Brandi Turnbow
11/28/06
SED625sc
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 Relations
Alternative Charter High Schools
Cynthia Mattern
Arizona State University
Kathryn Nakagawa
Arizona State University
Abstract
This study examined peer relationships among "at-risk" students segregated in alternative education program
schools. We studied how peer relationships among groups of segregated at-risk students were related to the a
of delinquent acts students committed, and we explored how peer relationships for the students differed by ge
theories were tested in this study: interpersonal strain theory, which suggests that individuals commit delinqu
negative peer relationships (e.g., difficulty making friends, being put down by others), and differential associ
which argues that individuals are delinquent due to association with delinquent peers. A survey was administ
students (82 girls and 53 boys) enrolled in charter schools offering alternative education programs for at-risk
Overall, gender was found to be the strongest predictor of delinquent behavior, with boys reporting more deli
girls. Correlation and regression analyses indicated that, in these segregated settings, students who reported g
better with their peers were also more likely to report increased delinquent behavior. For example, getting alo
members of the opposite sex was related to increased property offenses for girls and increased offenses invol
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 adol
are deemed to be "at risk" of dropping out of school or who have exhibited delinquent behaviors (e.g., Kamm
Pisano, 1994). The belief is that such programs are a better match to the needs of these students (Hergert, 199
2000); furthermore, it is thought that segregating these students protects others from being subject to their ne
or delinquent acts (Vann, Schubert, & Rogers, 2000).
Although such programs started in the 1960s (Gloria & Karr-Kidwell, 1993), their popularity is growing, par
through the creation of charter schools. For instance, the largest segment of charter school providers in Arizo
high school students (Toch, 1998). Generally, the main goal of these programs is to increase graduation rates
of these programs have termed them a success in this respect (Pisano, 1994). However, the influence of altern
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, selfdecreasing delinquency. For instance, in a meta-analysis of studies examining alternative education programs
Davidson, and Bynum (1995) found that there were some minimal improvements in academic achievement, h
felt toward school, and self-esteem. Such effects were seen more at alternative programs that were specificall
toward particular groups of students (e.g., drop-outs), as opposed to those that were open to any students. Del
were not significantly affected. Another study, by Nichols and Steffy (1997), found that students' motivation
improved due to an alternative education program, but those effects were observed only for the students who
program.
Very little of the research in this area has examined how peer relationships function in alternative education p
instance, research on delinquency among adolescents in regular high school settings has found that negative p
are related to increased acts of delinquency (Agnew & Brezina, 1997; Giordano, Cernkovich, & Pugh, 1986;
Engel, 1992; Kupersmidt & Coie, 1990; Roff, 1992). That is, those students who do not interact well with the
more prone to delinquency. But do these same patterns hold true in settings where all students have had diffic
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 pro
be more carefully considered. In particular, how do peer relationships, an important component in adolescent
function in such settings? The main objective of this study was to examine how peer relationships among gro
segregated at-risk students influence such students' propensity for delinquent acts. In addition, few studies ha
how boys and girls may be differently affected by an alternative education setting (Kelly, 1993), or b) how pe
might influence girls' delinquency rates differently than boys' (Agnew & Brezina, 1997). Thus, we also looke
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
(1986). In that study, they found conflict with peers and lack of reciprocity in peer relationships to be related
delinquent behavior. However, their study did not report whether there were gender differences in how peer p
related to delinquency.
A later study by Agnew and Brezina (1997) examined gender differences in the relationship between problem
and delinquency. They expected that girls' delinquency would be more related to peer relationship problems t
boys'. Contrary to their expectations, Agnew and Brezina found that positive peer relationships were related t
of delinquency for both girls and boys. For instance, those girls who had more positive relations with boys w
more delinquent. For boys, those who had more positive relations with girls and who made friends easily wit
more delinquent. However, higher scores on the poor peer relations scale--as measured by self-report to ques
making friends, getting along with others and popularity--were also significantly and positively associated wi
delinquency, especially for boys.
Finally, a more recent study by Henry, Tolan, and Gorman-Smith (2001) examined whether relationships wit
violent/delinquent peers versus violent/delinquent peers influenced an individual's incidence of violence and
They found that relationships with violent peers increased the rate of violence and delinquency but that assoc
delinquent but non-violent peers did not influence either violence or delinquency. Whether these relationship
gender was not discussed.
