the subculture of violence and delinquency: individual vs. school context effects

The Subculture of Violence and Delinquency: Individual vs. School Context EffectsAuthor(s): Richard B. Felson, Allen E. Liska, Scott J. South and Thomas L. McNultySource: Social Forces, Vol. 73, No. 1 (Sep., 1994), pp. 155-173Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2579921 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 20:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 20:06:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2579921?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Subculture of Violence and Delinquency: Individual vs. School Context Effects

RICHARD B. FELSON, State University of New York at Albany ALLEN E. LISKA, State University of New York at Albany SCOTT J. SOUTH, State University of New York at Albany THOMAS L. McNULTY, State University of New York at Albany

Abstract

This article examines the subculture of violence thesis using data on young males (N = 2,213) across 87 high schools. Aggregate analyses show that values reflecting a subculture of violence have substantial effects on the level of interpersonal violence among high school boys. Contextual analyses suggest that the school subculture of violence operates through a social control process. A contextual measure of school values regarding violence has a direct effect on interpersonal violence, controlling for individuals' commitment to these values. These results contradict the usual explanation of how the subculture of violence affects violent behavior. Further, evidence implying that values regarding violence predict other forms of delinquency suggests that the results may reflect a subculture of delinquency rather than a subculture of violence. Finally, young males are most likely to engage in delinquency when they go to schools where academics are valued, controlling for their own academic values.

-Perhaps the most widely cited explanation for group differences in interpersonal violence is the subculture of violence thesis (Wolfgang & Ferracuti 1967). According to this thesis, some groups are more violent than others because they have a distinctive set of values that either support or tolerate violence.' These values have been used to explain disproportionately high rates of violence in the southern U.S., among minorities, among males, and among the lower class (see Curtis 1975; Erlanger 1974; Gastil 1971; Hackney 1969; Messner 1988).

The subculture of violence has been studied at both the macro- and the microlevel. The macrolevel studies usually focus on the geographical distribution of the rate of violence. Most of this research, however, does not actually

* We wish to thank Steve Messner and Alan J. Lizottefor their comments on earlier drafts of this article. Direct correspondence to Richard Felson, Department of Sociology, 1400 Washington Avenuie, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY 12222.

i The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, September 1994, 73(1):155-73



156 / Social Forces 73:1, September 1994

measure a group's adherence to a subculture of violence. Instead, it assumes that regional differences that remain after controlling for structural variables reflect subcultural factors. Some of these studies find regional differences (Gastil 1971; Hackney 1969; Huff-Corzine, Corzine & Moore 1986; Messner 1983; Reed 1971), while others do not (Blau & Blau 1982; Loftin & Hill 1974; Parker & Smith 1979). Whatever the findings, previous research does not adequately test the subculture of violence thesis, since regional effects could be explained by some other unmeasured variables. To adequately test this thesis, we must explicitly measure the subculture of violence.

Research at the microlevel has addressed the value measurement issue by examining the relationships between values, violence, and social-demographic variables (Ball-Rokeach 1973; Doerner 1979; Erlanger 1974; Hartnagel 1980; Poland 1978; Rossi et al. 1974). According to the subculture of violence thesis, values should mediate the relationship between class, race, and region on the one hand, and violence on the other. These studies generally have not been supportive of the subculture of violence thesis. They tend to find either weak relationships between values and violence or between social-demographic factors and values. However, because these studies focus exclusively on individuals, they ignore the possibility that group norms are more important than personal values in producing violent behavior, a possibility that we explore in this study.

There are other potential limitations of prior research on the subculture of violence. The literature cited above only addresses the issue of whether subcultural values explain variation in violence across large social aggregates, such as classes and ethnic groups, or among large macro-units, such as geographical regions. It does not address the issue of whether the subculture of violence can explain differences in violence among actual groups. Indeed, violent subcultures may be more likely to develop in actual, particularly small, groups than in large social aggregates and units because the former generate more extensive interaction among members. Interpersonal interaction is likely to facilitate communication and social-influence processes. Application of the subculture of violence thesis to gang violence and violence among hockey players indicates its utility for understanding violence in small groups (Erlanger 1979; Horowitz & Schwartz 1974; Smith 1979).

The subculture of violence thesis may also be applicable to social units of intermediate size, such as neighborhoods and schools. There is a long tradition of studying the variation in crime and delinquency among urban neighborhoods (see, e.g., Bursik 1986; Simcha-Fagen & Schwartz 1986). There is also con- siderable interest in variation in violence and delinquency among schools (e.g., Gottfredson & Gottfredson 1985; National Institute of Education 1978). For example, Rutter and associates (1979) find substantial differences in delinquency across twelve British secondary schools. Schools with a high proportion of able students, with an ethos stressing academic values, and with firm but fair discipline tend to have low levels of delinquency. We are not aware of any studies, however, that examine variation in subcultures of violence or delinquency across schools



Subculture of Violence and Delinquency / 157

In this study we first examine the extent to which interpersonal violence among young males varies across high schools. Second, in aggregate analyses we examine the extent to which variation in subcultural values between schools explains variation in violence between schools. Third, in contextual analyses we examine the extent to which school context explains individual variance in violence. By studying young males we target the population most likely to engage in interpersonal violence. By studying school effects we focus on small social units that have definite boundaries and that have been associated with variation in violence and delinquency.

A major goal of this research is to examine the process by which the subculture of violence operates. Research on the subculture of violence focuses, either implicitly or explicitly, on socialization effects. In the socialization model, individuals are thought to internalize the values of their group and then behave accordingly. We study this process by examining individual values as mediators of the effects of school-level values on individual violence (see paths a and b in Figure 1).

