Juvenile Delinquency: Moderating Effect of Peer Relationships across Adolescence

Background: Research suggests that most adolescent youth (AY) will participate in some form of juvenile delinquent behavior (JDB). In fact, a consistent finding among research is that AY will engage in JDB primarily beginning at ages 10-14, peak in rate of participation at 16-17, and desist thereafter. To better understand the relationship between JDB and age, researchers often examine the moderating effect of AY participation in JDB as a result of peer relationships. Research suggests that there is an additional relationship between selected peers and JDB, however results are often mixed. Because of conflicting information about this relationship, the purpose of this research is to describe how and when peer relationships moderate the relationship between JDB and age throughout the adolescent development period.

Methods: A series of latent transition analyses were used to analyze data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1997. The analytic sample included 3571 participants aged 12 & 13 when data collection began. Prior to conducting analyses, peer relationships were categorized into three groups: No JDB, Statutory Offense Only JDB and All Other JDB. Juvenile delinquent behavior is measured using twelve indicators and at four timepoints (t [age 12 & 13; Wave 1], t+1 [age 13-14 & 14-15; Wave 2 & 3], t+2 [age 15-16 & 16-17; Wave 4 & 5], and t+3 [age 17-18 & 18-19; Wave 6 & 7]).

Results: Results suggests three latent statuses of JDB manifest during adolescent development period: Minimal JDB (very little likelihood of participating in any type of JDB), Moderate JDB (participation in JDB was limited to primarily status offenses, smoking marijuana, and minimal property offenses), and Severe JBD (participation in all types of JDB, particularly JDB that would harm self, others or the community). During early adolescence, most youth were in the Minimal JDB status, however by the conclusion of the adolescent development period most youth transitioned to Moderate and Severe JDB statuses. In addition, results suggest that AY peer relationships had limited influence on increasing participation in JDB. Rather, results suggest that AY participate in similar types of JDB as their peers.

Implications: This study extends knowledge about how AY participate in JDB differently across the adolescent development period as a result of peer relationships. Specifically, this study suggests that there is a correlation between peer relationships and AY participation in JDB, however participation in JDB increases and decreases in similar rates despite peer relationship status. Implications for intervention and policy are discussed.