THE CONDITIONAL EFFECT OF PEER GROUPS

ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARENTAL

LABELING AND YOUTH DELINQUENCY
XIAORU LIU*
San Diego State University

ABSTRACT: Peerattitudes toward delinquencyandpeerinvolvement

indelinquency arehypothesizedtomodify therelationship
betweenparen-
bothactualandperceived,
tal labeling, andyouthdelinquency involve-
ment. Themodels weretested
usingdatafrom theinitialthree
wavesofthe
National Youth Survey.As hypothesized,
bothactualandperceivedparen-
tallabelingincrease
subsequentyouth Parental
delinquency. labelinghasa
stronger onyouth
effect delinquency whenpeerattitudes
toward delinquency
aremore positiveandwhenyouths reported
morefriendsengaging indelin-
quency. Theconditional wereobservedfor
effects bothactualparents'
label-
ing and youthperception ofparental labeling.Peerattitudes toward
delinquency andpeerparticipationindelinquencyhadindependent inter-
activeinfluencesontherelationshipbetweenparentallabelingandsubse-
quentyouth delinquency.

For decades,criminologists have shownpersistent concernsovertheimpactof

labelson youthdelinquency. Earlylabelingtheoristsinsistedthatlabelsamplify
delinquency bypushingthelabeledyouthsfurther alongan unconventional path
and by transforming self-image (Becker1963;Kitsuse1962;Lemert1951;Schur
1971).Others,however,have expressedseriousdoubtsabout thisclaim.They
arguedthatlabelingpredictions mightbe exaggerated,and thatlabelingdoes not
invariablylead to moredelinquency(Burkett and Hickman1982;Foster,Dinitz,
and Reckless1972;Green1989;Grasmickand Bursik1990;Thomasand Bishop
1984;Tittle1975).
In responseto critics,proponentsof labelinglauncheda seriesof efforts in
recentyearsto elaborate,expand,and reformulate the labelingframework. In
general,twotrendscharacterized recentdevelopments.One focusedon typesof
labelsand thelabelingprocesses.Whileearlyworkconcentrated on the
primarily
formalorofficiallabelingprocess,morerecently therehasbeena renewedinterest
in focusingon informal labels.Informallabels involvereactionsof such social

*Direct all correspondenceto: Xiaoru Liu, Departmentof Sociology, College of Arts and Letters,San Diego State
University,5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-4423;e-mail:rliu@mail.sdsu.edu.

Sociological Perspectives,Volume 43, Number 3, pages 499-514.

Copyright? 2000 by PacificSociological Association. All rightsreserved.
Send requests forpermission to reprintto: Rights and Permissions,Universityof California Press,
JournalsDivision, 2000 Center St., Ste. 303, Berkeley,CA 94704-1223.
ISSN: 0731-1214

Sage
is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to
Sociological Perspectives ®

www.jstor.org
500 SOCIOLOGICALPERSPECTIVES Volume43,Number3,2000

agents as parents,neighbors,and friendsthattend to stigmatizethe person as a

"specifictype" of individual (e.g., the delinquent) (Triplettand Jarjoura1994),
while formallabelingincludes sanctionsof the criminaljusticesystemon individ-
ual offenders.Advocates of informallabeling insistedthatinformallabels might
be more detrimentalthan formalreactionsbecause theyoccur in the individual's
immediateenvironment(Wellford1987) and thus are more centralto one's self-
identityand behavior.Besides, informalreactionstend to occur priorto the sanc-
tions of officialagents,and thus any labeling effectsmay already have occurred
by thetimeformalsanctionsare administered(Triplettand Jarjoura1994).
Concurrentwith this new interestin informalreactions,another group of
researchershas explored the conditionsand circumstancesunder which labeling
outcomes occur.Of particularconcernis whethervariationsin socioculturalcon-
textsmightmodifylabeling outcomes.Tittle(1975) suggestedthatculturalexpec-
tationsand deviant opportunities,among otherfactors,mightdeterminethe out-
comes of labeling. He reasoned thata woman labeled a prostitutewould have a
greaterchance of continuingher deviant careerthan when she is labeled a shop-
Althoughdeviantlabels are applied in both cases, it is easier fora woman to
lifter.
find a support networkand opportunitiesto continueher prostitutionthan an
amateurshoplifterto findsimilarsupportand networkopportunities.
More recently, Braithwaite(1989) addressed theimportanceof contextualvaria-
tions. He identifiedtwo types of shaming: reintegrativeshaming, which wel-
comes offendersback to the conventionalcommunity;and disintegrativesham-
ing, which createsa class of social outcasts and is stigmatizing.For Braithwaite,
cultural contextsmay determinethe outcomes of stigmatizingshaming in two
ways. Those who are pushed away fromthe conventionalcommunitymay feel
attractedto criminalsubculturesand, as a consequence, participatein crimeand
delinquency.Thus culturalcontextsmediate the effectof stigmatization.In addi-
tion,culturalcontextsmay modifytheoutcome of stigmatizingshaming.Individ-
uals who are stigmatizedand who simultaneouslyencountercriminalsupport
and opportunitiesmay become morepersistentoffendersthanthosewho are stig-
matized but do not encountersuch support and opportunities.In the lattercase,
stigmatizedindividuals may returnto the conventionalcommunitiesforlack of
persistentsupportand criminalopportunitiesto continueoffending.
These two lines of researchdescribed here, one focused on informallabeling
and the otheron culturalor contextualvariations,have both advanced the label-
ing framework.Advocates ofinformallabelingexpanded thelabelingperspective
by emphasizinginformalreactionsand theirconsequences on criminaloffending.
Proponentsof the contextualargumentextendedthe literatureby acknowledging
criminogenicoutcomes of labeling (formalor informal)and simultaneouslyrec-
ognizingthatlabelingeffectsmightdepend on the culturalcontexts(e.g., support
systemand opportunities)in which labelingoccurs.
Unfortunately, much of the discussion of informallabelingand culturalcontext
as a conditionalmechanismremainedquite separate and verymuch at the theo-
reticallevel. So far,no one has integratedthese two lines of researchand tested
their argumentsempirically.Although a growing number of researchershave
recentlyexamined theeffectsofinformallabels on youthdelinquency,none ofthe
ParentalLabelingandYouthDelinquency 501