The effects of a subculture of violence are not necessarily produced by socialization processes. An alternative process - referred to here as "social control" - suggests that individuals may be affected by a subculture of violence even though they have not internalized values that promote violence. In other words, group effects can operate independently of individuals' own values (see path c in Figure 1).2 Reed's (1972) well-known discussion of a southern subculture of violence suggests such an effect: Sometimes people are violent because they want to be and there is nothing to stop them. But sometimes people are violent, even when they don't want to be, because there will be penalties (disgrace is a very effective one) for not being violent. (147)

Self-presentation or impression management is an important aspect of a social control explanation. When a person has been attacked or wronged in some other way some audiences may expect an aggressive response. By retaliating the actor saves face or maintains "honor." The use of violence to maintain honor has been identified as a critical component of the subculture of violence (Reed 1972; Wolfgang & Ferracuti 1967). Further, both experimental and survey research demonstrate that audiences have strong effects on violent behavior (e.g., Felson 1978). Thus, it is instructive to distinguish between social control and socialization processes when explaining subcultural effects. We examine the role of social control by estimating the direct effect of school-level values on individual violence, controlling for individual values.

A final objective of this article is to examine the extent to which values that are usually associated with violence are also associated with other forms of delinquent behavior. If these values predict nonviolent delinquency as well as violent delinquency, then the subculture of violence may be part of a general subculture of delinquency. If, on the other hand, values regarding violence predict violent but not nonviolent behavior, then the treatment of the subculture of violence as a distinct and independent concept is justified.



Methods

Our analyses are based on the Youth in Transition data set, a multiwave panel study of high school boys (Bachman 1975). We use the first two waves of data in this analysis. The first-wave interviews were conducted with sophomores attending 87 randomly selected public high schools. The second wave was collected 18 months later at the end of the junior year. Of the 2,213 boys originally in the study, 1,886 (85.3%) participated in the second wave. The data were obtained from personal interviews and questionnaires administered to students and from questionnaires administered to school principals.

MEASUREMENT OF KEY VARIABLES

Because our analysis is performed at two levels, the individual- and the school- level, most of the variables are measured at both levels. The school-level variables, which are used in both aggregate analyses and contextual analyses, are the means of the individual-level variables.3 We recognize that these measures could also reflect neighborhood effects or school system effects, i.e., the effects of the junior high or middle schools that feed into these high schools. Studies of school and other contexts are often limited in that they measure a single context, and not other associated contexts.

The three dependent variables reflect several forms of violent and delinquent behavior. The interpersonal violence index is composed of eight items measuring the frequency with which a respondent reported that he "got into a serious fight with a student in school"; "got something by telling a person something bad would happen to him if you did not get what you wanted"; "hurt someone badly enough to need bandages or a doctor"; "hit a teacher"; "hit (his) father"; "hit (his) mother"; had "taken part in a fight where a bunch of (his) friends are against another bunch"; and "used a knife or gun or some other thing (like a club) to get something from a person" (Bachman 1975). The


FIGURE 1: Heuristic Model of Social Control (Path c) versus Socialization Processes (Paths a and b) in Explaining Violence and Delinquency

Individual Values

a b

School Values __________________________________ Individual Violence

c and Delinquency




five responses included "never"; "once"; "twice"; "three or four times"; and "five or more times."

The. theft and vandalism index is composed of nine items. Respondents were asked how often they had "taken something not belonging to you worth under $50"; "went onto someone's land or into some house or building when you weren't supposed to be there"; "set fire to someone else's property on purpose"; "damaged school property on purpose"; "taken something from a store without paying for it"; "taken a car that didn't belong to someone in your family without permission of the owner"; "taken an expensive part of a car without permission of the owner"; "taken something not belonging to you worth over $50"; and "taken an inexpensive part of a car without permission of the owner." The response categories again ranged from "never" to "five or more times."

The school delinquency index, tapping less serious delinquency in school, is composed of five items. Respondents were asked how often "do you come late to school"; "are you late to class"; "do you skip classes (when against the school rules)"; "do you cheat on tests"; and "do you copy someone else's assignments." The five possible responses to these items ranged from "never" to "almost always.

The key independent variable is a measure of each respondent's (and each school's) adherence to a subculture of violence. While there is some dispute over exactly what values are involved in a subculture of violence, the concept is generally defined in terms of values, attitudes or beliefs that either approve of or tolerate the use of aggression or violence (Corzine & Huff-Corzine 1989; Dixon & Lizotte 1987; Ellison & McCall 1989; Messner 1983; Wolfgang & Ferracuti 1967). For example, Luckenbill and Doyle (1989) describe cultural differences in taking offense for a negative outcome, protesting about that offense, and using force when the protest fails (see also Black 1983; Felson 1984). In this study, we use items that measure the respondent's approval of aggression as a legitimate expression of grievances and as an appropriate response to personal attack.

Respondents were presented a series of personal values and asked whether each was a "good thing for people to do": "turning the other cheek and forgiving others when they harm you"; replying to anger with gentleness"; "being kind to people even if they do things against one's own belief." The six possible responses were "very good," "good," "fairly good," "fairly bad," "bad," and "very bad." These items focus on the approval of nonaggressive responses to some type of provocation. The provocation for the first two items is an aggressive act (the target has harmed or expressed anger toward the respondent) while the provocation in the third item is some sort of wrongful act.4 Agreement with these statements suggests that respondents disapprove of aggressive responses to personal attacks and wrongdoing. The responses are arrayed such that disagreement with these values indicates a high score on the subculture of violence scale. Note that the attitude items focus on aggressive responses generally, not just physical aggression.




