolina University. Received his Ph.D. from Oklahoma State University. Current interests are social gerontology, adolescent behavior, and medic~ sociology.

2Associate Professor of Sociology and Statistics, Oklahoma State University.Received his Ph.D. from the University of Kansas. Current interests are adolescent behavior, human development, ~nd the sociology of sport.

239

0047-2891/80/0600-0239 $03.00/0 © 1980 Plenum Publishing Corporation

240 Mitchell and Dodder

elements of these factors have long been constructed into explanations of delinquency. The subsequent research, however, has usually given these explanations a mixed review. One explanation for the mixed review is that type of delinquency is frequently unspecified and lumped, instead, into some general index. The causal structure culminating in shoplifting, for example, may be quite different than the process leading to assault. This paper will focus on parental social class (as a socializing environment), involvement with delinquent peers (as a primary group association), and extent of neutralization (as a normative orientation) in a path model where the dependent variable is three different types of self-reported delinquency. The paths will then be examined separately for Mexican American and for Anglo youth.

THE PATH MODEL

The expected relationships between variables are presented in Figure 1. The first variable in the model is occupation as measured by the prestige of the occupation of the respondent's father as an indicator of social class. Juvenile delinquency has been historically described as a lower class phenomenon. Haskell and Yablonsky (1978), for example, recently wrote that "illegal behavior on the part of young people occurs primarily in lower class neighborhoods and involves children of lower class parents," (p. 209). Shaw and McKay (1942), Cohen (1955), Miller (1958), and Kvaraceus and Miller (1959) reported some time ago that delinquency was a lower class phenomenon. Self-reported delinquency studies, however, have presented findings to the contrary. Nye e t al. (1958), Akers (1964), Erickson and Empey (1965), Kelly (1975), and KeUy and Pink (1975) all found no significant relationship between self-reported delinquency and social class. Consequently, it is expected that the relationship between father's occupation and delinquency may be negative, but is more likely to be inconsequential.

Delinquent peers was measured through a self-report procedure of how often a respondent's best friends had recently been picked up by the police. Sutherland and Cressy (1976), Akers (1977), and many others have written ex- tensively about the causal connection between associating with delinquent peers and committing delinquency. Whether it is from one's differential association with prolaw.breaking attitudes, from one's seeking support in a subculture, or from one's having failed to form strong attachments to conventional others, a strong positive relationship is expected between associating with delinquent peers and committing delinquent acts. By using path analysis, the indirect effect that social class may have on delinquency by affecting one's choice of peers can also be examined.

The third variable presented in Figure 1 is the neutralization of delinquent acts. Sykes and Matza (1957) contend that guilt resulting from committing delinquent acts is reduced through a form of rationalization. Prior to the act,

Path Analysis of Delinquency Types 241

the deviance is attributed to forces beyond the delinquent's control, so that guilt resulting from deviance is neutralized and the self.image of the delinquent remains intact. Sykes and Matza (1957, p. 666) suggest five techniques of neutralization: the denial of injury, the denial of responsibility, the denial of the victim, the condemnation of the condemners, and the appeal to higher loyalites. These techniques are thought to represent an attempt to minimize conflict resulting from internai disapproval of deviant acts. When this conflict is reduced, the delinquent is freer to commit deviant acts with decreased anxiety. Even though they may identify with delinquent groups, delinquents are though to be partially committed to the dominant normative structure. The techniques of neutralization are therefore viewed as guilt-reducing mechanisms. Consequently, strong positive relationships between neutralization and delinquent acts are expected.

The remaining variable in Figure 1 is self-reported delinquency. According to this presentation, neutralization, delinquent peer association, and social class are ordered and antecedent to delinquency.

Type of delinquency has been suggested before. For example, Albrecht e t al. (1977) recently reported that religious involvements are moderately strong predictors of engaging in victimless delinquency, but not in other kinds of delinquency. In order to explore possible differences by type of delinquency, 12 delinquent acts were factor analyzed as a criterion to decide if division into subcategories of delinquency was appropriate (Mitchell e t at., 1978). Patterns of factor loadings led to the classification of delinquent acts into three types: Minor (driving without a license, disobeying parents, truancy, being drunk, and minor theft), Predatory (property damage, major theft, check forgery), and Ag- gressive (beating up someone, use of strong-arm tactics, and car theft). Path models connecting the variables discussed above with each type of delinquent act were then explored.

SAMPLE AND METHODOLOGY

Questionnaires were administered to 694 social science students at Pan American University (where 268 Mexican American respondents were obtained) and at Oklahoma State University. The great majority of the respondents were between the ages of 18-21 years. Father's occupation was dichotomized into working class (consisting of unskilled ans service occupations) and middle class (including skilled workers, business owners, and professionals with a four-year college degree). Among the 628 respondents who indicated their father's occupation, approximately 47% were classified as working class and 51% as middle class. Approximately 64%, however, of those whose fathers were working class were Mexican American; and about 81% of those whose fathers were middle class were Anglo. There were 30.4% who reported their friends had been picked up by the police at least once. Anglos were slightly more likely than Mexican Americans to have had friends recently picked up by the police.


