A Sensitivity Analysis of Egocentric Measures of Peer Delinquency to Latent Homophily: A Research Note
- 375 Downloads
Egocentric measures of peer delinquency, obtained through a census of a social network, have become the preferred operationalization for examining the relationships between social influence and delinquency. Studies regressing ego’s delinquency on the delinquency of nominated friend/s (i.e. alter/s) conclude that a statistically significant coefficient provides evidence of social influence. However, the inferences drawn from these studies may be biased by the introduction of artificial statistical dependence as a consequence of using social network data in a regression framework. Recent work (Shalizi and Thomas Sociol Methods Res 40:211–239, 2011) shows that latent homophily, or unmeasured confounding of observables, may lead to nonzero estimates of social influence, even if there is no causal significance. To examine this possibility, sensitivity analyses have been created (e.g. VanderWeele and Arah Epidemiology 22:42–52, 2011; VanderWeele Sociol Methods Res 40:240–255, 2011) to determine the robustness of an estimated coefficient to latent homophily.
In this research note, I examine the robustness of estimates for social influence from two articles (Haynie Am J Sociol 106:1013–1057, 2001; Meldrum et al. J Res Crime Delinq 46:353–376, 2009) using egocentric measures of peer delinquency.
Findings indicate that for large, precise point estimates, highly improbable conditions are needed to explain away the effects of social influence. However, less precise point estimates (i.e. large standard errors) are more sensitive to latent homophily.
The analyses indicate that studies using egocentric measures should conduct sensitivity tests, particularly when the estimated effect is weak and/or has a relatively large standard error. Scripts written in the free programming language R (R Core Team R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2012) are provided for researchers to conduct such analyses.
KeywordsEgocentric Sensitivity Peer influence Social networks
I would like to thank Ryan Meldrum, Brooks Louton, Carter Rees, and three anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
- Akers R (2009) Social learning and social structure: a general theory of crime and deviance. Northeastern University Press, LebanonGoogle Scholar
- Cohen AK (1955) Delinquent boys: the culture of the gang. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Elwert F, Winship C (2008) Endogenous selection bias. Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (unpublished manuscript)Google Scholar
- Glueck S, Glueck E (1950) Unraveling juvenile delinquency. CommonwealthGoogle Scholar
- Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
- McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27:415–444Google Scholar
- Paternoster R, McGloin JM, Nguyen H, Thomas KJ (2012) The causal impact of exposure to deviant peers: an experimental investigation. J Res Crime Delinq. doi: 10.1177/0022427812444274
- Pearl J (2000) Causality: models, reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Piquero NL, Gover AR, MacDonald JM, Piquero AR (2005) The influence of delinquent peers on delinquency: does gender matter? Youth Soc 36:251–275Google Scholar
- Pratt TC, Cullen FT (2000) The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: a meta-analysis. Criminology 38:931–964Google Scholar
- Rebellon CJ, Modecki KL (2013) Accounting for projection bias in models of delinquent peer influence: the utility and limits of latent variable approaches. J Quant Criminol. doi: 10.1007/s10940-013-9199-9
- Rosenthal R (1979) The ‘file drawer problem’ and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull 86:638–641Google Scholar
- Schaefer DR (2010) A configurational approach to homophily using lattice visualization. Connections 31:21–40Google Scholar
- Short JF Jr, Strodtbeck FL (1965) Group process and gang delinquency. University of Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Stigler SM (1999) Statistics on the table: the history of statistical concepts and methods. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Sutherland EH (1947) Principles of criminology, 4th edn. Lippincott, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- R Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org/
- Young JTN, Weerman FM (2013) Misperception of peer delinquency and its consequences: examining a mechanism of social influence and delinquency. Soc Probl 60(3):334–356Google Scholar
- Young JTN, Rebellon CJ, Barnes JC, Weerman FM (2013) Are we measuring what we think we are? A latent variable approach to the discriminant validity of personal and peer delinquency measures. Justice Q (in press)Google Scholar