Summary of Pauwels & Hardyns' "conditions-controls-exposure model" of problematic Youth Group Involvement

1. Problematic Youth Group Involvement
as Situated Choice
Lieven Pauwels & Wim Hardyns
VAKGROEP CRIMINOLOGIE, STRAFRECHT EN SOCIAAL RECHT
ONDERZOEKSGROEP IRCP

2. INTRODUCTION
Empirical
research
Policy
Theory
2

3. chapter 1 introduction
• Understanding individual differences in
problematic youth group involvement
– In young adolescence (imprtant period from
lifecourse developmental point of view)
• Role of context of development:
– MICRO-PLACE CONTEXT OF DISORDER
– Role of SUBJECTIVE ALIENATION / external locus
of control
• Key argument: PYG as SITUATED CHOICE
3

4. Chapter 2 Overview risk factors
Risk factor domain Risk factor Theoretical perspective(s)
Neighborhood (ecological risk factors) Disadvantage, street crime,
disorganization, residential stability,
immigrant concentration
Social disorganization theory, collective
efficacy theory, broken windows theory
Micro-place ecological risk factors Perceived social trust, perceived informal
control, observed unsupervised youth
groups, observed disorder
Social disorganization theory, collective
efficacy theory, broken windows theory
Social support and social control
promotive factors
Parental attachment, school social bond,
classroom integration, parental monitoring
Social Control Theory, Social Support
Theory
Cognitions and dispositions Legal cynicism (normlessness), low self-
control, subjective powerlessness (lack of
personal control, external locus of control)
Social learning theory, social bonding
theory, self-control theory, routine
activities theory
Lifestyle domain risk factors Peer delinquency, problematic youth
group involvement, unstructured routines,
substance use (being drunk and cannabis
use)
Lifestyle theories, routine activities
theories
Demographic and structural/positional
risk factors
Redo a school year (academic failure),
family disadvantage, family disruption
(one-parent family), immigrant
background, gender, school failure
These factors are considered to be
attributes, but in some sociological
perspectives (especially strain theories),
they play an indirect role
4

5. Chapter 3 Origins of the integrative
theory of PYG
• Social disorganization: Social Disorganization Theory
(Shaw & McKay, Thrasher)
• Collective efficacy: Collective Efficacy Theory (Sampson)
• Locus of control: Subjective alienation theory – locus of
control theory (Mirowsky & Ross)
• Social integration: Social Bonding Theory (Hirschi /
Reckless)
• Ability to exercise self-control: Self-control Theory
(reformulation Wikström)
• Unstructured routines: Lifestyle Exposure Theory
(Osgood)
• Interaction propensity * exposure to criminogenic settings
SAT (PEA-model –Wikström)
5

6. Chapter 4 Meta-theoretical
framework
• Why do we need meta-theretical
frameworks?
• Meta-theory = theorizing about theory
• BLUEPRINT for the development of “good
enough” theories
6

7. Ch 4 Meta-theoretical framework
• Scientific realist approach (zie ook handboek)
• Analytical criminology
– Explanation
– Dissection and abstraction
– Precision and clarity
– Complex parsimony
– Action, its causes & the causes of the causes
• Emergentist systemism individuals + context
7

8. ES as a metatheoretical framework
• ES is centered in the following postulates:
• (1) Everything, whether concrete or abstract, is a system
or an actual or potential component of a system:
individuals are biosocial systems
• (2) Systems have systemic (emergent) features that their
components lack.
• (3) All problems should be approached in a systemic
rather than in a sectoral fashion.
• (4) All ideas should be put together into systems
(theories);
• (5) The testing of anything, whether idea or artifact,
assumes the validity of other items, which are taken as
benchmarks, at least for the time being.
8

9. Micro- place social conditions and
Mechanisms of control and
cultural transmission
Area
gang
activities
Person Joining violent youth group
Contextual effect
Individual level
mechanism
Transformational
Mechanisms
Social
Emergence
Social
Interactions
Individual
Emergence
Historical/developmental processes
Contemporaneous processes
9

10. Chapter 5
CCE-Theory as integrative framework
• “Semi-general theory”
• Context of development: indirect role of micro-place context
(cumulative effect of low integration, low control, lots of disorder)
• Effect of micro-place on locus of control & social integration
• Social integration and mmicro-place context of disorder: strong
effect on locus of control
• Locus of control affects other control mechanisms:
– Moral beliefs
– Ability to exercise self-control
• Moral beliefs + ability to exercise self-control: selection effect on
lifestyles (choosing beinig exposed)
• Criminogenic exposure / lifestyles: situational trigger on context
of action
10

11. Chapter 6 A multi-method approach
in Antwerp
• Data:
– Antwerp Young
Adolescent Survey (grade
7-8; aged 13-15 year)
– Conducted 2005
– N: 2486 in 42
neighbourhoods in 23
schools
– Response rate: 93% (in
participating schools)
– School level participation;
1/3 Antwerp schools
11

