SCHOOL COMMITMENT,

YOUTH REBELLION,

AND DELINQUENCY

Delos H. Kelly William T: Pink

r ecently social scientists, in attempting to understand the rise of particularly rebellious and delinquent behavior, have begun to direct their attention to the differential school statuses that students often occupy within the educational system. For example, Toby ( 1 957), in his concentration on those students who are situated in a failure status, has suggested that failure can serve as a major catalyst in the production of (especially gang) delinquency. Presumably, his failing students, in being aware of their low position in the academic hierarchy, reject the conventional value system of

AUTHORS NOTE: Z%he research on which this paper is based was supported b y funds gmnted by the National Institute of Mental Health (Grant Mil14806 “Matumrwnal Reform and Rural Delinquency ’1.

DELOS H. KELLY received a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Oregon. Currently he is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the State University College of New York at Geneseo. He teaches courses in juvenile delinquency, deviance, and methodology.

WILLIAM T. PINK received a Ph.D. in educational foundations from the University of Oregon. Presently- he is a Research Associate at the Marion County Youth Study, a n ongoing longitudinal project con- cerned with adolescent maturation.

14731

[4741 CRIMINOLOGY I FEBRUARY 1973

the school and are therefore free to become involved with their similarly unsuccessful friends in such nonschool-sanc- tioned pursuits as misbehavior and delinquency-they have no real commitment to school nor do they thus have a “stake in conformity.” For such students, school becomes and is a both meaningless and unrewarding experience. We can also suggest that, for the failing students, there is a minimal risk involved in committing deviant behavior both within and outside the confines of the school-i.e., the consequences of deviation are relatively unimportant in terms of the implica- tions for both present and future educational and occupa- tional opportunities or careers. By contrast, the academically successful students, with their high stake in conformity (e.g., eventually obtaining a high school or college education), have much to lose by engaging in deviant behavior-they conform.

Hirschi (1969), in developing further such a “control theory” of delinquency, has presented a similar line of argument with respect to the dynamics of societal and school commitment. According to him (Hirschi, 1969: 21),

the concept of commitment assumes that the organization of society is such that the interests of most persons would be endangered if they were to engage in criminal acts. Most people, simply by the process of living in an organized society, acquire goods, reputations, prospects that they do not want to risk losing. These accumulations are society’s insurance that they will abide by the rules. Most lines of action in a society are of course conventional. The clearest examples are educational and occupational careers. Actions thought to jeopardize one’s chances in these areas are presumably avoided.

Overall, then, and by drawing particularly upon Toby and Hirschi, we can argue that most students are committed to the conventional values that exist within the educational system and will therefore have good reason to conform. We can argue, more specifically, that if students are committed to the general success flow of the school, they are unlikely to

Kelly, Pink /SCHOOL COMMITMENT, YOUTH REBELLION I4751

become involved in rebellious or delinquent behavior-the risks of involvement are too high, particularly if such deviation will jeopardize both their present and future perceived status and rewards. Hirschi (1969: 20) has sum- marized a portion of these contingencies very succinctly:

The idea, then, is that the person invests time, energy, himself, in a certain line of activity-say, getting an education, building up a business, acquiring a reputation for virtue. When or whenever he considers deviant behavior, he must consider the costs of this deviant behavior, the risk he runs of losing the investment he has made in conventional behavior.

If we accept the preceding line of reasoning, then we would hypothesize quite naturally that the uncommitted students, when contrasted with the committed, should display significantly higher rates of rebellious and delinquent behavior. The problem that ultimately presents itself, there- fore, is: How do we assess with any degree of validity differential levels of school commitment? We could, like Toby and others (e.g., Berry and Polk, 1971; Rhodes and Reiss, 1969), argue for or rely strictly on academic status- i.e., grade point averages or English marks-as our primary measure of school commitment. And given the importance of a successful school career in terms of ensuring future college entry and a subsequent professional occupation, it may very well be that a student’s grade point average is and will emerge as the strongest single-item indicator of school commitment. However, we must acknowledge the fact that there is obviously more to the school experience than just earning an acceptable academic record. Students often find satisfaction and success in other school-based pursuits. There is, in fact, an increasing amount of evidence suggesting that other aspects of school life-students’ developing aspirations (e.g., college plans), social involvement, and time spent on home- work-may serve an important role in committing or “lock- ing” students into the educational system.