studies to date have addressed whetherthe effectsof informallabeling on youth

delinquency mightbe dependent on social contextualvariations,including the
availabilityof subculturesupportand delinquentopportunities.
The presentresearchthus extends the previous literatureby integratingthese
two lines of study.Specifically,thisstudyexamines (1) whetherinformallabeling
predictssubsequent delinquency and (2) whethervariationsin the social culture
context(especiallythesupportand delinquentopportunities)modifytheoutcomes
of informallabeling.For presentpurposes, theinvestigationfocuseson peer mea-
sures to reflectsocial contextualvariations.Althoughsocial contextis a broad con-
cept and may include,in addition to peers, such variables as the family,schools,
neighborhoods,and communities,this study focuses only on peer groups, since
peers representa directand arguablythe most importantsocial contextforado-
lescents. Previous researchershave shown that peer influencesare important
antecedentsand mediatorsof adolescent delinquency(Aseltine1995; Heimer and
Matsueda 1994; Matsueda and Anderson 1998; Steinberg1986; Warr 1998; Warr
and Stafford1991). However, none of the studies on peer influenceshave exam-
ined whetherpeer groups may modify(exacerbateor reduce) the effectsof infor-
mal labeling on youthdelinquency.

THEORETICAL MODEL AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

InformalLabeling and Youth Delinquency
The baseline model builds on previous literature(Matsueda 1992; Triplettand
Jarjoura1994; Zhang 1997) by specifyingtwo stages of informallabeling: (1) the
actual (or objective) labeling of significantothers and (2) youth perception(or
subjectiveinterpretation) of such labels. Both aspects of labeling are hypothesized
to predict subsequent delinquency independently.The hypothesized model
showing the interrelationships among actual labeling,youth perceived labeling,
and youthdelinquencyis shown in Figure 1.
Theoretically,actual labeling may influenceyouth delinquency in two ways.
First,labeling is likelyto predictyouthdelinquencyindirectlythroughyouthper-
ception of such labels (see the indirectpath in Fig. 1). Accordingto the symbolic
interactionistperspective (Matsueda 1992; Mead 1934), social interactionis an
ongoing process in which audiences communicatetheirresponses to the actors
and the actorsin turninterpretsocial reactionspriorto takingresponsiveactions.
In accordancewiththisprinciple,youthsare likelyto become aware ofhow others
evaluate themthroughsocial interaction,and theymay respond to these evalua-
tions by taking actions, including turningto or continuingto engage in delin-
quency activities. Youth perception of informal labeling is likely to predict
delinquencydirectly.The underlyingmechanismsforsuch influencemay include
(1) youth self-evaluationor self-labeling,(2) increased frustration with conven-
tional communities,and/or (3) decreased ties with traditionalvalues and institu-
tions.Testsof thesemechanisms,however,are not thefocusof thisresearch.
In addition to the indirectinfluence,actual labeling may predictyouth delin-
quency directlynet of youthperceptionof such labels (see the directpath in Fig.
502 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 43,Number 3,2000

Age

Race

Gender
ActualLabeling ,
FamilySES \0

FamilyStructure

UrbanResidence

PriorDelinquency
PerceivedLabeling YouthDelinquency
DelinquentPeer |

Parent/Child
Relationship PeerInfluences

Attachnmnt
to Peer

Figure 1
Hypothesized
BaselineModel,Conditional ofPeerGroupsand Common
Effects
AntecedentVariables

1). This occurs especially when those who do the labeling (e.g., parents) never
communicatetheirreactions(or labels) to theyouth.Instead,theysimplychange
theirbehavior toward the persons (e.g., the youth) who are being labeled (Mat-
sueda 1992; Triplettand Jarjoura1994). Their behavior changes, such as with-
drawing theirlove or acceptance,may in turnalienate the youth,leading to sub-
sequent delinquencyinvolvement.
Following previous research(Matsueda 1992; Triplettand Jarjoura1994), the
presentanalysis focuses on parentevaluations of the youth as sources of actual
labeling. For consistency,youth perceptionof informallabeling reflectsthose of
parents only (see Triplettand Jarjourafor a similar focus). Few will deny that
parentalopinions remainone of the more importantsources of negativeinformal
reactionsforadolescents.
Empiricalstudies on theeffectsofinformallabelingon youthdelinquencyhave
yielded supportiveevidence indicatingthatinformalreactionsof parentsand/or
others are related to youth delinquency (Matsueda 1992; Ward and Tittle1993;
Zhang 1997). In addition, actual appraisals of parentshave been shown to exert
independenteffectson youth delinquencynet of theirindirecteffectsvia youth
perceivedor reflectedappraisals (Matsueda 1992).

InformalLabeling and Youth Delinquency by Peer Group Influences

Consistentwith the contextualargument,thisstudy extendsprevious research
by specifyinga conditionalor an interactivemodel of informallabeling on youth
ParentalLabelingandYouthDelinquency 503