The respondent's tendency to neutralize was measured by a moral absolute statement, a situational ethic statement, a neutralization statement, and a rebel- iious absolute statement. One statement reflecting each of these four kinds of statements was constructed for each of t3 delinquent behaviors and each statement was followed by a yes-no continuum. For example, the following four statements were applied to check forgery: "I believe it is wrong to forge a check" (moral absolute); "I believe it is O.K. to write a check for more money than I have in my account if I intend to deposit enough to cover it before it reaches the bank" (situational, ethic); "I believe it is O.K. to write a check for more money than I currently have in my account if my family needs the money" (neutralization); and "I believe it is right to forge a check anytime I want some extra money" (rebellious absolute). The statments were evaluated by judges, pretested, and subsequently examined for reliability and validity in samples of institutionalized youth, high school students, and college students (cf. Norris and Dodder, 1979). The sum of the I3 neutralization statements was used as a measure of the tendency to neutralize.

Self-reported delinquency was determined from the factor analysis of a version of the Nye-Short (1958) self-reported delinquency scale. The scale was modified to conform to differences in local laws, and more serious acts such as check forgery and assault were added. Common offenses were disobeying parents (80.6% had disobeyed their parents at least once), truancy (49.9% had been truant at least once), driving without a license (73.3% had driven without a license at least once), and getting drunk (72.1% had been drunk at least once). The frequency of delinquent acts for the more serious offenses such as assault declined rapidly. The percentage who had committed a delinquent act at least once, averaged across all categories of delinquent behavior, was 62.5.

FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION

The path model illustrating the relative effects of the relationships between the factors on total delinquency is presented in Figure 1. The F tests for each relationship are also included. Father's occupation is found to be virtually inconsequential in its relationship to delinquency (Pt4 7 0.08), to delinquent peers (P12 = 0.06), and to neutralization (P13 = 0.07). The direction of each of these relationships is positive, rather than negative as originally expected. But the low magnitude suggests that father's occupation has little direct or indirect effect on delinquency in this model. This model, however, explains 36% of the variation in total delinquency. The largest share of this explained variation is p ~ ; that is, the relationship between neutralization and self-reported delinquency while controlling for each antecedent variable in the model has a substantial path coefficient of 0.47. Also the direct effect between delinquent peers and total delinquency while controlling for occupation is substantial at 0.23. In

Path An~ss of Deli~uen~ ~pes ~ 3

Neutralization

~ . 0 7

Father 's / ~/ ~ Occupation ~ p ~ ~ N

-% ~ 6 / ~ Self-Reported / ~ Delinquency

Delinquent Peers

(x 2)

F12 = 2,01

F23.1 ~ 32.14"

F34.12 = 116.68"

* Si~iflcant at the .05 level.

Fig. 1. Relative effects of the total model.

addition, the indirect path connecting delinquent peer association with delinquency through neutralization is moderate. Thus the explanatory power of the model is derived from associating with delinquent peers and particularly from neutralization.

Types of Delinquency

When delinquent acts are categorized into Minor, Predatory, and Ag- gressive, some variation in the relative strengths of the relationships is noted (see Figure 2). The direct effect of father's occupation, however, remains essentially the same (and negligible) for each type of delinquency. But for the remaining variables, the strength of the path coefficients decline as the delinquent acts become more serious. For example, the coefficients representing the relationship between neutralization and self-reported delinquency, controlling for delinquent peers and for father's occupation, decline in strength from Minor to Predatory to Aggressive delinquent acts (0.41 to 0.37 to 0.35). Perhaps this weak trend indicates that neutralization as a method of coping with guilt resulting from a conflict between internalized norms and nonconforming behavior is more effective in reference to minor delinquent acts such as disobeying parents, truancy, and driving without a license. This trend is supported by the direct path coefficients representing the relationships between delinquent peers


Neutralization

O = p e . o o - - - - - - - - 22 ' P. ' 0,, -.O1, .O3 "". (Xl) ~ / ~ ~ Self-Reported

De linqueney • . ~ (x4)

(Minor) (Predatory) (Aggressive)

Delinquent ~ Peers (x 2)

FI2 = 2.01

F23.1 ~ 32.14"

F34.12 = (H) 82,23. (P) 57.36* (A) 33.53*

* Significant at the .05 level.