MEASUREMENT OF CONTROL VARIABLES

The last two decades have witnessed continued controversy over the effects of socioeconomic status and race on delinquency and violence (Braithwaite 1981; Hindelang, Gottfredson & Garofalo 1978; Tittle et al. 1979) and over the mediating role of subcultural values (e.g., Ball-Rokeach 1973; Erlanger 1974). Therefore, to provide unbiased estimates of the effects of school subcultures, both socioeconomic status and race should be controlled. Respondents' socioeconomic status is measured by a six-item index constructed by the original investigators (Bachman 1975). The six equally weighted items are: father's occupational status, according to the Duncan socioeconomic index; father's education; mother's education; number of possessions in the home out of a list of 19, including such items as a television, a dictionary, a set of encyclopedias, a camera, and a map or globe; number of books in the home; and number of persons per room in the home. Respondents' race is a dummy variable scored 0 for nonblacks and 1 for blacks. Slightly more than nine percent of the respondents are black.

Our analysis also includes several other independent variables that conventionally appear in models of youth violence and delinquency. Valuing high academic achievement signals both a tie to conventional institutions and significant opportunity costs to deviant behavior, and thus is expected to be inversely associated with violent and delinquent activities (Liska & Reed 1985). The academic values index is measured by four values: "studying constantly in order to become a well-educated person"; "working hard to achieve academic honors"; "striving to get the top grade-point average in the group"; and "studying hard to get good grades in schools." The six response categories range from "very good" to "very bad," with high scores indicating strong academic values. Because the individual items for this index are available, a measurement model is estimated in our analysis.

Family and neighborhood instability are also often used to explain delinquency and violence (Bursik 1986; Sampson 1987). Family stability is a dummy variable scored 1 if the respondent lives with both his mother and father and scored 0 otherwise. Residential stability is also measured as a dummy variable, scored 1 for respondents who have lived in their current city or town for six or more years, and scored 0 for respondents who have lived in their present locality for five or fewer years.5

The final two variables are characteristics of the school that have no counterparts at the individual level. Both are derived from questions asked of the school principals. School size is measured as the total enrollment in the school. Large schools might be expected to experience problems with social control, leading to delinquency. City size is a dummy variable scored 0 for schools in primarily rural areas, small towns, and suburbs, and scored 1 for schools in cities of over 50,000 population. Large cities have consistently been associated with higher rates of crime and delinquency and with subcultures of crime (e.g., Fischer, Baldassare & Ofshe 1975).6




ANALYSIS SIRATEGIES

A frequent criticism of longitudinal designs examining self-reported behavior is that behavior is measured over a time interval, while many of the causal variables are measured at a single point in time. This is true of the Youth in Transition data. Whereas values are measured at distinct points in time, the items measuring violence and delinquency refer to time intervals before the first-wave interviews and between the first- and second-wave interviews. Therefore, the researcher faces the dilemma of whether to measure the behavior before or after the causal variables are measured. Common sense might suggest measuring the later behavior (i.e., from the second-wave interview), since it is the dependent variable. Moreover, while the eleventh grade measures of delinquency refer to behavior during the preceding 18 months, the tenth grade behavioral data refer to delinquency in the prior three years. The respondent was not in high school for a portion of this time, and therefore would not be expected to be influenced by the high school context.7 However, there is also a problem with the data collected in the eleventh grade: selective sample attrition. The juveniles that drop out of school tend to be the most delinquent. On the interpersonal aggression index, for example, the mean for tenth graders is about 13% higher for students who are missing in the eleventh grade than for students who remain in school. The tendency for delinquents to drop out of school has been reported elsewhere (Jarjoura 1993; Thornberry, Moore & Christenson 1985). Thus, neither the tenth nor eleventh grade behavioral data are without problems.

Our strategy is to use measures of the causal variables from the first wave and to use measures of the three dependent variables from both waves, focusing on the variance common to both waves. That is, variance in the tenth grade measure can be partitioned into the variance contributed by acts that occurred either during or before entering high school. If we assume that the eleventh grade behavior correlates more with the former than the latter, then by focusing on the common tenth and eleventh grade variance we can isolate the unique variance contributed by the earlier acts and treat it as measurement error. (For most variables, the shorter the time interval between repeated measurements, the higher their covariance.) Thus, we treat the common or stable variance from the two waves as that portion of the total variance most likely to reflect the high school context; and we treat the unique variance from each wave as reflecting measurement error, which partly occurs because individuals may have committed some acts before entering high school.

Another reason for using both waves of behavioral data is that it allows us to correct for measurement error in the interpersonal violence and theft/ vandalism indices. Since the individual items comprising these indices are not available in the data set, it is impossible to use individual items to construct measurement models.8 Instead, we used the indices themselves - one constructed from the tenth grade interviews and one from the eleventh grade - to estimate a measurement model. Note that we are correcting for measurement error by using the same measures collected at different points in time - an approach analogous to test-retest reliability - rather than two measures




collected at the same point in time. The unobserved variables that result reflect the stable component of these behaviors for each individual.

Two different procedures were used to estimate the eleventh grade scores for the dropouts. First, we used the mean of the eleventh grade distribution; second, we used a linear function linking tenth and eleventh grade scores for those present for both measures.9 Both methods yield slightly biased estimates of the dropout's contribution to the common variance. Using the mean of the eleventh grade distribution probably underestimates their contribution to the covariance; using the linear function of tenth grade scores probably over- estimates it. In fact, both methods yield very similar estimates of the causal models.

As noted above, our analysis proceeds at two levels. First, we conduct an aggregate analysis with schools serving as the unit of analysis. The aggregate analysis is used to estimate the proportion of the interschool variation in violent and delinquent behavior that can be attributed to interschool variation in the subculture of violence.10 Then, a contextual analysis is performed to examine the effects of both an individual's own values regarding violence and his schoolmates' values. This contextual analysis elucidates the processes through which a group's values concerning violence influence individual behavior. If the subculture of violence operates primarily through a socialization process, then the school-level subculture of violence should not affect individual violence and delinquency, once an individual's own values toward violence is controlled. If, on the other hand, a group's values influence individual violence and delinquency through a social control mechanism, then the school-level subculture of violence should affect individual behavior independent of an individual's values concerning violence. All the models are estimated by maximum likelihood techniques, using LISREL.