delinquency. While parents' labeling, actual or perceived, is expected to pre-

dict youth delinquency directly,the question of concern here is whether the
effectsof parental labeling on youth delinquency vary by peer group influ-
ences, specifically,by peer attitudes toward delinquency and peer participa-
tion in delinquency.
It is expected that peer attitudes and delinquency are likely to modify the
effectsof parentallabeling (both actual and perceived) on youthdelinquency(see
Fig. 1). Specifically,two hypothesesare tested:youthswho experienceactual or
perceived negative labeling by parents and who simultaneouslyencountersup-
port fordelinquency fromfriendsand peers are more likelyto engage in delin-
quency activitiesthanthosewho do not encounterpeer support.Similarly,youths
who experience actual or perceived negative labeling by parents and who are
simultaneously associated with friendswho engage in delinquency are more
likelyto be involved in delinquency activitiesthan those who do not have such
friends.These hypothesesare consistentwith thefollowingtheoreticalassertions.
First,deviantpeers and theirsupportfordelinquencymay exacerbatetheadverse
experienceofinformallabelingby significant othersand thusmay enhanceyouths'
motivesto depart fromthe conventionalties and social institutions(Kaplan 1984;
Paternosterand lovanni 1989). In a contextin which friendsand peers are more
permissiveof unconventionalactivities,youthsmay be more exposed to negative
sentimentsagainst the conventionalgroups and theirconcurrentvalue systems
(Akers 1985). Such negative sentimentsmay magnifythe stressinduced by infor-
mal labeling of significantconventionalothersand may thus increasemotivation
to attenuatethetieswith conventionalsociety(Kaplan, Johnson,and Bailey 1987).
In addition, peer groups permissive of delinquency may endorse the use of
unconventionalactivitiesas a legitimateresponse to frustration.For instance,
theymay help to rationalizedelinquent activitiesas ways of respondingto frus-
trationwith significantothers (Sutherland,Cressey,and Luckenbill 1992; Sykes
and Matza 1957). Finally,peer groups permissiveof delinquencymay exacerbate
the negative impact of informallabeling throughincreasingthe access to delin-
quent opportunities(Braithwaite1989; Cloward and Ohlin 1960; Cohen and Fel-
son 1979; Tittle1975). Withinpermissivepeer environmentswhere friendsand
peers engage in delinquency activities,the opportunitiesto get involved in
unconventionalbehavior are greaterthan in less permissivepeer environments.
Adolescents who experience negative labeling by significantothers and thus
are motivated to weaken conventional ties may,therefore,findample opportu-
nities to participate in delinquency as a reaction to frustrationwith the con-
ventional society.In short,permissive peer contextsenhance the likelihood of
adolescents turningto and /or participatingin delinquency as a result of expe-
riencingnegative labeling and, hence, feelingfrustratedwith the conventional
social groups.
In contrast,in a less permissive peer environment,youths who experience
labeling by significantothersmay not resortto delinquency,since thereis little
support for the unconventionalactivitiesand few delinquent opportunitiesare
available (Braithwaite1989; Cloward and Ohlin 1960; Tittle1975). Thus labeling
by significantothersmay not amplifysubsequent delinquency.
504 SOCIOLOGICALPERSPECTIVES Volume43,Number3,2000

METHOD
Sample
The hypothesized relationshipswere tested using data fromthe initial three
waves of the National Youth Survey (NYS) (Elliott,Huizinga, and Ageton 1985;
Elliott,Huizinga, and Menard 1989). The NYS is a nationalprobabilitysample of
adolescentswho were between the ages ofeleven and seventeenand who resided
in households in the United States in 1976. The original sample of 1,725 youths
was obtainedthroughmultistageclustersamplingdesign. The firstthreewaves of
the interviewswere conducted in 1977 (Wave 1), 1978 (Wave 2), and 1979 (Wave
Attritionover thesewaves was minimaland did not substantially
3), respectively.
affectthe representativenessof the sample (Elliott,Knowles, and Canter 1981). In
addition to youth response,the firstwave (1977) of the NYS containedinforma-
tionprovided by one parentof each youthwho agreed to participatein the study.
The threewaves ofyouthinterviewstogetherwithparentreportsare used to esti-
mate thehypothesizedmodels.
Among the youths who participatedin all threewaves of the study and who
provided completeinformation on thestudyvariables (N = 1,261),approximately
49 percentare femalesand 51 percentare males. Regardingrace/ethnicstatus,12
percentof the sample are AfricanAmericans,4 percentare Mexican Americans,
and the restare non-Hispanicwhitesby majority(81 percentof the sample). The
average age of the youths was approximatelyfourteenat the time of the initial
interview.At that time, approximately26 percentof the youths lived in urban
areas and 18 percentlived with parents who were divorced, separated, or had
neverbeen married.

Measures
A totalof fourteenmeasures (not countinginteractionterms)were included in
the study to test the hypothesized relationships.For ease of interpretation,
the
variables (scales) were standardizedbeforetheywere enteredinto the regression
analysis (fordetails,see Jaccard,Turrisi,and Wan 1990).

Delinquency
The dependentvariable,delinquency,is derived fromWave 3, while an identi-
cal measure fromWave 1 serves as a controlvariable.FollowingHeimer and Mat-
sueda (1994),thestudyfocuseson a twenty-eight-item scale (alpha = .88) ofgeneral
delinquencyacts,1includingparticipationin vandalism (e.g., destroyingproperty),
theft(e.g., auto theft),use of violence (e.g., attackingothers),and drug offenses
(e.g., selling drugs). To minimizepotentialbias introducedby differential distri-
bution (i.e., prevalenceand frequencyrates) of individual items,factorweightsof
componentitemswere used to constructscales priorto modelingthemas depen-
dent (or control)variables. Similar to additive indices, the weighted composite
scales have higher scores reflectinggreaterrates of offending(individual item
response ranges from1 for "never" to 9 for "2-3 times a day"). As originally
ParentalLabelingandYouthDelinquency 505

designed in the NYS, all of the offensesoccurred within twelve monthsbefore

the interviews.

ParentalLabeling
Theindependent
variables,actualand perceivedparentallabeling,arederived
fromthefirst
twowavesoftheNYS. Actuallabeling(fromWave1) is represented
by a four-itemscale (alpha = .79) drawn fromquestions asking parents how
delinquenttheythinktheirchildis. The scale itemsincludewhethertheythink
theirchildis "a bad kid,"a kid"whogetsintotrouble,""breaksrules,"and "does
thingsagainstthelaw."Perceivedparentallabelingis takenfromWave2 and con-
sistsof identicalitems(alpha = .81) thatask youthrespondents whetherthey
thinktheirparentssee themas "a bad kid," a kid "who getsintotrouble,""breaks
rules,"and "does thingsagainstthelaw." The itemresponsesrangefrom1 to 5,
with1 indicating"stronglydisagree"and 5 indicating"strongly
agree."Higher
scoresoftheadditiveindicesindicatemorenegativelabelingbyparentsorgreater
youthperception ofparentallabeling.