Fig. 2. Comparison of Minor, Predatory, and Aggressive delinquency path models.

and self-reported delinquency, with neutralization and father's occupation con- trolled (0.21, 0.19, 0.06 for Minor, Predatory, and Aggressive, respectively). It is also supported by each of the explained variation values contributed by each model for Minor (28%), Predatory (22%), and Aggressive (14%) delinquency. A possible explanation is the commitment of the delinquent to the legitimation of more serious varieties of delinquent acts. With less serious offenses, the offender may be more likely to have internalized the dominant normative structure; or perhaps these delinquent acts are more situational. Consequently, neutralization would be a more effective coping mechanism for the less serious acts.

Ethnicity

When the analysis is confined to Anglos, few surprises result. The structure of the explanation remains essentially unchanged (see Figure 3). The trend con- cerning the types of delinquency can again be seen in relation to the three variables. The strength of the direct path coefficients of the relationships between neutralization and self-reported delinquency and delinquent peers and self- reported delinquency decline as the seriousness of the acts increase. This is also the case with the explained variation values for each type of delinquency - 30% for Minor delinquency, 24% for Predatory delinquency, and 16% for Aggressive


Neugrallzatlon

oc~:p~on-- __ _ / Pl.O .Ol ~.o5,-.o.,-.o5~ N " 1" ~ ~ / ~ Self-Reported

~ ~ / ~ Delinquency OO / g ~5,, . 0 ~ (x4)

/ -- ~.~' " / (Total) / 7 1 ~ (Minor) / / (Predatory)

Delinquent (Aggressive) Peers

(x 2)

FI2 = .17

F23.1 = 25.52*

F34.12 = 79.31" (H) 52.51. (P) 38.92* (A) 23.31.


Fig. 3. Path model for Anglos with Minor, Predatory, and Aggressive delinquency subdivisions.

delinquency. The path coefficients connecting neutralization and delinquency while controlling for delinquent peers and for father's occupation are somewhat higher when the analysis is restricted to Anglos (0.52, 0.45, 0.42, and 0.40) 3 than for the total sample (0.47, 0.41, 0.37, and 0.35). Conversely, the relationships illustrated by the coefficients between delinquent peers and delinquency, controlling for neutralization and for father's occupation, decrease slightly when Anglos are segregated from the total sample (0.21, 0.18, 0.15, and 0.01 compared to 0.23,0.21,0.19, and 0.06).

Figure 4 represents the model when the analysis is confined to Mexican Americans. It is evident that the trend observed with the total sample and Anglos is again present. As the seriousness of the delinquent acts increase, the direct path coefficients describing the relationship between neutralization and delinquency and between delinquent peers and delinquency decline. This is reflected, again, by the amounts of explained variation for Minor delinquency (23%), Predatory delinquency (18%), and Aggressive delinquency (I2%). The

3ku this and following statistics in parentheses, combined coefficient is ~sted f~st and followed by Minor, Predatory, and Aggressive coefficients.


Neutralization

(x3) ~ 5

• " "~o

O c e u p a t i o n ~ ~ P_ = 0 r t ^~ _ ~ ' ~ J ~/ • "14- .u,c (-.02, -.01, .12) (Xl) ~ ~, - • - - - , - . u i , .12).

~f-Reported % j , ~ / _ ~ Delinquency

x ~ °'~ / . 3.5, . 3 . 3 ~ (x 4)

\ / ~o,: . ~ CMinor~ \ / ~ (P~ed,t.ory) Delinquent: / (Aggressxve)

Peers

(x 2)

F12 = . 31

F23" 1 = 6 .86*

F34.23 ffi 32.66* (M) 25.50* (P) 18.40" (A) 11.63"


Fig. 4. Path model for Mexican Americans with Minor, Predatory, and Aggressive delinquency subdivisions.

path coefficients between delinquent peers and delinquency while controlling neutralization and father's occupation are the same for total delinquency and Minor and Predatory delinquency (0.25), but drop to 0.13 for Aggressive delinquency.

Comparing Figures 3 and 4 suggests that having delinquent peers is more influential, and neutralization is less influential, in delinquency committed by Mexican Americans. The direct path coefficients between neutralization and delinquency while controlling for antecedent variables are lower for Mexican Americans (0.41, 0.36, 0.30, and 0.27) than for Anglos (0.52,045, 0.42, 0.40). The path coefficients between delinquent peers and delinquency, however, are higher for Mexican Americans (0.25, 0.25, 0.25, and 0.13) than for Anglos (0.21, 0.18, 0.15, and 0.01). But neutralization is still substantially related to delinquency among Mexican Americans, and delinquent peers are importantly related to delinquency among Anglos.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Examination of a path analysis between father's occupation, delinquent peer association, the tendency to neutralize delinquent behavior, and self-


reported delinquency revealed the strongest relationships to be between delinquency and (1) the tendency to neutralize and (2) delinquent peer association. The inclusion of father's occupation had minimal explanatory value; that is, it was virtually unrelated to delinquent peer association, to neutralization, and to delinquency. This result is consistent with some research, particularly the more current research, which has reported that the social class of the respondents has relatively little effect upon delinquency (cL Nye e t al., 1958; Akers, 1964; Erickson and Empey, 1965; Kelly, 1975; Kelly and Pink; 1975).