I4761 CRIMINOLOGY /FEBRUARY 1973

Stinchcombe (1964) and Polk (1969), for example, have shown that, in addition t o grades, college plans (both measures of status prospects) emerge as a strong correlate of rebellious behavior. Kelly (1 970), in looking at a much wider range of data, has also demonstrated that college plans were strongly associated with not only his measures of values and success but also with his indicators of youth rebellion and deviance (e.g., cruising, smoking, drinking, and official delinquency). Further, Polk and Halferty (1 966) have argued that participation in school activities may function as an additional “side bet” in reinforcing students’ commitment to school. And empirically, Schafer (1969) has offered data indicating that athletic participation is independently related to delinquent behavior. Others (e.g., Kelly and Balch, 1971; Kelly and Pink, 1971 ) have also shown that social involve- ment is independently associated with school avoidance, deviance, and high school dropout. Finally, Hirschi and others (e.g., Hargreaves, 1967) have indicated that time spent on homework may also play an important role in committing students to the educational system.

Thus, by drawing particularly upon the preceding research findings, if we can locate those students who are succeeding academically, have college plans, belong to clubs and spend sufficient time on their studies, then we will have located those pupils who are in all probability committed to the school. We will have also located those individuals who have the most to lose if they deviate. Conversely, and in looking at the other extreme, if we can locate those students who possess few or none of these attributes, then we will have located those pupils who are in all probability uncommitted to the school. We will have also located those individuals who have nothing to lose if they deviate and their deviations su bwquen t I y become known .

Kelly, Pink /SCHOOL COMMITMENT, YOUTH REBELLION [4771

SAMPLE AND PROCEDURES

Data for the present study were drawn from an ongoing longitudinal investigation of adolescents in a medium-sized county (1960 population of 120,888) in the Pacific North- west. A 25% random sample was drawn from a sample frame consisting of all male sophomores enrolled in the high schools of the county in 1964. From the total of 309 subjects selected, 284 usable interviews were obtained in March of 1967, giving a response rate of 92%. The one-hour interviews conducted by the project staff members covered a range of demographic, school, family, work, and peer variables. To these data were added grade point average from school transcripts and delinquency reports from juvenile court records.

In terms of the outline of our previous discussion, school commitment was measured by four intercorrelated question- naire items which were combined in an unweighted, four- factor index.’ Seniors received a score of 0 or 1 on each of these items For example, if seniors were succeeding academi- cally (accumulative high school grade point average of 2.00-4.00; C or above), planned on attending college (“I expect to go to college.”), belonged to school clubs (“How many in-school clubs, organizations, and athletic groups do you belong to?”), and spent a sufficient amount of time on their homework (3 hours or more per week; sample median of 2.9 hours), they would receive a total score of 4. If, by contrast, they possessed none of these attributes, their overall score would be 0. The actual scores ranged from 0 to 4.

In order to obtain a wide range of data against which to test the commitment notion we developed earlier with respect to both in-school and out-school activities, eight dependent variables were selected. Two were specifically school-related. The fmt, a measure of students’ allegiance to either the school or their peers, was based on responses to the question: “Suppose school was dismissed an hour early one

14781 CRIMINOLOGY / FEBRUARY 1973

day for a rally and the principal urged everyone to go to the rally although they did not have to go. On the way, some of your best friends asked you to go somewhere instead of the rally. What do you think you would do?” (peers versus principal). If they went with their friends, they were classified as exhibiting rebellious behavior. The second school item, an indicator of students’ association with troublesome peers, was determined by replies to the question: “Do your friends get in trouble in school?” (friends in trouble in school). If their friends misbehaved in school, then these students were placed in the rebellious category. (We are obviously operating on the assumption that there is “guilt by ass~ciation.’~) Next, three items were included as indicators of youth rebellion which is not specifically delinquent: “I really enjoy cruising around at night to see what is going on” (cruising), “I like to get into a good fight now and then” (fighting), and “Do you drink beer?” If seniors answered affirmatively to these questions, they were also categorized as rebellious. Finally, delinquency, generally the major and rather exclusive concern of a large number of social scientists (e.g., Toby and Hirschi), was assessed in three ways: ( I ) boys who had appeared in court at least once were classified as official delinquents, (2) boys who had appeared in court two or more times were classified as frequent delinquents, and (3) males who had been apprehended for committing felonies were classified as serious of fender~ .~

In recognizing the traditional emphasis given to class-based theories, particularly of delinquency and deviance, we used a measure of status origins as our major control variable. By using the Hollingshead Index of Social Position, together with an Oregon Supplement, we classified our subjects aS middle- and working-class according to their fathers’ occupa- tions (50 and 42% of our sample, respectively; 8% of our subjects could not be classified). Middle-class occupations included executive, professional, sales, and clerical positions. Skilled, semiskilled, and unskilled jobs made up the working-class category.