Our method for assessing contextual effects of a school's culture of violence is the standard and most widely used regression approach (Blalock 1984; Boyd & Iverson 1979; Iverson 1991; for recent examples, see Miethe & McDowall 1993; Sampson 1988; Simcha-Fagan & Schwartz 1986; Smith & Jarjoura 1989). By explicitly modeling the impact of the school culture of violence, rather than overall differences among schools, we avoid the most serious pitfalls attributed to contextual analysis (Hauser 1970). Further, because students are rarely able to choose which high school they attend, using high schools as the relevant contexts effectively eliminates the possibility of self- selection (Blalock 1984). Recent advances in contextual analysis, variously referred to as multilevel (Mason, Wong & Entwisle 1983), hierarchical (Bryk & Raudenbush 1992), or random-effects (Iverson 1991) models, elaborate the conventional approach by treating the individual-level (or within-context) regression coefficients (including the intercept) as random, rather than fixed, and allowing the separate random components for the individual and contextual equations to interrelate in complex ways. Iverson (1991) notes, however, that robust individual and contextual effects will be observed regardless of whether the model assumes fixed or random coefficients, and that the improvement in substantive inference from using random-effects models is likely to be minimal. Thus, the standard approach to detecting contextual effects appears appropriate for our analysis.




Results

Before proceeding it is important to determine whether the school is a proper level of analysis for investigating contextual variation in violence. That is, violence and a subculture of violence can vary over many social levels, ranging from classrooms, schools, neighborhoods, cities, states, and countries; and individual violence may be explained by processes operating at each of these levels. A reasonably significant proportion of the total variance in violence should exist at the level of analysis chosen so that the causal variables under study are capable of operating at that level. For example, if schools do not account for a reasonably significant proportion of the total variation in violence, there will be nothing for school subcultures of violence to explain. It is unclear exactly what proportion of the total variance should occur between units in order to study variables at a particular level of analysis; however, contextual variables at any level rarely explain more than 5% to 10% of the total variance in any dependent variable (Liska 1990).

The standard procedure for partitioning the total variance between and within groups is analysis of variance, coding individuals by the group to which they belong. Coding our sample of students by the 87 schools they attend, an analysis of variance shows that a significant proportion of the total variance in the interpersonal violence index (7%), in the theft and vandalism index (7%), in the school delinquency index (11%), and in the subculture of violence (7%) occurs between schools." Given the typical size of contextual effects, these results suggest that schools are meaningful contexts for studying both violence and delinquency. Moreover, with the possible exception of age (Gottfredson & Hirschi 1990), even individual characteristics are rarely able to explain more than this proportion of variation in violence.

AGGREGATE-LEVEL ANALYSES

We begin by examining the extent to which a subculture of violence accounts for the between-school variance in violence and delinquency. This involves the estimation of structural and measurement models using aggregate data. The major problem in the analysis is the high negative relationship (r = -.72) between the latent constructs representing academic values and the subculture of violence. While we expect that schools with high levels of academic values to score low on the subculture of violence, the strong relationship suggests a collinearity problem in trying to estimate the independent effects of each. Collinearity is also suggested by the increase in the standard errors when the academic values variable is included in equations, and by the sign reversals between the betas and the simple correlations involving academic values.

We address the collinearity problem in three ways. First, we estimate a model in which academic values are excluded. Second, we estimate a model that includes academic values and that allows two of the error terms in the measurement model to correlate. We allow error terms to correlate that involve items that are supposedly measuring different constructs but are moderately correlated; such a pattern suggests measurement error. Two such correlations are substantially higher than the others.'2 Allowing these error terms to




correlate slightly decreases the correlation between the two latent constructs and significantly improves the fit of the model. Third, we estimate the full model (without the correlated error terms) using ridge regression, which provides more efficient, although somewhat biased, estimates. By progressively increasing the ridge constant over a range of values, we obtain estimates of the model parameters over a range of linear transformations of the variance-covariance matrix that balance efficiency and bias.

Standardized coefficients of the measurement model (allowing the above error terms to correlate), for both the aggregate and contextual analyses, are presented in Table 1. Only the coefficients for the interpersonal violence equations are presented since the coefficients for the theft/vandalism and school delinquency models are almost identical. The coefficients are fairly large, indicating reliable measurement.

The standardized coefficients for the school-level structural model are presented in Table 2 for each dependent variable. Equation 1 excludes academic values while equation 2 includes academic values and allows the two error terms to correlate. Because the ridge regression estimates are similar to those presented in the table, they are just noted in the text. By examining the three estimates we are able to draw conclusions about the effect of the subculture of violence in spite of some level of collinearity.

As shown in Table 2, when academic values are omitted from the model, the coefficients for the subculture of violence are strong, positive, and statistically significant. When academic values are controlled, the coefficients for the subculture of violence increase in the theft/vandalism equation, most likely because of collinearity, but the effects are similar in the school delinquency and interpersonal violence equations. On the other hand, none of the coefficients for academic values is statistically significant, and two are close to 0. This pattern is confirmed in the ridge regression over a range of ridge constants from .001 to 1.0. While the structural coefficients increase somewhat, the pattern of effects remains unchanged. Thus, our conclusion from three maximum likelihood estimates (including the ridge regression estimates) is that across schools the subculture of violence substantially affects various forms of delinquency.