Other research has found that status deprivation-that is, a feeling of being denied respect in society-was assoc
higher levels of delinquency for boys and girls (Hurrelmann & Engel, 1992). Based on Cohen's (1955) work,
deprivation suggests that individuals who are disenfranchised from society will form groups with their own s
values that lead to acts of delinquency. Peer rejection has also been implicated as a factor in delinquency (Ku
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 th
between peer interactions and juvenile delinquency: the theory of interpersonal "strain" and the theory of diff
association. Strain theory contends that "delinquency is the result of frustrated needs or wants" (Elliott, Huizi
1985, p. 13). According to interpersonal strain theory, delinquency is a response to unmet social and emotion
& Stern, 1997), for instance, when individuals do not have close ties to others or do not receive emotional su
they turn to deliqnuency. However, such work has not considered how the context of an alternative high scho
limited types of peers, will influence this finding.
Differential association is the theory that drives most research involving peers and delinquency. The theory o
association contends that adolescents learn delinquency through their interactions with delinquent companion
Ploeger, & Warr, 1998). Accordingly, individuals who have delinquent peers and are more exposed to delinq
will engage in more delinquent behavior. However, this work has considered association with delinquent pee
precursor to delinquency (e.g., Mears et al.; Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Conger, 1991; Warr, 1993). The r
examined how peer relationships among already delinquent peers, as at an alternative high school, influences
delinquency.
For the present study, we examined both interpersonal strain and differential association theory. If interperson
holds true, then even in an alternative education setting we expected that students who reported more difficul
relationships would engage in more delinquent acts. In contrast, using a theory of differential association, we
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 alterna
programs for at-risk high school students. Students in Grades 9 through 12 at three such schools, located in th
a large Southwestern United States metropolis, were recruited for participation via distribution of a letter requ
consent. Students who returned the parental consent form to their classroom teacher were allowed to participa
The sample was 59% Hispanic, 16.4% Caucasian, 11.9% African American, and 3% Native American. Thirte
(9.7% of the sample) reported being of mixed ethnicity. Although the participants ranged in age from 14 to 2
(72.4%) were between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years (M age = 16.95 years, SD = 1.33). Ninth grader
of the participants, 26.1% were in Grade 10, 32.1% were in Grade 11, and 32.1% were graduating seniors. A
76.1%--of the students reported that they maintained a GPA of 3.0 or above, and 64.5% indicated that they pl
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 adm
from all three schools indicated that the majority of their students lived below the poverty line. For purposes
socioeconomic status (SES) of participants was operationalized in terms of their parents' educational and occ
Sixty-eight percent of the participants reported that the highest level of education that their fathers had compl
school or less than high school. The corresponding figure for the participants' mothers was 62.1%. The major
respondents indicated that their fathers worked in either production/construction occupations (48.2%) or serv
(21.7%). In the sample, 27.3% of respondents reported that their mothers worked in professional or technical
while 28.4% reported service occupations for their mothers. Among the students, 77.3% indicated that they p
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 tha
bodies consisted of an approximately equal number of boys and girls. Still, the female participants consistent
the male participants at each site. The first site yielded 20% of the sample, including 16 girls and 11 boys. Th
school provided the largest number of participants, accounting for 45.2% of the sample (38 girls and 23 boys
school yielded 34.8% of the participants, and this subsample consisted of 28 girls and 19 boys. All of the sch
relatively small student bodies of between 100 and 200 students, which permitted small classes of 7 to 15 stu
Two of the schools offered behavioral and/or social-emotional interventions to students, whereas the third sch
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 per
delinquent involvement, peer relations, and general demographics.
Delinquency measure
The delinquency measure contained 20 items adapted from several existing self-report instruments (Blakely,
Parisian, & Davidson, 1980; Elliott & Ageton, 1980; Elliott & Voss, 1974; Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weiss, 198
Esbensen, & Weiher, 1991; Moffitt & Silva, 1988). Each of the 20 items represented a specific delinquent be
used marijuana, stole small items, hit someone), and participants were asked to indicate how often in the past
engaged in the behavior. Response categories were never, once or twice, several times, and very often. In acc
the majority of the delinquency measures from which the present measure was adapted, each response was as
of 1 (never) through 4 (very often), and an overall delinquency score was computed for each participant by av
responses to all completed items. The items were then combined to form four delinquency subscales--the sub
property, school, and force subscales. A participant's score on a particular subscale was calculated by averagi
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 forc
Each item was included on only one subscale, except the item pertaining to running away. This item did not a
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
However, it also contained additional items adapted from several other instruments (Blakely et al., 1980; Elli
1980; Hindelang et al., 1981; Huizinga et al., 1991; Moffitt & Silva, 1988). Several of the items that were inc
quite dated, and the language was modified to ensure relevance to today's youth. Other items were adapted by
the language to facilitate comprehension, and one item was slightly modified due to regional considerations.