Peer Attitudesand Delinquency

The conditionalvariables,peer groups,are measuredby (1) peer attitudes
towarddelinquency and (2) peerinvolvementin delinquencyactivities.
Bothare
measuredat Wave2. The attitudinal in fouritems(alpha=
measureis reflected
.87) that measure peer attitudestoward "destroyingproperty,""stealing things
worthmorethan$50,""breaking intoa building/vehicle,"
and"sellingharddiugs."
Theresponsesto thesequestionsarecodedwithscoresrangingfrom1 indicating
"stronglydisapprove"to 5 indicating"strongly approve."Higherscoresof the
additiveindexreflect greaterpeersupportfor(orapprovalof)delinquency.
Peerparticipation in fouritems(alpha = .79)
in delinquencyis also reflected
thatreportwhetherfriendsengage in "destroying property,""stealingthings
worthmorethan$50," "breakinginto a building/vehicle," and "sellinghard
drugs."Theresponsestotheseitemsrangefrom1 indicating "noneoftheirfriends"
to 5 for"all of theirfriends."Higherscoresreflectmorepeer participation in
delinquency activities.

InteractionTerms
Four interactiontermswere constructedby multiplyingthe standardized mea-
sures of parental labeling, actual or perceived,by the standardized measures of
peer attitudes or delinquency,respectively.Thus the interactiontermsinclude
(1) Actual Labeling x Peer Attitudes,(2) Actual Labeling x Peer Delinquency,
(3) PerceivedLabeling x Peer Attitudes,and (4) PerceivedLabeling x Peer Delin-
quency.The interaction
termsthemselvesare not standardized.Thisprocedure
followsthemethodrecommended byAikenand West(1991)foranalyzinginter-
actioneffects.Ifhypothesesare valid, these interactiontermsshould have signifi-
cant and positiveeffectson youthdelinquency.
506 SOCIOLOGICALPERSPECTIVES Volume43,Number3,2000

ControlVariables
A numberof variables relevantto labeling hypothesesare included in the cur-
rentmodel since observed relationsmay be the spurious outcome of common
antecedents.These include sociodemographicvariables such as age, race,gender,
familystructure,socioeconomic status,and urban residence (see Fig. 1). Other
variablesthatmay be commonantecedentsofparentallabelingprocessand youth
delinquencyinclude priorlevel of delinquency,priorassociationwith delinquent
peers, parent-childrelationship,and youthattachmentto peers (see Fig. 1). Prior
level of delinquency is considered since youths who offendearlier are likelyto
continueoffendingand to evoke negative labeling by parents (Matsueda 1992).
Similarly,prior association with delinquent peers should influencelater delin-
quency and evoke negative parentallabeling (Kaplan 1984). Youths who do not
maintaingood relationshipswith parentsand who are more susceptibleto peer
influencesmay also participatein delinquency and evoke negative labeling by
parents(Triplettand Jarjoura1994).
Measures of common antecedentvariables are all derived fromWave 1. Prior
delinquency (alpha = .85) and prior association with delinquentpeers (alpha =
.83) consistof identicalitemsas describedabove foryouthdelinquencyand peer
delinquency,respectively.Parent-childrelationshipmeasured by a four-itemscale
(alpha = .67) draws fromquestions asking youthrespondentshow well theyare
doing with regard to "having parents they can talk to," "having parents com-
fortthem when they are unhappy," "getting along with their parents," and
"doing things togetherwith the family."The responses range from1 indicat-
ing "not well" to 5 indicating "very well." Attachmentto peers is reflectedin
an index of fouritems (alpha = .63) that measure the importanceof "having a
special boyfriend/girlfriend,""being included in friend'sactivities,"and hav-
ing friends "ask them to spend time and do things with them" and having
"lots of dates." The responses to these items range from1 indicating "not at all
important" to 5 indicating "very important." Higher scores of the additive
indices indicate closer relationships with parents or greater attachment to
friends,respectively.
Sociodemographicvariables are measured as follows:Age is a continuousvari-
able rangingfrom11 to 17. Race is dichotomouslycoded withblack = 1 and 0 oth-
erwise. Gender is coded with male respondents assigned the value of 1 and
females the value of 0. Family SES is measured by the Hollingshead composite
scale forthe head of the family(Miller 1991). It ranges from11 to 77, with higher
scoresindicatinglower SES. Familystructureis measured by parents'maritalsta-
tus at the initialinterview.Adolescents whose parentsare not marriedand thus
live with one adult parent are assigned with the value of 1 and 0 otherwise.
Finally,urban residenceis coded with 1 forrespondentsliving in an urban area
and 0 forsuburbanor ruralsettings.

RESULTS
The resultsof the OLS regressionmodels2are presentedin accordance with the
hypothesizedconditionalvariables,thatis, (1) peer attitudestoward delinquency,
ParentalLabelingandYouthDelinquency 507

(2) peer delinquency participation,and (3) both peer attitudesand peer delin-
quency simultaneously.

Peer Attitudestoward Delinquency

Table 1 shows the main and interactiveeffectsof parentallabeling,actual and
perceived, and peer attitudestoward delinquency on subsequent delinquency
involvement,controlling forpriorlevel ofdelinquency,priorassociationwithdelin-
quentpeers,parent-childrelationship,and othercommonantecedentvariables.
As shown, in the baseline model (Table 1), both actual and perceived parental
relatedto subsequentyouthdelinquency(p < .001). The
labeling are significantly
regressioncoefficients are positive,indicatingthatparentallabeling,actual or per-
ceived, increasesthe likelihoodof subsequent youthparticipationin delinquency
activities.The strengthsof the coefficients foractual and perceivedparentallabel-
ing are comparable to each other.In addition,peer attitudestoward delinquency
are also significantlyrelated to delinquency net of all the othercontrolvariables
(p < .001). The positive relationshipindicates that perceived peer support for
delinquencyis associated witha subsequentincreasein youthdelinquency.
As expected, prior delinquency stronglypredicts subsequent youth delin-
quency.Adolescentboys are more likelyto engage in delinquencyactivitiesthan
adolescent girls net of prior level of delinquency.In general,AfricanAmericans