There are a few other statistically significant effects at the school level. Results from the equations that control for academic values suggest that school delinquency and violence (but not theft/vandalism) tend to be higher in schools with a high percentage of blacks and students from families of low socioeconomic status. In addition, schools with a high percentage of high-status students have more theft/vandalism than other schools. The positive effect of socioeconomic status is consistent with evidence from a national victimization survey suggesting that students from families with higher incomes are more likely to be victims of property crimes at school (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1991). More generally, the association is consistent with the routine activity approach to crime (Cohen & Felson 1979) and implies that there are more items of value to steal in schools having high-status students.




TABLE 1: Standardized Measurement Models for Aggregate and Contextual Analyses

Aggregate Contextual Analysis Analysis Individual Contextual

Subculture of violence

Kind to everyone .658 .484 .673 Turns other cheek .689 .598 .660 Responds with gentleness .810 .709 .803

Academic values

Well educated .805 .615 .794 Academic honors .816 .753 .851 Top grade-point average .853 .747 .867 Good grades .904 .786 .904

Aggregate Contextual Analysis Analysis

Interpersonal violence

Ti .535 .747 T2 .948 .642

7hefit/vandalism

Ti 1.016 .987 T2 .444 .513

Rule breaking

Ti .928 .840 T2 .819 .646

CONTEXIUAL ANALYSES

The contextual analyses are presented in Table 3. Possible collinearity between contextual measures of the subculture of violence and academic values again lead us to estimate equations with and without academic values and to estimate equations using ridge regression. For all three estimates, the subculture of violence has positive and statistically significant contextual effects on all three forms of delinquency. The exact strength of these effects remains unclear, however. Because the estimate of the correlation between subculture of violence and academic values at the contextual level is high (r = -.69), controlling for the effect of academic values may inflate estimates of the effects of the subculture of violence. On the other hand, the effects of the subculture of violence may be deflated if academic values are not controlled.




TABLE 2: Aggregate Analyses of Determinants of Violence and Other Forms of Delinquencya

Endogenous Variables

Interpersonal Theft/ School Violence Vandalism Delinquency

1 2 1 2 1 2 Exogenous variables

Subculture of violence .43* .49* .66* .96* .69* .71* Academic values .01 .34 -.01 City size -.13 -.12 -.16 -.19 -.20 -.19* Percent black .52* .53* -.07 -.08 .28* .27* Residential stability .11 .09 .21* .19 .18 .13 Family stability -.03 -.04 .02 .06 -.01 -.05 Socioeconomic status -.20* -.20* .39* .33* -.27* -.25* School size -.08 -.08 -.17 -.22 -.02 .00

Goodness of fit index .91 .89 .92 .89 .95 .90 R2 .62 .66 .51 .54 .64 .69

N 87 87 87 87 87 87

a Standardized coefficients * p < .05

Estimates of the individual-level effects of the subculture of violence also depend upon whether academic values are controlled. When academic values are omitted from the equation, the individual-level measure of the subculture of violence has significant positive effects for all three dependent measures. When academic values are included, however, the effect disappears for theft/ vandalism and becomes negative for school delinquency. The sign reversal plus the inflated effect of academic values suggests a collinearity problem in the school delinquency equation. In the other two equations, there is less evidence of collinearity. While the estimate of the correlation between subculture of violence and academic values at the individual level is large (r = -.66), the standard errors for the subculture measure are only slightly larger when academic values are included (.07 vs. .03).13 Our tentative conclusion is that at the individual level, the academic values variable affects all three forms of delinquency but the subculture of violence affects only interpersonal violence.

The analysis in Table 3 also shows that an individual's academic values have strong negative effects on delinquency. Students for whom academics are important are less likely to engage in delinquency. At the contextual level, on the other hand, the effects of academic values are all positive and two of the effects are statistically significant. These results suggest that a student is more




TABLE 3 Contextual Analyses of Determinants of Violence and Other Forms of Delinquencya

Endogenous Variables

Interpersonal Theft/ School Violence Vandalism Delinquency

Exogenous variables 1 2 1 2 1 2

Individual level

Subculture of violence .29* .13* .16* .01 .24* -.15* Academic values -.24* -.25* -.53* Socioeconomic status -.05 -.02 .03 .06* -.12* -.07* Race -.04 -.03 -.10* -.08* .03 .06 Family stability -.02 -.02 -.02 -.02 -.02 -.01 Residential stability -.02 -.02 -.02 -.03 .05* .03

Contextual level

Culture of violence .11* .18* .09* .26* .11* .38* Academic values .08 .18* .27* School size -.05 -.06 -.02 -.04 .01 -.03 Percent black .16* .14* .06 .07 .06 .03 Family stability -.00 .00 -.01 .01 -.03 .00 Residential stability .02 .02 .00 .01 .01 .02 Socioeconomic status -.01 -.02 .07* .04 -.02 -.06* City size .02 .02 -.02 -.04 -.04 -.06

Goodness of fit index .97 .94 .97 .94 .97 .94 R2 .15 .18 .06 .10 .13 .26

N 1,985 1,985 1,986 1,986 1,990 1,990

a Standardized coefficients * p < .05

likely to engage in delinquency when his schoolmates are academically oriented, controlling for his own academic orientation. These unpredicted effects are discussed further below.

There are a few other small, but statistically significant, effects scattered throughout the table. Contextual effects from equation 2 show that individuals engage in higher levels of violence if there is a high percentage of blacks in their school, and they are more likely to be delinquent when there is a high percentage of low-status students. As in the aggregate analysis, there are some unexpected findings for theft and vandalism. Students who are white or from




higher-status families commit more theft and vandalism than black students or students from lower-status families. Because the coefficients are small and there is no consistent pattern we do not draw any conclusions from them.'4

Discussion

This research shows that individual values regarding violence vary significantly among high schools. More specifically, in some schools an aggressive response to a provocation is likely to meet with more peer approval than in other schools. These subcultural values are associated with various forms of delinquency in both aggregate and contextual analyses.