delinquency instruments that were used to create the present measure had been originally validated, because w
questions from a variety of different measures, we cannot verify the validity and reliability of our delinquenc
Social desirability of respondents is a concern of all self-report data collection methods, and self-report delinq
instruments have been the subject of numerous validity and reliability studies due to this concern (Blakely et
alternative method of collecting data on delinquency is to examine official arrest and court records. However
has been the source of much criticism because official outcome data account only for the delinquency that juv
been caught committing (Blakely et al.). Experts concur that self-report measures of delinquency are not only
frequently used methods of data collection, but also provide the most valid and reliable available evidence of
delinquent involvement (McAuliffe & Handal, 1984).
Peer relations measure
An existing peer relations instrument (Agnew & Brezina, 1997) was used to measure the extent and quality o
relationships with their same- and opposite-sex peers. Agnew and Brezina's (1997) study used data from the N
Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88). The peer relations measures were ones specifically crea
NELS:88 follow-up questionnaire, and the NELS:88 manual does not provide any reliability or validity data
It simply states that "instrument development was guided by the research objectives of NELS:88 (Ingels et al
Respondents were asked to indicate on a 6 point Likert-type continuum how true or false each of nine statem
them and how strongly they agreed or disagreed with one statement. The 10 peer items were coded such that
indicated positive peer relations. A global peer relations score was calculated by summing a participant's resp
items after the appropriate items had been reverse-scored. This summary scores from Agnew and Brezina's st
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: "P
relations," "Positive relations with the opposite sex," and "Peer problems entering high school." These factor
done separately for the sample of boys and girls to allow for the fact that items such as "I do not get along ve
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 summin
participant's respones to all ten items after the appropriate items had been reverse scored. Summary scores ra
58 (M = 44.35, SD = 6.75). We then calculated separate scores using Agnew and Brezina's three peer factors
Relations, Positive Relations with the Opposite Sex, and Peer Problems when Entering High School). A score
was calculated by summing the responses to the items that Agnew and Brezina included in each factor. The f
of different combinations of items for girls and boys, and each item was included in only one factor. In order
with Agnew and Brezina's analysis, the item contained in question three of the survey ("In school I often feel
other students") was not included in any of the factors for the female sample, and the item "I make friends ea
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 relation
boys and girls. Correlation and regression analyses also were performed to examine the relation between peer
and delinquency. These analyses were performed on the entire data set, and separate analyses were performed
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
survey. Although there are no clear patterns to the reports of delinquency, a greater percentage of boys report
delinquent acts than do girls. For instance, there were just two items (cruelty to animals and running away fro
which fewer than 30% of the boys reported being involved. In contrast, there were nine items (using dangero
vandalism, joyriding, stealing large items, painting graffitti, using weapon to steal, throwing objects at people
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 Delinquen
Girls
Boys
Never Once or
twice
Several
times
Very
often
Never Once or
twice
Several
times
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
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
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
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
Substance Abuse Subscale
Property Subscale
School Subscale
Force Subscale
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
70.7
22
7.3
0
83
11.3
3.8
Other
Run Away from Home
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 separate
delinquency subscales and the peer relations items. In accordance with the majority of the delinquency measu
the present measure was adapted (e.g., Blakely et al., 1980; Elliott & Ageton, 1980; Elliott & Voss, 1974; Hi
1981; Huizinga et al., 1991; Moffitt & Silva, 1988), the overall delinquency score, as well as the scores on ea
delinquency subscales, represent averages of certain items. Other delinquency summary scores were construc
sum of the responses to the 20 items, but the form of the variable representing overall delinquency did not aff
of any analyses. Therefore, averages are used, and scores on the delinquency scale and subscales range from
higher scores indicating more frequent involvement in delinquent behaviors.
Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations for Major Variables
Total Sample
Variable
Girls
Boys
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
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
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
Delinquency
Peer Relations
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., 199
Eisikovits, 1981; Simons et al., 1991), the boys in the present sample generally report greater involvement in
than do girls. Independent samples t tests indicate that boys are significantly more delinquent than girls overa
by their average scores on the 20 item delinquency scale. In particular, boys are significantly more involved i
abuse (e.g., 41% of boys reported doing this very often vs. 9.8% of girls), property offenses (e.g., 17% of boy
stealing large items very often vs. 1.2% of girls), and forceful behaviors (e.g., 15% of boys reported using a w
to steal very often vs. 0% of girls).
T tests were also performed on the summary variable for peer relationships (which was calculated after sever
were reverse-coded) and on the ten individual peer relations items (prior to recoding) to determine difference
and girls. Coding all of the peer relations items so that higher scores indicate better peer relations results in a
for the total peer relations score of between 10.0 and 58.0. However, the scores for the present sample are bet
58.0, indicating that none of the participants reported extremely poor peer relations. Overall, boys reported th
more positive peer relations as indicated by the mean of their total peer relations scores (M = 46.10, SD = 6.6
(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); hi
indicate greater agreement with the statement in question. Scores on the first nine peer items range from 1.0 t
scores on the last item are between 1.0 and 4.0. As indicated by the means of several of the peer items, both b
report having more positive peer relations with their opposite-sex peers than with their same-sex peers. There
significant differences between boys' and girls' perceptions of their popularity with the opposite sex: Both bo
score relatively high on these items. Although it appears that neither boys nor girls lack confidence in their ab
friends, the girls' scores indicate that they perceive greater difficulty than boys in making friends during the tr
high school.
Table 3 displays a matrix of the correlations between major variables. The significant correlations between ge
other major variables corroborate the aforementioned gender differences: Boys are generally more delinquen
report better peer relations. For this sample of at-risk youth, there is a moderate relationship between having
relationships and increased involvement in most forms of delinquency. For instance, a higher score on good p
relationships with the opposite sex was related to increased delinquency involving force, r(n = 133) = .21, p <
students who reported having good relations with their same-sex peers had higher scores on the delinquency
overall, r(n = 132) = .21, p < .05, and, in particular, they committed more substance abuse and property offen
= .20, p < .05 and r(n = 132) = .17, p < .05, respectively. Furthermore, higher scores on poor peer relations ar
significantly and negatively correlated with overall delinquency, r(n = 132) = -.21, p < .05, and the substance
property abuse subscales, r(n = 132) = -.20, p < .05 and r(n = 132) = -.17, p < .05, respectively. This indicate
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, o
relations and overall delinquency are not significantly correlated with one another. Table 4 permits an examin
correlations between the delinquency and peer variables separately for each gender. There are no significant c
between any of the peer factors and the delinquency subscales for girls. For boys, however, the peer factor "p
with the opposite sex" has a significant negative correlation with running away and a significant positive corr
force subscale. The item "positive relations with the opposite sex" also has a positive correlation that approac
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 furthe
the associations between different aspects of peer relations and delinquency. These analyses, conducted on th
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
.05 (see Table 5). Also for girls making friends easily with boys was related to more property offenses, r(n =
.05. For boys, the results in Table 6 suggest that the relationship boys had with girls appeared to be more imp
relationship that they had with other boys. A lot of attention from girls was related to more property and force
r(n = 52) = .29, p < .05 and r(n = 52) = .38, p < .01, respectively. Boys who reported that they had positive re
opposite sex also had higher scores on the force subscale r(n = 82) = .38, p < .01. Thus, it appears that having
relationships with opposite-sex peers is correlated with delinquency for both boys and girls, and this relations
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
peer factor that was a significant predictor of delinquency when controlling for background variables. The res
regression analyses performed separately on the data for boys and girls and on the entire data set are reported
Although the separate analyses for boys and girls do not reveal significant findings, performing regression an
sample as a whole produces some noteworthy results. In Model 3, the delinquency measure is regressed on th
factors. This model results in significant standardized effects for "poor peer relations" and "positive relations
opposite sex." When gender is entered into the regression in Model 4, the effect of "poor peer relations" beco
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
for Other Variables
Beta
Girls
Boys
Total Sample
Model1
Model2
Model3
Model4
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
Poor Peer Relations
Make Friends Easily With Boys
Model
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 fo
delinquency and running away as dependent variables, but the results were not significantly different from th
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 standard
again is only significant when gender is not taken into account. The regression models that include gender (M
result in a reduced effect of peer relations on delinquency, yet these are the models that explain the greatest a
variance in delinquency. Thus, regardless of how peer relations are conceptualized in the analysis, gender is t
exerts the most influence on delinquency.