TABLE 1
Mainand Interaction
Effects
ofParentalLabelingand PeerAttitudes
towardDelinquency
on YouthDelinquencyControllingforCommonAntecedent Variables
Interaction Interaction Interaction
Variables Baseline I II III
Actualparentallabeling 0.10*** 0.07** 0.10*** 0.08**
Perceivedparentallabeling 0.10*** 0.11*** 0.08** 0.10***
Peerattitudes
towarddelinquency 0.12*** 0.09*** 0.08*** 0.08***
ActualLabelingX PeerAttitudes 0.19*** 0.14***
PerceivedLabelingX PeerAttitudes 0.15*** 0.10***
Age -0.01 -0.02 -0.01 -0.02
Race(black) -0.06* -0.06* -0.05+ -0.05*
Gender(boys) 0.06** 0.08*** 0.08*** 0.09***
FamilySES 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01
Familystructure 0.04 0.05* 0.04+ 0.05*
Urbanresidence 0.04+ 0.04+ 0.04+ 0.03
Priordelinquency 0.41*** 0.36*** 0.37*** 0.34***
Delinquentpeerassociation -0.02 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00
Parent/child
relationship 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02
Peerattachment 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
R2(adj.) 0.34 0.40 0.39 0.42
Note: Standardized effectsare shown.
+p < .10; * p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed).
508 SOCIOLOGICALPERSPECTIVES Volume43,Number3,2000

reportedless involvementin delinquency over time compared to otherracial/

ethnicsubgroups.Similarobservationsshowinglower ratesofAfricanAmericans
in delinquencyactivitieshave been reportedin othernationaland regionalstudies
(Barnes and Farrell1992; Kaplan and Damphousse 1997). Finally,adolescentsliv-
ing in urban areas reportedslightlymore involvementin delinquencyover time
as compared to those who reside in suburban or rural settings.This effect,how-
ever,onlyreachesborderlinesignificance(p < .10).
To examine whetherpeer attitudestoward delinquency modifythe effectsof
parental labeling on youth delinquency,the interactiontermsbetween parental
labeling and peer attitudes,thatis, (1) Actual Labeling x Peer Attitudesand (2)
PerceivedLabeling x Peer Attitudes,were enteredintotheregressionmodel indi-
vidually and simultaneously.If both interactiontermsare significant,it would
suggest that peer attitudesmodifyboth aspects of parental labeling on youth
delinquency.The resultsare presentedin the next threecolumns of Table 1 (see
InteractionModels I-III).
As shown, the interactionterms are all significantlyrelated to delinquency
involvementboth individually and simultaneously(p < .001). The significant
interactiontermsthus indicatethattheeffectsofparentallabelingon youthdelin-
quency varyby thelevels ofpeer attitudestowarddelinquency.The positivemain
effectsof parental labeling on youth delinquency in the interactionmodels (see
Table 1) indicate that on the average parental labeling, actual or perceived,
increases subsequent youth delinquency. The positive interactioneffectsthus
indicatethattheeffectsofparentallabelingon youthdelinquencyincreaseas peer
attitudestoward delinquencybecome morepositive(or also increase).
The effectsof controlvariables in theinteractionmodels remaingenerallysimi-
lar to those in the baseline model with only minorexceptions.When the interac-
tiontermbetween actual parentallabelingand peer attitudesis takenintoconsid-
eration,theeffectoffamilystructureon youthdelinquencyincreasesslightly(p <
.05). In addition,when both interactioneffectsare taken into consideration,gen-
der differencesare slightlystrongerwhile the stabilityeffectof delinquency
becomes weaker. These resultsmay suggest the presence of some higher-order
interactioneffects.

in Delinquency
PeerParticipation
as moderating
Theresultsshowingpeerdelinquency between
therelationships
parental labeling (actual and perceived) and youth delinquency are shown in
Table 2.
Again, in the baseline model, actual and perceived parentallabeling and peer
delinquencyare all positivelyrelatedto subsequent delinquencyinvolvementnet
of the control variables. The positive effectsindicate that parental labeling
observed at the earlierpoints in timeincreases subsequent delinquencyinvolve-
ment and thathaving friendsengaging in delinquency also predictsyouth self-
reportedinvolvementin delinquencyover time.The effectsof common anteced-
entvariablesare generallysimilarto thebaselinemodel reportedearlier(in Table 1).
To examinewhetherpeer delinquencymodifiesthe relationshipbetween actual
ParentalLabelingandYouthDelinquency 509

TABLE 2
Main and InteractionEffectsof ParentalLabeling and Peer Delinquency on Youth
Delinquency ControllingforCommon AntecedentVariables
Interaction Interaction Interaction
Variables Baseline I II III

Actual parentallabeling 0.10*** 0.07* 0.09** 0.08**

Perceivedparentallabeling 0.10*** 0.10*** 0.08** 0.10***
Peer delinquency 0.19*** 0.12*** 0.10*** 0.08***
Actual Labeling x Peer Delinquency 0.14*** 0.11***
PerceivedLabeling x Peer Delinquency 0.15*** 0.09***
Age -0.02 -0.03 -0.01 -0.02
Race (black) -0.06** -0.06* -0.05* -0.05*
Gender (boys) 0.06** 0.07*** 0.08*** 0.08***
FamilySES 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02
Familystructure 0.04 0.05* 0.05* 0.06*
Urban residence 0.04+ 0.03 0.04+ 0.03
Priordelinquency 0.39*** 0.34*** 0.35*** 0.31***
Delinquent peer association -0.04+ -0.03 -0.03 -0.02
Parent/childrelationship 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Peer attachment 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
R2 (adj.) 0.37 0.42 0.41 0.44
Note: Standardized effectsare shown.
+p < .10; * p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

and perceived parentallabeling and delinquencyoutcome,two interactionterms

(Actual Labeling x Peer Delinquency and Perceived Labeling x Peer Delin-
quency) were added to the model containingthe main effectand controlvariables
both individually and simultaneously.The results are shown in Table 2 in the
interactionmodels.
As shown, the interactionterms are again positively related to subsequent
delinquencyboth individuallyand concurrently. These effectsare all statistically
<
significant(p .001),indicating that peer delinquencymodifiesthe relationships
between parental labeling (actual and perceived) and subsequent delinquency
involvement. The positive main effects of parental labeling in the interaction
models again indicate that on the average parental labeling is associated with a
subsequent increase delinquencyinvolvement.The positive interactioneffects
in
thus indicate thatthe effectsof parental labeling on youth delinquencyincrease
when youths are associated with more delinquent peers (or at higher levels of
peer delinquency).Any changes in the effectsof controlvariables when interac-
tiontermsare estimatedare generallysimilarto those presentedearlierin Table 1.

