Are Friends More Influential Than Family When It Comes To Wh

Are Friends More Influential Than Family When It Comes To Whether Or N

Are friends more influential than family when it comes to whether or not an adolescent will become a delinquent? Who do you think adolescents learn their crime-friendly, anti-social definitions from more readily; friends or family? Finally, do we learn how to engage in crime in the same capacity that we learn to do all else (like tying our shoes, learning to read, learning to cook, etc.)? Or, is the way in which we learn to engage in crime a completely different process? Support your argument.

Paper For Above instruction

The influence of peers and family on adolescent delinquency has long been a subject of interest within criminology. Understanding whether friends or family exert more influence on whether an adolescent engages in delinquent behavior involves examining socialization processes, developmental psychology, and criminal behavior theories. Additionally, exploring how adolescents learn antisocial behavior and whether this learning process differs from acquiring conventional skills can provide deeper insights into the roots of criminal activity.

Influence of Friends Versus Family on Adolescent Delinquency

Social learning theory posits that individuals develop behaviors through interactions within their social environment, emphasizing the critical roles of both family and peers (Akers, 1998). Family influence, especially during early childhood, shapes initial attitudes towards morality, discipline, and social norms. Families can serve as sources of prosocial behavior or, alternatively, models of criminal activity (Sampson & Laub, 1993). However, as adolescents mature, peer groups often assume a more prominent role in influencing behavior (Brown, 1990).

Empirical research suggests that peers have a stronger immediate influence on delinquent behavior during adolescence. For example, studies have shown that adolescents involved with delinquent peer groups are considerably more likely to engage in delinquency themselves (Krohn & Massey, 1980). Peer approval and the desire for social acceptance can motivate adolescents to imitate deviant behaviors observed within peer groups (Thornberry & Krohn, 2000). Conversely, the influence of family diminishes over time, especially when family relationships are strained or when parental supervision is weak (Moffitt, 1993). Thus, while the family establishes foundational norms, adolescent peer groups often serve as the immediate influence regarding delinquency.

Sources of Crime-Related Attitudes: Friends or Family?

When considering where adolescents internalize crime-friendly, anti-social definitions, peers tend to be more influential during critical developmental periods. Social learning from peers involves not just imitation but also reinforcement of antisocial behavior through shared norms and traits (Hirschi, 1969). While family members may influence initial attitudes toward authority and morality, peers actively shape perceptions of what behaviors are acceptable, sometimes glorifying criminality (Osgood et al., 1996). Consequently, adolescents often learn a “crime-friendly” attitude more readily from peers due to ongoing social reinforcement and approval within peer groups.

Learning Criminal Behavior: Similar or Different to Conventional Learning?

The process of learning to engage in crime differs significantly from learning conventional skills, though there are similarities in the learning mechanisms involved. Learning to tie shoes or read involves gradual acquisition through observation, practice, and reinforcement—an approach aligned with operant conditioning (Bandura, 1977). However, criminal behavior often involves a conscious decision influenced by social environment and perceived rewards (Akers, 1998). It is learned through processes such as differential association, where delinquent behaviors are reinforced through interactions with peers who model and reinforce such behaviors (Sutherland, 1947).

Furthermore, engaging in crime often entails understanding specific routines, techniques, or knowledge—similar to mastering a craft—though motivated by antisocial motives. This suggests that criminal learning incorporates both the social learning mechanisms of imitation and reinforcement and a cognitive component of understanding the specifics of illegal activities. Unlike learning to perform a conventional task, which is generally socially rewarded, crime learning involves internalizing norms that are inherently antisocial, requiring deliberate rebellion from societal expectations (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1998).

Conclusion

In conclusion, adolescents are more influenced by peer groups than family when it comes to delinquency, especially during the critical stages of adolescence. They tend to internalize anti-social attitudes and behaviors more readily from friends involved in criminal activities, as peers provide immediate social reinforcement and acceptance. The process of learning to engage in crime shares similarities with conventional learning in its mechanisms but differs significantly in intent, motivation, and social context. Criminal behavior is learned through social interactions and reinforcement, but it involves a deliberate rejection of societal norms, making it a distinct form of learning. Understanding these dynamics is essential for developing effective interventions aimed at reducing juvenile delinquency.

References

• Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific theory of offending. Wadsworth Publishing.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer-victimization: Methods and research issues. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 10(2), 253-276.
• Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. University of California Press.
• Krohn, M. D., & Massey, J. L. (1980). Peer influence on adolescent delinquency: The case of alcohol use. Criminology, 18(4), 553-566.
• Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1998). Risk and protective factors for delinquency. Crime & Justice, 22, 1-64.
• Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674-701.
• Osgood, D. W., et al. (1996). Routine activities and delinquency: The victim–precipitation hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 61(3), 337-356.
• Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Harvard University Press.
• Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of Criminology. J.B. Lippincott Company.
• Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2000). The completeness of juvenile justice processing: An analysis of the effects of attrition. Criminology, 38(1), 117-143.