Contextual analyses suggest the process underlying the aggregate effects. The contextual effects of the subculture of violence, whereby a boy's violence and delinquency are related to the values prevalent in his school, independent of his own values, are observed consistently in all analyses. When group-level values predict behavior, independent of individual-level values, it suggests the operation of a social control process. Delinquency involves public compliance and impression management, rather than private acceptance or internalization of one's schoolmates' values (Felson 1978; Kelman 1958).

This study suggests that subcultural differences in values are likely to be found for real groups that are small and involve social interaction between members. Aggregates based on race or class, and regions, may not provide the necessary conditions for such a subculture to develop. Indeed, the survey research literature suggests that violence and delinquency are not valued by blacks more than whites, by southerners more than non-southerners, or by the poor more than the rich (e.g., Ball-Rokeach 1973; Erlanger 1974; Erlanger & Winsborough 1976).

This research suggests another limitation to the subculture of violence thesis. To a large extent, the effects of the subculture of violence appear to reflect the more general effects of a subculture of delinquency. This point is supported by the fact that values regarding violence generally predict other forms of delinquency as well as they predict violence.'5 Previous research on the subculture of violence does not concern itself with this issue since it never examines other forms of delinquent behavior.

We suspect that subcultures of delinquency and violence usually involve the same groups. This argument is consistent with an emerging body of evidence suggesting that delinquents and other criminal offenders are versatile, rarely specializing in one type of offense (see Gottfredson & Hirschi 1990). In addition, research suggests that delinquent groups hold values that are likely to relate to violence as well as other forms of delinquency, e.g., toughness, excitement, fate, and risk-taking (Miller 1958; Sykes & Matza 1961). These and oLher delinquent values tend to cluster.

The findings regarding academic values provide further support for broadening the notion of a subculture of violence to include a subculture of delinquency. Academic values are strongly correlated in a negative direction with values regarding violence at the aggregate level. Further, students who value academics are less likely to engage in each type of delinquency. These results suggest that groups that favor delinquent values (including revenge) are




likely to be the same groups that reject conventional values (including academic achievement).

We recognize that there may be other values or beliefs associated with the subculture of violence, not measured here, that affect violence but not delinquency. The legitimation of violence is a complex process that depends on a variety of situational factors that are difficult to measure. For example, there may be variation across groups in what constitutes a provocation, how grievances are handled, the level of punitiveness, or the appropriateness of physical violence versus verbal aggression (cf. Luckenbill & Doyle 1989). These complexities have never been examined in the survey literature on the subculture of violence.

The positive effect of schoolmates' academic values on delinquency at the contextual level was not predicted. Apparently, students are more likely to engage in delinquency when their schoolmates are academically oriented, controlling for their own academic orientation. This effect is consistent with the literature on contextual effects which often shows opposite effects for individual and contextual variables. For example, there is consistent evidence that the test scores of schoolmates have negative effects on the educational aspirations and self-appraisals of academic performance of high school students (e.g., Alexander & Eckland 1975; Felson & Reed 1986; Meyer 1970). Negative coefficients for contextual effects are usually interpreted in terms of a comparison process in which students judge themselves relative to their schoolmates. Students are likely to "suffer by comparison" when their schoolmates are successful; thus their self-evaluations are likely to be more negative.

In the present study, the competitive climate in schools in which academic values are important may lead some students to turn to delinquency. The finding is consistent with strain theory, which suggests that young men may turn to deviant or criminal activities when it is relatively difficult for them to achieve conventional success (Merton 1957). A normative climate valuing academics may decrease delinquency to the extent that students internalize these norms; it may also be a source of frustration that increases delinquency. Students in a competitive academic environment are likely to experience more pressure as well as greater difficulty achieving success. In a competitive academic climate they are likely to suffer by comparison. Delinquent behavior may be a rational choice or "innovation" for students who find school frustrat- ing or difficult.'6 When students experience pressure or find it difficult to succeed, their commitment to school and other conventional activities may decline (Hirschi 1969).

In analyses not presented we examined whether there is a statistical interaction between academic values at the individual and contextual levels on the three forms of delinquency. None were observed. Note that strain theory is consistent with either a multiplicative or an additive model. It may be that a young man only experiences more strain in an academically oriented high school if he is not academically oriented. It is also possible that there is more pressure on students in academically oriented high schools no matter what their own orientation.

In sum, there is evidence that values regarding violence explain a substantial proportion of the variation in the level of violence and delinquency across




schools. In part, these values reflect subcultures of violence that are strongly associated with subcultures of delinquency. Our central finding is that their impact is at least partly the result of a social control process. If boys are expected to retaliate when provoked, it appears that they are more likely to engage in violence and other delinquent behavior, no matter what their personal values may be.