Peer Attitudesand Peer Delinquency

In the above models, peer attitudesand peer delinquencyindividuallymodify
the relationshipbetween parentallabeling,actual or perceived,and youth delin-
510 SOCIOLOGICALPERSPECTIVES Volume43,Number3,2000

TABLE 3
Mainand Interaction
Effects
ofParentalLabelingand PeerAttitudes/Peer on
Delinquency
YouthDelinquency forCommonAntecedent
Controlling Variables
Interaction Interaction Interaction
Variables Baseline I II III
Actualparentallabeling 0.10*** 0.06* 0.09** 0.07**
Perceivedparentallabeling 0.09** 0.10** 0.07* 0.08**
Peerattitudestowarddelinquency 0.07** 0.07** 0.06* 0.06*
Peerdelinquency 0.18*** 0.13*** 0.09** 0.08**
ActualLabelingX PeerAttitudes 0.11*** 0.07*
PerceivedLabelingX PeerAttitudes 0.08*** 0.07**
ActualLabelingX PeerDelinquency 0.10*** 0.08***
PerceivedLabelingX PeerDelinquency 0.10*** 0.06*
Age -0.02 -0.03 -0.01 -0.03
Race(black) -0.06* -0.06* -0.05* -0.05*
Gender(boys) 0.05* 0.07** 0.08*** 0.08***
FamilySES 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01
Familystructure 0.04 0.05* 0.04+ 0.05*
Urbanresidence 0.04+ 0.04+ 0.04+ 0.03
Priordelinquency 0.41*** 0.34*** 0.33*** 0.30***
Delinquentpeerassociation -0.04+ -0.02 -0.03 -0.02
Parent/childrelationship 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Peerattachment 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
R2(adj.) 0.37 0.43 0.42 0.45
Note: Standardizedeffectsare shown.
+p < .10; * p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

quency involvement.However, it is problematicas to whetherpeer attitudesand

peer delinquencyrepresentindependentmeasuresof peer influencein modifying
the relationshipbetweenparentallabeling (actual and perceived) and subsequent
delinquency.This question is addressed by specifyinga fullmodel in which both
peer attitudes and delinquency measures are estimated simultaneously.The
resultsare presentedin Table 3.
As shown in Table 3, the main effectsof peer attitudesand peer delinquency
remain quite similar to those in the earlier models. Adolescents who reported
peers as more approvingof delinquencyare morelikelyto engage in delinquency
activitiesnet of associationwith delinquentpeers. Those who indicatedthatthey
have more friendswho engage in delinquencyare also more likelyto participate
in delinquencyactivities.The effectsof parentallabeling,actual or perceived,on
youth delinquencyremainsignificantwhen peer attitudesand peer delinquency
are estimatedsimultaneously(p < .01). The effectsof controlvariables remain
similarto thosereportedearlier(Tables 1 and 2).
In thenextset ofinteractionmodels (see Table 3), peer attitudesand peer delin-
quency were enteredintotheregressionmodels individuallyand simultaneously.
The resultsindicatethatpeer attitudesand peer delinquencymodifytheeffectsof
ParentalLabelingandYouthDelinquency 511

parentallabeling (actual and perceived) on subsequentyouthdelinquencyrespec-

tively.The coefficientsare generallyweaker when both variables are estimated
simultaneously(see the last column),but all of the effectsremainstatisticallysig-
nificant(p < .05). Moreover,the patternsof the interactioneffectsare verysimilar
to those when estimatedin the separate models. These resultsthus indicate that
peer attitudes and peer delinquency are independent measures of peer group
influencesand thattheyeach modifythe relationshipsbetween parentallabeling,
actual or perceived,and subsequentyouthdelinquency.

CONCLUSION
In summary,this study sets out to address two importantresearchquestions: (1)
whetherinformallabeling by significantothersmay predictyouth delinquency
involvementand (2) whethersocial contexts,specifically, peer group context,may
modifythe outcomes of informallabeling on youth delinquency.The analyses
yielded a number of noteworthyfindingsthat are generallyconsistentwith the
earlierhypotheses.First,parentalevaluations of the youth and youthperception
of parental evaluations representtwo distinctdimensions of parental labeling.
Each predictsyouth delinquencyindependentlyof the other.The observed posi-
tive associations between parental labeling (actual and perceived) and youth
delinquencyare consistentwiththelabeling argumentthatstigmatizingreactions
of significantothersmay have a detrimentalimpacton subsequentyouthinvolve-
ment in delinquency (Braithwaite1989; Matsueda 1992; Zhang 1997). The direct
effectof actual parentallabeling on youthdelinquencynet of youthperceptionof
parental reactions is consistentwith the earlier speculation that parents may
not always communicatetheirevaluations to the youths and thus theirevalua-
tion and concurrentbehavior change are likely to influence youth behavior
directly.Meanwhile, the inability of youth perception of parental labeling to
completely mediate the effectof actual parent labeling on youth delinquency
may also indicate that youths choose to selectivelyperceive the cues of social
responses, including those reflectingparental evaluations of themselves (Mat-
sueda 1992). The selectiveobservationthus partiallycontributesto the observed
independent effectsof parents' actual and perceived labeling on youth delin-
quency respectively.
Second, peer group influences,reflectedin peer attitudestoward delinquency
and peer participationin delinquency,are shown to have modifiedthe effectsof
parentallabeling on youth delinquency.As observed,when peers are more sup-
portive of delinquency and when youths are associated with more friendswho
participatein delinquency,parentallabeling,whetherit is the objectivereactions
or the subjectiveinterpretation, is associated with greaterincreasesin subsequent
youth delinquency. These observations are consistentwith the earliercontention
(Braithwaite1989; Tittle1975) that a social a peer contextper-
context,specifically,
missive of delinquency,mightexacerbatethe negative consequences of informal
labeling and increasethe likelihoodof criminaloffendingby the individuals who
are the objectof such a labelingprocess.
It is interestingto note, in addition, that peer attitudesand peer delinquency
512 SOCIOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVESVolume
43,Number
3,2000