Delinquent acts were categorized, via factor analysis, into Minor, Predatory, and Aggressive offenses. The association of these categories of delinquency with both neutralization and association with delinquent peers was found to decrease as the relative seriousness of the acts increased. This pattern remained essentially the same when Mexican Americans and AngIos were separated for analysis. Since both neutralization and delinquent peer association are less related to more serious acts, perhaps those committing more serious acts are less socialized (by delinquent peers to the neutralization of the normative structure) and act, instead, out of individual need or some other social process.

Neutralization was also found to be a more viable explanation for delin- q u e n c y - especially less serious del inquency- among Anglos than among Mexican Americans. The path coefficients were still substantial for Mexican Americans; but the explained variation was 39% for Anglos and 28% for Mexican Americans.

Among Mexican Americans the relationship between neutralization and delinquency was weaker than among Anglos. The path between delinquent peers and self-reported delinquency, however, was more substantial among Mexican Americans. Consequently, Mexican Americans may be more likely to fit into Sutherland and Cressy's (1976) differential association framework, in which peers are relied upon for support in committing and justifying delinquent acts somewhat independently of internalizing a normative structure. The delinquency of Anglos, who may have more thoroughly internalized the dominant normative structure, seems to be more susceptible to explanation from the neutralization perspective.

Although neutralization has been presented as causative of delinquency in this research, it should be enphasized that the time ordering of neutralization and delinquency cannot be determined, since the data were gathered at one time. An alternative explanation is that committing delinquent acts induces guilt, which is subsequently rationalized. If guilt occurs after the act, then we do not have neutralization as defined by Sykes and Matza (1957), but alternatively a form of rationalization. Additional considerations in the interpretation of these f'mdings are that subjects who are willing to admit committing delinquent acts in self-report research may also be willing to admit that delinquency was all right, given an appropriate rationalization or neutralization. The relationships in this research may be artifacts of two different paper-and-pencil tests. Gen- eralizing from studies of self-reported delinquency to delinquency actually corn-


mit t ed m a y be problemat ic . These possible in terpreta t ions , as well as others, should be considered in the examina t ion of the results o f this research.

REFERENCES

Akers, R. I. (1964). Socioeconomic status and delinquent behavior: A pretest. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 10(January): 38-46.

Akers, R. I. (1977). Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach, Wadsworth, Belmont, Calif.

Albrecht, S. L., Chadwick, B. A., and Alcorn, D. S. (1977). Religiosity and deviance: Ap- plication of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model. J. Sci. Stud. Relig. 19(3): 263-274.

Cohen, A. K. (1955), Delinquent Boys, Free Press, New York. Erickson, M. L., and Empey, L. T. (1965). Class position, peers, and delinquency. Sociol.

SOc. Res. 49(April): 271. Haskell, M. R., and Yablonsky, L. (1978). Juvenile Delinquency, University of Chicago

Press, Chicago. Kelly, D. H. (1975). Status origins, track positions, and delinquent involvements: A self-

report analysis. Sociol. Quart. 16(Spring): 264-271. Kelly, D. H., and Pink, W. I. (1975). Status origins, youth rebellion, and delinquency: A

reexamination of the class issue. J. Youth Adoles. 4(December): 339-347. Kvaraceus, W. C., and Miller, W. B. (1959). Delinquent Behavior, Vot. 1: Culture and the

Individual, National Education Association, Washington D.C. Miller, W. B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. J.

Soc. lss. 14(Fall): 5-19. Mitchell, J. P., Dodder, R. A., and Norris, T. D. (1978). Neutralization and delinquency:

A comparison by sex of Mexican American and Anglo youth. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society of Criminology, November, Dallas.

Norris, T. D., and Dodder, R. A. (1979). A behavioral continuum synthesizing neutralization theory, situational ethics, and juvenile delinquency. Adolescence 14(No. 55; (Fall): 545-555.

Nye, F. 1., and Short, J. F. (1958). Scaling delinquent behavior. Am. Sociol. Rev. 22: 326-331.

Nye, F. I., Short, J. F., and Olson, V. J. (1958). Socioeconomic status and delinquent behavior. Am. k SocioL 63(January): 381-389.

Shaw, C. R., and McKay, H. (1942). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Sutherland, E. H., and Cressy, D. R. (1976). Theory of differential association. In Gial- lombardo, R. (ed.), Juvenile Delinquency, Wiley, New York.

Sykes, G. M. and D. Matza (1957) "Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency." American Journal of Sociology 22:664-670.

an examination of types of delinquency through path analysis

Documents