Notes

1. Following Ball-Rokeach (1973) we focus on values rather than attitudes or beliefs. 2. Short and Strodtbeck (1965) found that lower-class delinquents endorse middle-class values in private but not in front of their peers. 3. Of course, for dichotomous variables, these means are the proportions of respondents in the school having the attribute in question. 4. The first two items focus on what Dixon and Lizotte (1987) refer to as defensive attitudes. Following Ellison and McCall (1989) and Corzine and Huff-Corzine (1989), we think such values adequately reflect the subculture of violence thesis. 5. At the school level, the means of these two variables are multiplied by 100 to estimate the percentages of students who are living with both parents and who have been residing in their current location for at least six years. 6. Since information on the region in which the student lived is only available on the third wave of this data set, its inclusion would have resulted in a substantial attrition of the sample. However, we did examine the effect of region on the interpersonal violence index and the theft/vandalism index in separate analyses of the third wave of data. Boys from southern states were compared with boys from nonsouthern states using an analysis of variance. Region explained .26% of the variance in interpersonal violence and less than .1% of the variance in theft/vandalism. The effect on violence is statistically significant (p= .03) - due to the large sample size - but it is too small to affect our results. 7. This problem may be obviated by the tendency of respondents to remember events that have occurred more recently. 8. Individual items were not made available so as to ensure confidentiality for these illegal acts. 9. It was also necessary to use these techniques to estimate missing data for respondents in two of the 87 schools. Respondents in these schools were not asked the questions used to construct the interpersonal violence and theft/vandalism indices in the first wave of interviews, although they were asked these questions in the second wave. 10. One potentially problematic feature of the aggregate analyses is that the unequal sample sizes across schools might cause the error terms to be heteroskedastic. The number of students sampled in each school ranges from 10 to 41, with a mean of 25.4 and a standard deviation of 6.7. Following conventional procedures, we reestimated the equations using weighted least squares, with the square root of the school sample size as the weight (Hanushek & Jackson 1977:149-55). The results of these additional analyses were virtually identical to those reported in the text. 11. For these analyses scores on the behavioral indices from each wave were added together. 12. The highest correlations were observed between one item measuring academic values ("striving to get the top grade-point average [GPA]") and two items measuring the subculture of violence ("being kind to everyone" and "replying to anger with gentleness"). 13. These estimates were virtually identical for all three equations. 14. In additional analyses not reported here we examined whether there were statistical interactions between the mean subculture of violence and individual values regarding violence. None were found. We also examined whether the variance in values regarding violence within a school interacted with individual values or had a main effect on any of the delinquency measures; it did not.




15. An alternative explanation of this effect is that some nonviolent forms of delinquency reflect the desire to punish someone with whom one has a grievance (Black 1983). This explanation has been used to explain some incidents of theft and vandalism between people who know each other. Such an interpretation has difficulty explaining why the subculture of violence affects school delinquency since it is unlikely that skipping school, cheating, and other misbehavior in school reflects grievances. 16. According to Agnew's version of strain theory (e.g., Agnew & White 1992) any type of aversive experience leads to a greater likelihood of delinquency.

References

Agnew, Robert, and Helene R. White. 1992. "An Empirical Test of General Strain Theory." Criminology 30:475-99.

Alexander, Karl L., and Bruce K. Eckland. 1975. "Contextual Effects in the High School Attainment Process." American Sociological Review 40:402-16.

Bachman, Jerald G. 1975. Youth in Transition: Documentation Manuial. Inter-University Consor- tium for Political and Social Research.

Ball-Rokeach, Sandra J. 1973. "Values and Violence: A Test of the Subculture of Violence Thesis." American Sociological Review 38:73649.

Black, Donald. 1983. "Crime as Social Control." American Sociological Review 48:3445.

Blalock, Hubert M. 1984. "Contextual-Effects Models: Theoretical and Methodological Issues." Annual Review of Sociology 10:353-72.

Blau, Peter, and Judith Blau. 1982. "The Cost of Inequality: Metropolitan Structure and Violent Crime." American Sociological Review 47:114-29.

Boyd, Lawrence H., and Gudmund R. Iverson. 1979. Contextual Analysis: Concepts and Statistical

Techlniques. Wadsworth.

Braithwaite, John. 1981. "The Myth of Social Class and Criminality Reconsidered." American Sociological Review 46:36-57.

Bryk, Anthony S., and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 1992. Hierarchlical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methlods. Sage.

Bursik, Robert J., Jr. 1986. "Ecological Stability and the Dynamics of Delinquency." Pp. 35-66 in Communities and Crime, edited by Albert J. Reiss, Jr. and Michael Tonry. University of Chicago Press.

Cohen, Lawrence E., and Marcus Felson. 1979. "Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach." American Sociological Review 44:588-608.

Corzine, Jay, and Lin Huff-Corzine. 1989. "On Cultural Explanations of Southern Homicide." American Journal of Sociology 95:178-82.

Curtis, Lynn A. 1975. Violence, Race and Culture. Heath.

Dixon, Jo, and Alan J. Lizotte. 1987. "Gun Ownership and the Southern Subculture of Violence." American Journal of Sociology 93:383-405.

Doemer, William G. 1979. "The Index of Southernness Revisited: The Influence of Wherefrom upon Whodunnit." Criminology 16:47-65.

Ellison, Christopher G., and Patricia L. McCall. 1989. "Region and Violent Attitudes Recon- sidered." American Journal of Sociology 95:174-78.

Erlanger, Howard S. 1974. "The Empirical Status of the Subculture of Violence Thesis." Social Problems 22:280-91.

. 1979. "Estrangement, Machismo, and Gang Violence." Social Science Quarterly 60:235-48.

Erlanger, Howard S., and Halliman H. Winsborough. 1976. "The Subculture of Violence Thesis: An Example of a Simultaneous Equation Model in Sociology." Sociological Methlods and Research 5:231-46.




Felson, Richard B. 1978. "Aggression as Impression Management." Social Psyclology 41:205-13. . 1984. "Patterns of Aggressive Social Interaction." Pp. 107-26 in Social Psyclology of Aggression: From Individual Behlavior to Social Interaction, edited by Amelie Mummendey. Springer-Verlag.

Felson, Richard B., and Mark D. Reed. 1986. "Reference Groups and Self-Appraisal of Academic Ability and Performance." Social Psyclology Quarterly 49:103-109.

Fischer, Claude S., Mark Baldassare, and Richard J. Ofshe. 1975. "Crowding Studies and Urban Life." Journal of the American Institute of Planners 41:406-18.

Gastil, Raymond D. 1971. "Homicide and a Regional Subculture of Violence." American Sociological Review 36:412-27.

Gottfredson, Gary D., and Denise C. Gottfredson. 1985. Victimization in Schools. Plenum Press. Gottfredson, Michael, and Travis Hirschi. 1990. A General 7Theory of Crime. Stanford University

Press.

