Download No Slide Title

Network Structure and
Delinquency Within
a Juvenile Gang
Some questions to consider.
One often sees groups of youth who “hang out” in the
downtown core. For example, along Granville Street
near the Pacific Centre.
•What’s going on?
•Who are these people?
•Why are they there?
•What are they doing?
•What kind of social background do they come from?
A SOCIAL NETWORK
c
b
d
a
e
HYPOTHESES
H1. Control theory suggests that individuals with low selfcontrol will gravitate to the street and associate with similar
others. While behavioral problems may hinder such individuals
from developing close relationships with others, gangs do
provide their members with a certain degree of social support.
For these reasons we predict that those members in the gang
with the weakest bonds to the conventional order will become
the most integrated into the gang.
H2. Further, we predict that the longer a member has
participated in the gang the greater his/her integration (as
measured by degree).
H3. We predict that those members in the gang with the
weakest bonds to the conventional order will hold the most
delinquent attitudes.
H4. We assume that the structurally core members of the gang,
as indicated by degree will also be opinion leaders within the
gang.
Central location (as measured by degree) indicates a potential to
engage in communication with a greater proportion of gang
members. This allows one to influence others, and to receive
feedback for one’s own opinions and attitudes. We assume that
the group members are predisposed towards deviant attitudes in
conjunction with their inability to establish bonds in normal
social institutions.
Hence, the greater an individual’s centrality (as measured by
degree) the more delinquent attitudes he/she will hold.
H5. The more direct ties an individual has to other network
members, the greater the number of geodesics he/he is likely to
fall on (as measured by relative betweenness).
H6. Falling in a central location (as measured by betweenness)
potentially places one in the middle of many chains of
communication.
Hence central figures (as measured by relative betweenness) are
likely to receive more influences and hence be more crosspressured in the formation of their opinions and attitudes.
Through this process we would expect that central figures would
hold more delinquent attitudes than peripheral figures.
H7. The more direct ties an individual has to other members,
the more indirect ties he/she is likely to have to the rest of the
group.
This means that peripheral members are likely closer
(sociometrically) to those with whom they are linked
(indirectly) because they have fewer total indirect ties.
Hence we would expect core members (as measured by degree)
to be more distant from other members (as measured by
closeness) because they are linked to a greater number of ties
indirectly.
H8. Being close to others (sociometrically) potentially makes
communication with others more efficient. People in such
locations will have greater opportunity to receive immediate
reinforcement for their views relative to those in more distant
locations.
Hence we would expect people in central locations (as measured
by closeness) to hold more delinquent attitudes than those in less
central locations.
METHODOLOGY
Ethical Concerns
Data Collection
The Sample
MEASUREMENT:
NETWORK DATA -- AN EXAMPLE
CENTRALITY
• Degree
• Betweenness
• Closeness
YEARS OF INVOLVEMENT
BOND INDEX
DELINQUENT ATTITUDES
The Direct and Indirect Effects on Delinquent Attitudes.
YEARS OF
INVOLVEMENT
BETWEENESS
DELINQUENT
ATTITUDES
DEGREE
CLOSENESS
BOND
INDEX
Summary of Multiple Regression Model Explaining Delinquent Attitudes
Dependent Variables:
Independent
Variables:
Degree
Betweenness
Closeness
Delinquent
Attitudes
Bond
Index
SIG
N.S.
N.S.
SIG
Years of
Involvement
SIG
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
Degree
-----
SIG
SIG
N.S.
Betweenness
-----
-----
-----
SIG
Closeness
-----
-----
-----
SIG
Conclusion
• These results provide particular support for “control theory”
because even when we statistically control for network structure
(an indicator of peer influence) those with weak bonds hold
the most delinquent attitudes.
• At the same time, there is also some support for aspects of
subcultural theory, as structural location is associated with
holding delinquent attitudes -- even when bonds (e.g., to family,
school) are statistically controlled.