Kelly, Pink I SCHOOL COMMITMENT, YOUTH REBELLION 14791

F lNDl NGS

Drawing upon past theoretical and empirical efforts, we have argued that decreasing levels of school commitment should be associated strongly with increasing rates of youth rebellion and delinquency. The expanded range of data contained in Table 1 supports this position.’

Specifically, with few minor exceptions, our male seniors displaying lower degrees of commitment, as opposed to those exhibiting higher degrees of commitment, have much greater rates of rebellion and delinquency. Furthermore, and by looking particularly at rates of deviance by index levels, it becomes apparent that the sharpest differentials occur between scores of one and two, and three and four (the mean percentage differences between columns one and two, two and three, and three and four are 11.4, 8.6, and 10.5%, respectively). In comparing rates of deviance for those who ary most committed (index score of 4), we find, as expected, our largest differences (a mean percentage difference of 30.5%). These differences are, it should be noted, especially high for our two school-related items (peers versus principal,

TABLE 1 YOUTH REBELLION AND DELINQUENCY, BY SCHOOL

COMMITMENT INDEX (in percentages) ~~~ ~~~

School Commitment

Low High

(1) ( 2) (3) (4) (Index Score) 1 2 3 4

Youth Rebellion and Delinquency n- (46) 144) (781 (69)

Peers versus principal 76 70 47 3i Friends in trouble in school 50 32 12 10 Cruising 83 66 62 48 Fighting 43 21 21 15 Drinking 61 64 33 25 Official delinquency 33 23 26 4 (1) Frequent (>I) 20 5 7 3 (2) Serious (felony-count) 17 1 1 15 1

TAB

LE 2

Y

OU

TH R

EB

ELL

ION

AN

D D

EV

IAN

CE

, BY

SCH

OO

L C

OM

MIT

ME

NT

IND

EX

AN

D S

OC

IAL

OR

IGIN

S (

in p

erce

ntag

es)

Soc

ial O

riain

r

Mid

dla

Cla

r W

orki

ng C

lam

LC'

HC

' LC

H

C

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(6)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(Ind

ex S

cora

) 1

2 3

4 1

2 3

4 Y

outh

Reb

ellio

n an

d D

elim

uenc

v n-

(1

41

(19)

(4

3)

(48)

(28)

(22)

(30)

(19)

~~

~~

~

Pee

rs v

ersu

s pr

inci

pal

Frie

nds

in tr

oubl

e in

sch

ool

Cru

isin

g F

ight

ing

Dri

nkin

g O

ffic

ial d

elin

quen

cy

(1)

Fre

quen

t (>

1)

(2) S

erio

us (

felo

nyco

unt)