Hackney, Sheldon. 1969. "Southern Violence." American Historical Review 74:906-25.

Hanushek, Eric A., and John E. Jackson. 1977. Statistical Methlods for Social Scientists. Academic Press.

Hartnagel, Timothy F. 1980. "Subculture of Violence: Further Evidence." Pacific Sociological Review 23:21742.

Hauser, Robert. 1970. "Context and Consex: A Cautionary Tale." A?nerican Journal of Sociology 75:645-64.

Hindelang, Michael J., Michael R. Gottfredson, and James Garofalo. 1978. Victims of Personal Crime: An Enmpirical Founidation for a 77Teory of Personal Victimization. Ballinger.

Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Cauises of Delinquency. University of California Press. Horowitz, Ruth, and Gary Schwartz. 1974. "Honor, Normative Ambiguity and Gang Violence."

American Sociological Reviezo 39:238-51.

Huff-Corzine, Lin, Jay Corzine, and David C. Moore. 1986. "Southern Exposure: Deciphering the South's Influence on Homicide Rates." Social Forces 64:906-24.

Iverson, Gudmund R. 1991. Conitextual Analysis. Sage.

Jarjoura, G. Roger. 1993. "Does Dropping Out of School Enhance Delinquent Involvement? Results from a Large Scale National Probability Sample." Criminology 31:149-73.

Kelman, Herbert. 1958. "Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change." Journal of Conflict Resolution 2:51-60.

Liska, Allen E. 1990. "The Significance of Aggregate Dependent Variables and Contextual Independent Variables for Linking Macro and Micro Theories." Social Psyclology Quarterly 53:292-301.

Liska, Allen E., and Mark D. Reed. 1985. "Ties to Conventional Institutions and Delinquency: Estimating Reciprocal Effects." American Sociological Review 50:547-60.

Loftin, Colin, and Robert Hill. 1974. "Regional Subculture and Homicide Rates." American Sociological Review 39:714-24.

Luckenbill, David F., and Daniel P. Doyle. 1989. "Structural Position and Violence: Developing a Cultural Explanation." Criminology 27:801-18.

Mason, William M., George Y. Wong, and Barbara Entwisle. 1983. "Contextual Analysis through the Multilevel Linear Model." Pp. 72-103 in Sociological Methlodology 1983-1984, edited by Samuel E. Leinhardt. Jossey-Bass.

Merton 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure. Free Press.

Messner, Steven F. 1983. "Regional and Racial Effects on the Urban Homicide Rate: The Subculture of Violence Revisited." American Journal of Sociology 88:997-1007. .1988. "Research on Cultural and Socioeconomic Factors in Criminal Violence." Psycliatric Clinics of Northt America 11:511-25.




Meyer, John W. 1970. "High School Effects on College Intentions." American Journal of Sociology." 76:59-70.

Miethe, Terance D., and David McDowall. 1993. "Contextual Effects in Models of Criminal Victimization." Social Forces 71:741-59.

Miller, Walter B. 1958. "Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency." Journal of Social Issues 14:5-19.

National Institute of Education. 1978. Violent Schools, Safe Schools: The Safe School Study Report to Congress. Government Printing Office.

Parker, Robert N., and M. Dwayne Smith. 1979. "Deterrence, Poverty, and Type of Homicide." American Journal of Sociology 85:614-24.

Poland, James M. 1978. "Subculture of Violence: Youth Offender Value Systems." Criminal Justice and Behavior 5:159-64.

Reed, John S. 1971. "To Live-and Die-in Dixie: A Contribution to the Study of Southern Violence." Political Science Quarterly 86:429-43.

1972. The Enduring South: Subcultural Persistence in Aass Society. Lexington Books. Rossi, Peter H., Emily Waite, Christine E. Bose, and Richard E. Berk. 1974. "Seriousness of

Crimes: Normative Structure and Individual Differences." American Sociological Review 39:224-37.

Rutter, Michael, Barbara Maughan, Peter Mortimore, and Janet Ouston. 1979. Fifteen 7Thousand Hours: Secondary Sclools and Their Effects on Children. Harvard University Press.

Sampson, Robert J. 1987. "Urban Black Violence: The Effect of Male Joblessness and Family Disruption." American Journal of Sociology 93:348-82. . 1988. "Local Friendship Ties and Community Attachment in Mass Society: A Multilevel Systemic Model." American Sociological Review 53:766-79.

Short, James F., and Fred L. Strodtbeck 1965. Group Processes and Gang Delinquency. University of Chicago Press.

Simcha-Fagen, Ora, and Joseph E. Schwartz. 1986. "Neighborhood and Delinquency: An Assessment of Contextual Effects." Criminology 24:667-703.

Smith, Douglas A., and G. Roger Jarjoura. 1989. "Household Characteristics, Neighborhood Composition and Victimization Risk." Social Forces 68:62140.

Smith, Michael D. 1979. "Hockey Violence: A Test of the Violent Subculture Hypothesis." Social Problems 27:235-46.

Sykes, Gresham M., and David Matza. 1961. "Juvenile Delinquency and Subterranean Values." American Sociological Review 26:712-19.

Thomberry, Terence P., Melanie Moore, and R.I. Christenson. 1985. "The Effect of Dropping Out of High School on Subsequent Criminal Behavior." Criminology 23:3-18.

Tittle, Charles R., Wayne J. Villemez, and Douglas A. Smith. 1979. "The Myth of Social Class and Criminality: An Empirical Assessment of the Empirical Evidence." American Sociological Review 43:643-56.

U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1991. School Crime: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report. U.S. Department of Justice.

Wolfgang, Marvin E., and Franco Ferracuti. 1967. The Subculture of Violence. Tavistock.



the subculture of violence and delinquency: individual vs. school context effects

Documents