In other analyses not reported here, other demographic variables, such as ethnicity and SES (as indicated by p
educational and occupational status) were entered into the regression models. However, these variables did n
significant effects on delinquency, nor did they weaken the effect of gender in predicting delinquency. Correl
further indicated that neither ethnicity nor SES were significantly associated with any type of delinquency in
In sum, positive peer relations were more significantly related to delinquency than were negative peer relatio
particular, the correlational analyses indicated that getting along with members of the opposite sex was signif
to higher rates of delinquency, especially for boys. However, the regression analyses demonstrated that gende
strongest predictor of delinquency, over and above the predictive value of peer relations, with boys having hi
delinquency than girls.
Discussion
In general, the present findings raise questions about the effects of segregating of at-risk students from their m
peers, as is currently the practice in many school districts. In particular, charter schools like those in this stud
perpetuate this segregation as many charters cater to "kids on the margin" of traditional public schools (Toch
In looking beyond the goal of completing high school, it appears that alternative educational settings may not
other aspects of adolescent development. This study suggests that we should carefully explore the kinds of pe
that are developed in these alternative high schools and how peer relations can serve to perpetuate delinquent
Although the relationships between delinquency and peer relations in this study were modest, overall our find
that when positive peer relations are developed with other individuals engaged in delinquent behavior, such r
might reinforce certain kinds of delinquency.
In contrast to the literature about peer relationships and delinquency, it does not appear that interpersonal stra
explains increased delinquency among groups of more delinquent students. Although others have found that
relationships at traditional high schools are related to increased delinquency (Agnew & Brezina, 1997), we fo
students at these alternative high schools who reported "strain" in peer relationships were less delinquent. Poo
were significantly correlated to lower rates of substance use and property offenses, two areas of delinquency
done in the company of peers. Perhaps individuals who exhibited problems with their peers were the least del
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 th
peer relationships. Because the participants were all considered to be at-risk students, and because they attend
exclusively for such students, all of their immediate peers were also at risk. Again, in contrast to how peer rel
function at traditional high schools, we found that students who reported better peer relations also reported a
of delinquent acts. For example, male students who perceived themselves to have positive relations with the o
tended to report engaging in more delinquent acts, especially related to property offenses and use of force. Al
relation between overall peer relations and delinquency was not significant, these findings raise a question ab
positive peer relations in alternative education settings may expose the student to more delinquency, rather th
protective factor against delinquency.
Of particular concern is that better peer relationships with the opposite sex were significantly related to increa
delinquency. This is troubling in that the relationship was stronger for boys than for girls, especially with resp
engaging in more violent and forceful behaviors. Although the reason for this is not clear, we speculate that b
engage in forceful acts to assert masculinity when with girls. For instance, Kelly (1993) found that interethnic
sometimes forced boys to defend themselves against those who did not approve. For girls, research has found
more likely to cut class to be with a boyfriend (Kelly, 1993) and that when cutting class, they are likely to eng
delinquent behavior.
Several limitations of this study serve as implications for future research. First, the homogeneity of the sampl
generalizability of the findings. The majority of the participants came from low-income, urban, ethnic-minori
Although all the students came from at-risk schools, the students who participated in the study may not have
representative of other at-risk students. Whether peer relationships function in similar ways in different altern
populations needs further study. The results are also limited by the sample size. When the sample was subdiv
the male and female sub-samples often were not large enough to maintain significant effects. Future research
gender differences would benefit from a larger sample size. In addition, we lacked information on validity an
both the delinquency measure and the peer relations measure, thus the findings should be interpreted with cau
future research investigating the effect of interpersonal strain in peer relationships on delinquency should con
characteristics of the reference peer group. For example, if the peer relations measure is intended to investiga
participants' relationships with whomever they consider to be their peers, then it would be advantageous to in
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 pr
how segregating students in these programs might exacerbate negative effects of peer relationships. The findi
that educators should strive to expand rather than restrict the peer group to which at-risk students are exposed
students on the margin may be expedient and efficient for schools, but it may not be the ideal environment fo
of adolescents, particularly those most in need of a wide variety of peer relationships.