85

57

79

36

64

36

21

21

79

32

63

32

74

21 0 11

56

12

66

17

28

23 7 19

36

12

48

13

23 4 4 2

71

46

86

46

61

36

21

18

64

32

73

14

69

27 9 14

40

13

67

21

43

30

10

13

32 0 47

21

26 6 0 0

~~~

a. L

C =

low

sch

ool c

omm

ltmen

t; HC =

hlg

h s

chool c

omm

ltmen

t

Kelly, Pink I SCHOOL COMMITMENT, YOUTH REBELLION [4811

and friends in trouble in school; a difference of 43.and 40%, respectively). Moreover, these findings are relatively unaf- fected by the introduction of social origins, a potentially important antecedent indicator, into our variable system.

In looking more closely at Table 2, it becomes immediate- ly apparent that social class and school commitment do not combine to produce any noticeable differences or pattems- the original relationship between levels of commitment and our dependent variables obtains. Furthermore, while both school commitment and social class are independently associated with our eight indicators, level of commitment would serve as a much stronger predictor of youth rebellion and delinquency. In fact, the independent impact of class is somewhat inconsistent and extremely weak.

DISCUSSION

Our data are strongly supportive of the argument that decreasing levels of school commitment will be linked to increasing rates of youth rebellion and delinquency. More specifically, as their level of commitment decreased, seniors were more likely to go with their friends instead of attending school d i e s ; associate with friends who misbehaved in school; enjoy cruising, fighting, and drinking; and fmally, were more likely to have been involved in delinquent activity. What, then, are the implications of these findings?

When level of school commitment emerges as such a strong predictor of adolescent rebellion and delinquency, we must begin to ask why. While obviously our present data do not allow us to assess either empirically or temporally themajor antecedents or consequences of differential commitment, we can, by drawing particularly upon notions of “social typing,” begin to deal at least theoretically with this problem.

We can sudest that negative labels (e.g., “poor worker,” “unmotivated,” “behavior problem”), once applied and

14821 CRIMINOLOGY / FEBRUARY 1973

recognized, can lead not only to differential treatment by teachers and peers but also to progessively declining levels of school commitment. Furthermore, such low-status students often become segregated from high-status pupils-e.g., by class and teacher assignment. For those students who are not a part of the general success flow of the school, this segregation may force them, as a matter of “survival,” to become progressively committed to an opposing set of classroom values. In fact, our own data offer some support for such an interpretation. When asked either to join their friends or attend a school rally (a school-sanctioned event), the seniors with low levels of commitment, when contrasted with those with high levels of commitment, were much more likely to leave school with their friends. These students were also much more likely to associate with troublesome stu- dents. Hargreaves (1967: 171-172), in discussing the exist- ence of two opposing subcultures in the English school he studied (the “academic” and the “delinquescent”), has argued along somewhat similar lines (italics in original):

When the teacher rewards boys in high streams for good work or behaviour, he is confirming the dominant values amongst the boys But when he does this to boys in lower streams, he is confirming the minority norms. In other words, teacher rewards demonstrate the unification of teacher and peer group values in high streams; but the same teacher rewards in low streams reveal the disjunction between teacher and pupil values. Teacher rewards thus confirm both subcultures, but in the lower streams this is the reverse of what the teacher intends, for by rewarding the deviant academically oriented boy he reinforces the dominant group values.

Hargreaves is thus arguing that each of the two subcultures possesses a set of dominant and opposing values. For high-stream students, the set of dominant values is congruent with those values espoused by the school. High stream members are, therefore, sanctioned positively by both their teachers and the majority of their peers for good work and conforming behavior. The reward structure is thus maniphi-

Kelly, Pink I SCHOOL COMMITMENT, YOUTH REBELLION [a31

lated in such a manner as to produce eventual conformity and commitment to the goals of the educational system. Conversely, the uncommitted students (Le., those in the lower streams), with a value hierarchy that runs counter to the dominant values of the educational system, are rewarded by the majority of their peers for displaying behaviors that are sanctioned negatively by the school.

In further extending this argument, we can suggest that, for students with high levels of commitment, the risks of engaging in rebellious or delinquent activity, both within and outside the school, are extremely high. If such activities become known, they could seriously jeopardize not only their continued school success but also future educational and occupational opportunities. The committed have much to lose! By contrast, students with low levels of commitment risk little by engaging in deviance. Their present low school status, unless changed, will necessarily restrict their future career opportunities. Thus, given that they are locked out of the general success flow of the school, it is not surprising to find that our uncommitted males have such a low regard for the school and the demands of its authority figures. This lack of respect or concern would seem to carry over to their out-of-school activities. Such an interpretation can be sup ported by our data, which indicate that students, with low levels of commitment when compared with those with high levels of commitment, have been more extensively involved in not only out-of-school rebellion but in such illegal activities as drinking and delinquency.

