AGE, PEERS, AND DELINQUENCY*

TLDR

Hirschi and Gottfredson argue that the age distribution of crime cannot be explained by known variables, highlighting a failure of sociological theories to account for this phenomenon. This paper evaluates differential association theory’s ability to explain the age distribution of crime. Analysis of National Youth Survey data shows that peer relations vary with age in a pattern mirroring crime, and when peer influence is controlled, age effects on delinquency disappear; delinquent friends are sticky, and Sutherland’s claims about association duration and priority are only partially supported.

Abstract

Hirschi and Gottfredson (1983; Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990) have argued that the age distribution of crime cannot be explained by any known variables. and they point specifically to the failure of sociological theories to explain this phenomenon. This paper examines a quintessentially sociological theory of crime—differential association—and evaluates its ability to explain the age distribution of crime. Analysis of data from the National Youth Survey on persons aged 11–21 reveals that peer relations (exposure to delinquent peers, time spent with peers, loyalty to peers) change dramatically over this age span, following much the same pattern as crime itself When measures of peer influence are controlled, the effects of age on self‐reported delinquency are largely rendered insignificant. Additional analyses show that delinquent friends tend to be “sticky” friends (once acquired, they are not quickly lost) and that Sutherland's arguments concerning the duration and priority of delinquent associations are only partially correct.