represent twoindependent measuresofpeergroupinfluences. Thesimultaneous

observation of peer attitudesand peer delinquencyas conditionalmechanisms
indicatescumulativeinfluences ofsupportiveattitudesand delinquentopportu-
nities.Whenboth conditionsare present,informallabelingpredictsincreased
youthinvolvement in delinquencybetterthanwhenonlyone or neitherof the
conditions is specified.
Thesefindings, however,shouldbe viewedwithcautionbecauseofa number
ofmethodological limitations.First,thestudyis limitedtoexamining peergroups
as an indicatorofsocialcontextual variationsin modifying theinformal labeling
process.As notedearlier, contextualvariablesarebroadand mayinclude,inaddi-
tionto peers,othermicro-social units(e.g.,family)as well as numerousmacro-
social environmental contexts(e.g., community). Futurestudiesthus should
broadentheconceptualization ofcontextual variablesby examining therelation-
shipsamongthereactions ofsignificantothers,peergroups,and delinquency in
largersocialcontexts includingschools,neighborhoods, and communities.
Second,thestudyexamineshow socialcontextmodifiestheinformal labeling
process.The effect ofofficialor formallabelsis notaddressedin theanalyses.It
would be interesting forfuturestudiesto extendthepresentfocusto examine
whetherthe effectsof officiallabels on youthcriminaloffending mightbe
dependenton socialcontexts, especiallysubculture supportforcrimeand crim-
inalopportunities.
Third,thestudyexaminesan important but limitedaspectof informal social
reactions,thatis, actualand perceivedlabelsofparentsin relationship to youth
delinquency. Informal socialreactions arecertainly
notlimitedtothoseofparents.
As suggestedearlier, evaluationsofothersignificant others,includingneighbors,
friends,and teachers, mightbe an important partoftheinformal labelingprocess
foradolescents.Futurestudiesshouldbroadenthe conceptualization of social
reactionsby examininghow contextual variablesmay modifyotheraspectsof
informal social responseson youthdelinquencyoutcomes.In addition,studies
mayalso examinehowsocialreactions, formalorinformal, influence aspectsofan
individual'slifeotherthancriminal offending.
Despitethelimitedfocus,thepresentstudycontributes totheliterature byinte-
grating twoemerging trendsoftheoretical developments, thatis,studiesofinfor-
mal labelingprocessesand conditionalmechanismsin specifying labelingout-
comes.By empirically examiningpeer contextin modifying informallabeling
outcomes,thestudydrawsattention totheimportance ofpeergroupsin contrib-
utingtotheconsequencesoftheinformal labelingprocess.

Acknowledgments:Thisresearchwas supportedin partby a summerfellow-

shipfromtheCollegeofArtsand Letters, San Diego StateUniversity.
The data
were originallygatheredby DelbertS. Elliottand associatesat theInstitute of
BehaviorScience,University of Colorado-Boulder, and weremade availableby
theInter-University Consortium forPoliticaland SocialResearch.An earlierver-
sion of thisarticlewas presentedat the 1999AnnualMeetingof theAmerican
SociologicalAssociation,Chicago,Illinois.Theauthoris solelyresponsible
forthe
analysesand interpretations
reported here.
ParentalLabelingandYouthDelinquency 513

NOTES
1. The robustnessofthefindingswas checkedusingthreedifferent measuresofdelin-
quency-violence(againstpersons/property), theft,and drugoffenses. Correspond-
ingly,peerattitudesand peerdelinquency weremeasuredwithitemsreflecting attitudes
towardor involvement in violence,stealing,
and drugoffenses.Overall,theresultsare
verysimilarto thosereported here,and no substantive are observedwhen
differences
alternative
measuresofdelinquency and peerinfluencesareused.
2. The resultswerealso confirmed usingcensored(Tobit)regression modelswithmaxi-
mumlikelihoodestimation. Censoredregression modelstakeaccountofpotential floor
and ceilingeffectson thedependentvariables(delinquency involvement),whichmay
causeartifactualinteraction
effects
(see Mareand Chen1986).
3. Main effectsin theinteractionmodelsareinterpreted in accordancewithJaccard, Tur-
risi,andWan(1990),whohavestatedthatthemaineffects canbe understood as average
effectsoftheindependent variableon thedependent variableacrossvaluesofthemod-
eratingvariable.Interactioneffects
indicatethattheamountofchangein theeffects of
parentallabelingon youthdelinquency (measuredin standardizedscores)is associated
witheverystandardizedunitincreasein peer attitudestowarddelinquency(or peer
involvement in delinquency).