Obviously, we have dealt only in an exploratory manner with some of the presumed antecedents and consequences of differential levels of school commitment. However, if our line of reasoning has any validity to it (and we suggest that it does), then future research should be directed toward more systematic examination of some of the contingencies we have discussed. An important question that requires careful theoretical and empirical attention is why educators continue

[4841 CRIMINOLOGY I FEBRUARY 1973

to type and to stratify students negatively, particularly in view of the mounting evidence suggesting that such school processes can not only seriously restrict students’ educational and occupational opportunities but may also play a major role in the generation of decreasing school commitment and subsequent increases in level of adolescent deviance.

NOTES

1. The correlation coefficients among the index items are as follows:

1 2 3 4

1 - GPA 1.00 .53 .43 -47 2 - College Plans 1.00 -36 .29 3 - Clubs 1.00 .25 4 - Homework 1.00

In addition to these interrelationships, each item is related in the expected manner and direction to our eight dependent variables: (1) GPA (.22 - .38). (2) college plans (.08 - .23), (3) clubs (.09 - .29), and (4) homework (-19 - .31). The numbers in parentheses define the range of coefficients

2 There are obviously several ways in which the scores for the mixed cases (scores of 1, 2, and 3) can arise, and this situation could lead to problems of interpretation, particularly if we choose to concentrate on specific index levels. We are, however, in congruence with our hypothesis, more interested m determining whether or not there is a progressive decline in rates of youth rebellion and deviance with each increasing level of school commitment. For some of the problems involved in “index construction,” see Zeisel(1968 c h 6).

3. Naturally one could question whether these latter items are actually symptoms of rebellion. Perhaps they are not. Perhaps they characterize youth in general. However, there is some evidence (Polk and Halferty, 1966; Polk, 1969) that such activities do characterize rebellious youth.

4. We are wdl aware of the fact that many writers have, with good reason, objected to the use of official statistics as an indicator of delinquent behavior, Unfortunately, our data did not include any self-reported delinquency items that could be used for comparative purposes. There is some evidence, however, that the most serious acts may in fad come to the attention of the juvenile court. It is the trivial offenses that most often go undetected (Chilton, 1967;Gibbons. 1970: 24-27; Gold, 1966). Hopefully, and even though felony counts may not be a particularly senative measure of seriousness (Kelly and Window, 1970; Sellin and Wolfgang 1964). we have overcome some of the weaknesses of the official statistics by taking both frequency and seriousness into consideration.

Kelly, Pink /SCHOOL COMMITMENT, YOUTH REBELLION I4851

5. Due to the attenuation of cell frequencies when controlling class (Table 2). especially at index levels 0 and 1, we have chosen to combine these to form the score of 1. Our analysis suggests that this combination does not result in any significant loss of information (the mean percentage difference between scores before combination was .7).

REFERENCES

BERRY, J. and K. POLK (1971) ‘Control theory and youth deviance: a longitudinal analysis of change in behavior.” Resented at the Pacific Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Honolulu, April.

CHILTON, R. J. (1967) “Middle class delinquency and specific offense analysis,” in E. W. Vaz (ed.) MiddlaClw Juvenile Denlinquency. New York: Harper & Row.

GIBBONS, D. C. (1970) Delinquent Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- H d .

GOLD, M (1966) “Undetected delinquent behavior.” J. of Research in Crime and Delinqumcy 13 (January): 27-46.

HARGREAVES, D. (1967) Social Relations in a Secondaty School. New York: Humanities R e u

HIRSCHI. T. (1969) Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Rar

KELLY, D. H. (1970) “Social class, school status, and self-evaluation as related to adolescent values, success, and deviance.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Oregon

--- and R. W. BALCH (1 971) “Social origins and school failure: a re-examina- tion of Cohen’s theory of workingclass delinquency.” (unpublished)

KELLY, D. H. and W. T. PINK (1971) “Academic failure, social involvement, and high school dropout” (unpublished)

KELLY, D. H. and R. W. WINSLOW (1970) ‘Seriousness of delinquent behavior: an alternative perspective.” British J. of Criminology 10 (April): 124-135.

POLK, K. (1969) “Clclass. strain and rebellion among adolescents.” Social Problems 17 (Fall): 214-224.

--- and D. S. HALFERTY (1966) “Adolescence, commitment, and delin- quency.” J. of Research in Crime and Delinquency 3 (July): 82-96.

RHODES, A. L. and A. J. REISS, Jr. (1969) “Apathy, truancy and delinquency as adaptations to school failure.’’ Social Forces 48 (September): 12-22.

SCHAFER. W. E. (1969) “Participation in interscholastic athletics and delin- quency: a preliminary study.” Social Roblems 17 (Summer): 4@47.

SELLIN, T. and M E. WOLFGANG (1964) The Measurement of Delinquency. Chicago: Quadrangle.

STINCHCOMBE, A. (1964) Rebellion in a High School. Chicago: Quadrangle. TOBY, J. (1957) ‘Social disorganization and stake in conformity: complemen-

tary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums.” J. of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police S c i 48 (May/June): 12-17.

ZEISEL, H. (1968) Say It With Figures New York: Harper & Row.