Foot Note
1
The data from the 10 peer relations items were subjected to factor analysis, which resulted in separate factor
girls that differed from those obtained by Agnew and Brezina (1997). The regression analyses were repeated
obtained factor scores in place of the scores that were created to represent Agnew and Brezina's factors. How
analyses did not produce any significant results.
Authors
Cynthia Mattern received her M.A. in Educational Psychology from Arizona State University and is continu
graduate studies in the area of School Psychology. Her research interests include child and adolescent peer re
behaviorally at-risk students, and juvenile delinquency.
Kathryn Nakagawa is an associate professor in the College of Education, Arizona State University. Her rese
include family-school relationships, student mobility, and school reform. She can be reached by email at
nakagawa@asu.edu.
References
Agnew, R., & Brezina, T. (1997). Relational problems with peers, gender, and delinquency. Youth and Societ
Blakely, C. H., Kushler, M. G., Parisian, J. A., & Davidson, W. S., II. (1980). Self-reported delinquency as an
measure: Comparative reliability and validity of alternative weighting schemes. Criminal Justice and Behavi
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 out
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 estim
delinquency. American Sociological Review, 45, 95-110.
Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA
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 o
1170-1202.
Gloria, C., & Karr-Kidwell, P. J. (1993). A study of the effect of alternative programs on the potential dropou
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 viole
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
and Criminology, 82, 83-118.
Hurrelmann, K., & Engel, U. (1992). Delinquency as a symptom of adolescents' orientation toward status and
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
National education longitudinal study of 1988: Second followup-Student component data file user's manual.
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 Have
University Press.
Kupersmidt, J. B., & Coie, J. D. (1990). Preadolescent peer status, aggression, and school adjustment as pred
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 delinqu
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 11, 35-46.
Mears, D. P., Ploeger, M., & Warr, M. (1998). Explaining the gender gap in delinquency: Peer influence and
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: Motivatio
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 Re
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. Psycholo
70, 31-34.
Sagi, A., & Eisikovits, Z. (1981). Juvenile delinquency and moral development. Criminal Justice and Behavi
Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (1991). Parenting factors, social skills, and va
commitments as precursors to school failure, involvement with deviant peers, and delinquent behavior. Journ
Adolescence, 20, 645-664.
Smith, C. A., & Stern, S. B. (1997). Delinquency and antisocial behavior: A review of family processes and i
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 Reproductio
805)
Toch, T. (1998, April 27). The new education bazaar: Charter schools represent the free market in action--wi
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 progra
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) 7054320 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
0
1
2
3
did not belong to you?
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 More true
than 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
In school, I often feel put down by
other students.
1
Disagree Agree
2
Strongly
Agree
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
well?
1
2
3
4
5
c) you do things with your
1
2
3
4
5
family?
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 prom
they can, to friends?
Circle one:
Very important
Important
Not importan
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, ev
someone they hardly know?
Circle one:
Very important
Important
Not importan
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
children?
Circle one:
Very important
Important
Not importan
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 importan
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 pare
Circle one:
Very important
Important
Not importan
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 h
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 importan
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
the life of a stranger?
Circle one:
Very important
Important
Not importan
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 importan
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 importan
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 importan
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 importan
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
Q-9 Which sex are you?
Male
Female
12th
Q-10 Which of the following best describes you racial/ethnic background?
1. African American
2. Asian American/Pacific Islander
3. Hispanic
4. Native American
5. White (not Hispanic)
6. Other (please describe) ________________________
Q-11 What is your current cumulative GPA?
1. 4.0 or above
2. 3.5 - 3.99
3. 3.0 - 3.49
4. 2.5 - 2.99
5. 2.0 - 2.49
Q-12 What is the highest level of education you expect to reach?
1. Less than high school
2. High school graduate
3. Vocational or technical school
4. Some college
5. 2-year college degree (A.A.)
6. 4-year college degree (B.A., B.S.)
7. Some graduate school
8. 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 school
2. High school graduate
3. Vocational or technical school
4. Some college
5. 2-year college degree (A.A.)
6. 4-year college degree (B.A., B.S.)
7. Some graduate school
8. 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 school
2. High school graduate
3. Vocational or technical school
4. Some college
5. 2-year college degree (A.A.)
6. 4-year college degree (B.A., B.S.)
7. Some graduate school
8. 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: cie@asu.edu |
Copyright © 2003 Current Issues in Education All rights reserved.