REFERENCES
Aiken,Leona S., and StephenG. West.1991.MultipleRegression: TestingandInterpreting
Interactions.
NewburyPark,CA: Sage.
Akers, RonaldL. 1985.Deviant A SocialLearning
Behavior: Approach.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Aseltine,RobertH., Jr.1995."A Reconsideration ofParentaland PeerInfluences on Ado-
lescentDeviance."JournalofHealthandSocialBehavior
36:103-21.
Bames,GraceM.,and MichaelP.Farrell.1992."ParentalSupportand Controlas Predictors
of AdolescentDrinking, Delinquency, and RelatedProblemBehaviors." Journalof
Marriage andtheFamily54:763-76.
Becker, HowardS. 1963.Outsiders:StudiesintheSociology
ofDeviance.New York:FreePress.
Braithwaite,John.1989.Crime, ShameandReintegration.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Burkett, StevenR.,and CarolA. Hickman.1982."An Examination oftheImpactofLegal
Sanctionson AdolescentMarijuanaUse: A Panel Analysis."Journal ofDrugIssues
12:73-87.
Cloward,RichardA., and LloydE. Ohlin.1960.Delinquency andOpportunity.Glencoe,IL:
FreePress.
Cohen,LawrenceE., and MarcusFelson.1979."SocialChangeand CrimeRateTrends:A
RoutineActivityApproach."American Sociological
Review 44:588-608.
Elliott,
DelbertS., David Huizinga,and SuzanneAgeton.1985.Explaining Delinquencyand
DrugUse.BeverlyHills,CA: Sage.
Elliott,
DelbertS., David Huizinga,and ScottMenard.1989.Multiple ProblemYouth:Delin-
quency,SubstanceUse,andMentalHealthProblems. New York:Springer-Verlag.
DelbertS.,BrianA. Knowles,and RachelleJ.Canter.1981.TheEpidemiology
Elliott, ofDelin-
quentBehavior and Drug Use amongAmerican Adolescents.ProjectReportno. 14,A
NationalYouthSurvey.Boulder,CO: BehavioralResearchInstitute.
Foster,JackD., SimonDinitz,and WalterC. Reckless.1972."Perceptions ofStigmaFollow-
ingPublicInterventionforDelinquentBehavior." SocialProblems20:202-9.
Grasmick, Harold,and RobertBursik,Jr.1990."Conscience,SignificantOthers,and Ratio-
nal Choice:ExtendingtheDeterrence Model."LawandSociety Review 24:83741.
514 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 43,Number 3,2000

Green, Donald. 1989. "Measures of Illegal Behavior in Individual-Level Deterrence

Research."Journal ofResearchin Crimeand Delinquency 26:253-75.
Heimer,Karen,and Ross L. Matsueda. 1994. "Role-Taking,Role Commitment,and Delin-
quency:A TheoryofDifferential Social Control."American Review59:365-90.
Sociological
Jaccard,James,RobertTurrisi,and Choi K. Wan. 1990.Interaction Effectsin MultipleRegres-
sion:Quantitative Applicationsin theSocialSciences.NewburyPark,CA: Sage.
Kaplan, Howard B. 1984.PatternsofJuvenile Delinquency.BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.
Kaplan, Howard B., and Kelly R. Damphousse. 1997. "Negative Social Sanctions, Self-
Derogation,and Deviant Behavior:Main and InteractiveEffectsin LongitudinalPer-
spective."DeviantBehavior18:1-26.
Kaplan, Howard B., RobertJ.Johnson,and Carol A. Bailey.1987. "Deviant Peers and Devi-
ant Behavior:FurtherElaborationof a Model." SocialPsychology Quarterly50:277-84.
Kitsuse,JohnI. 1962. "Societal Reactionto Deviant Behavior."SocialProblems 9:247-56.
Lemert,Edwin M. 1951.SocialPathology. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Mare, RobertE., and Meichu D. Chen. 1986. "FurtherEvidence on Sibship Size and Educa-
tionalStratification." AmericanSociologicalReview51:403-12.
Matsueda, Ross L. 1992. "ReflectedAppraisals,ParentalLabeling,and Delinquency:Speci-
fyinga SymbolicInteractionist Theory."American JournalofSociology97:1577-1611.
Matsueda, Ross L., and KathleenAnderson. 1998. "The Dynamics of Delinquent Peer and
Delinquent Behavior."Criminology 36:269-308.
Mead, George H. 1934.Mind,Selfand Society. Chicago: UniversityofChicago Press.
Miller,DelbertC. 1991.HandbookofResearchand SocialMeasurement. 5thed. NewburyPark,
CA: Sage.
Paternoster,Raymond, and Leeann Iovanni. 1989. "The Labeling Perspectiveand Delin-
quency:An Evaluationof the Theoryand Assessmentof the Evidence."JusticeQuar-
terly6:335-56.
Schur,Edwin M. 1971.LabelingDeviantBehavior. New York:Harper and Row.
Simons,Ronald L., Les B. Whitbeck,and Rand Conger.1991."ParentingFactors,Social Skills,
and Value Commitmentsas Precursorsto School Failure,Involvementwith Deviant
Peers and DelinquentBehavior."Journal ofYouthandAdolescence 20:645-64.
Steinberg,Lawrence. 1986. "LatchkeyChildren and Susceptibilityto Peer Pressures:An
Ecological Analysis." Developmental Psychology 22(4):433-39.
Sutherland,Edwin H., Donald R. Cressey,and David F. Luckenbill.1992.PrinciplesofCrim-
inology.11thed. Dix Hills, NY: General Hall.
Sykes,Gresham M., and David Matza. 1957. "Techniques of Neutralization:A Theoryof
Delinquency."AmericanSociologicalReview22:664-70.
Thomas, Charles, and Donna Bishop. 1984. "The Effectof Formal and InformalSanctions
on Delinquency:A LongitudinalComparison of Labeling and DeterrenceTheories."
Journal ofCriminalLaw and Criminology 75:1222-45.
Tittle,Charles R. 1975. "Deterrentsor Labeling?" SocialForces53:399-410.
Triplett,RuthA., and G. RogerJarjoura.1994. "Theoreticaland EmpiricalSpecificationof a
Model of InformalLabeling."Journal ofQuantitative Criminology 10:241-76.
Ward,David A., and Charles R. Tittle.1993. "Deterrenceor Labeling: The Effectsof Infor-
mal Sanctions."DeviantBehavior:An Interdisciplinary Journal14:4344.
Warr,Mark.1998."Life-Course Transitionsand DesistancefromCrime."Criminology 36:183-216.
Warr,Mark, and Mark Stafford.1991. "The Influenceof Delinquency Peers: What They
Thinkor What They Do?" Criminology 29:85146.
Wellford,C. 1987. "Delinquency Preventionand Labeling." Pp. 257-67 in FromChildrento
Citizens,vol. 3, edited by J.Q. Wilson and G. Loury.New York:Springer-Verlag.
Zhang, Lening. 1997. "InformalReactions and Delinquency."CriminalJusticeand Behavior
24:129-50.