12. A multi-method approach in Antwerp
• Antwerp Youth Survey
• Community Expert Survey
• Administrative (census) data
12

13. Chapter 6 a multi-method approach
in Antwerp
13
De relatieve stabiliteit
van armoede

14. Chapter 6 a multi-method approach
in Antwerp
14
De relatieve stabiliteit
van armoede

15. Chapter 6 a multi-method approach
in Antwerp
15
De relatieve stabiliteit
van overlast

16. Chapter 6 a multi-method approach
in Antwerp
16

17. 17
Problematic youth group involvement definers Answer
categories
Do you consider yourself to be a member of a
group of friends (no organisation or
association) that frequently meets and
considers itself as a group?
Yes
No
(1) Does your group quarrel with other young
people?
(2) Do members of your group need to be
prepared to do exciting and dangerous things?
(3) Does your group act and does not talk if the
image of the group is in danger?
(4) Does your group have fights with juveniles
from other areas than your area?
(5) Is the group engaged in illegal behaviour?
Never/
Sometimes/
often/very
often

18. Chapter 7 crime patterns
18

19. Chapter 7 crime patterns
19
GANG-TO-NON GANG ODDS-
RATIOS

20. 20
Total sample Males Females Belgian Non-Belgian
Vandalism 13.77 9.99 20.43 26.17 10.01
Graffiti 6.19 5.13 8.87 10.71 4.88
Buying stolen
goods
7.98 6.86 7.45 11.32 6.10
Shoplifting 5.00 4.27 5.05 10.47 4.37
Theft of goods >
25$
10.15 9.33 8.02 20.91 6.98
Mobbing 7.79 6.29 9.23 10.18 6.33
Hitting on purpose 3.66 2.81 4.51 3.67 3.41
Fighting in public 7.36 6.04 8.39 14.94 4.88
Being drunk 4.26 3.15 7.06 8.37 4.09
Cannabis use 9.65 8.91 9.40 16.55 7.33
Burglary 10.46 9.58 6.03 22.17 7.22

21. Chapter 8 Family social position and
PYG
21

22. 22
Binnen de gangs
verdwijnen verschillen
in criminaliteit
• tussen jongens en
meisjes
• tussen Belgen en
niet-Belgen
• DIT WIJST OP
GROEPSPROCESSEN
• STATUS
• RESPECT & MACHT
in de hiërarchie

23. Chapter 8 Family social position and
PYG
Immigration status
Total
Native
Belgians
First
Generation
immigrants
Second
Generation
immigrants
NO PYG 95.1 % (1041) 87.6 % (333) 90.2 % (893) 92.0 % (2267)
PYG 4.9 % (54) 12.4 % (47) 9.8 % (97) 8.0 % (198)
Total 100.0% (1095) 100.0% (380) 100.0% (990) 100.0% (2465)
PYG-involvement by immigrant status
Chi square = 28.10 df 2 p = 0.000
23

24. Chapter 8 Family social position and
PYG
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Being male 0.77 0.16 23.62 1 .00 2.17
Split family 0.23 0.20 1.29 1 .25 1.26
Disadvantage 0.24 0.23 1.08 1 .29 1.27
School failure 0.50 0.15 10.38 1 .00 1.65
Immigrant background 0.63 0.17 13.63 1 .00 1.89
Logistic regression of TYG-involvement on background variables
Nagelkerke pseudo R Square: 0.06
Per cent correct predictions VYG: 0.0%
Per cent overall correct predictions: 92.1%
24

25. Chapter 9 community context
25
Zie ook
Thrasher
Shaw en Mc Kay
Sampson
Bursik & Grasmick

26. Chapter 9 community context
26

27. Chapter 9 community context
27
Social disorganization as common cause? Analyse op BUURTNIVEAU

28. Chapter 9 community context
Model 1
OR
Model
OR
Model 3
OR
Model 4
OR
Neighbourhood
cluster
disadvantage
1.22*** 1.21** 1.04 0.94
Street segment
cohesion
0.762** 0.81* 0.86
Street segment
unsupervised
youth
2.73*** 1.94***
Street segment
crime and
disorder
1.94***
Nagelkerke R
square
0.008 0.015 0.146 0.185
Logistic regression of VYG on neighbourhood cluster disadvantage and street-level social processes
Is dit niet opvallend:
de kenmerken uit de desorganisatietheorie hebben sterkere effceten
alswe ze bestuderen op micro-plaatsniveau???
28

29. Chapter 9 community context
Model 1
OR
Model
OR
Neigbourhood objective
cumulative risk (crime and
social processes)
1.22*** 1.02
Street segment cumulative risk
(crime and social process)
2.29***
Nagelkerke R square 0.008 0.185
Logistic regression of VYG on neighbourhood objective and street level cumulative risk
29

30. Chapter 10 individual characteristics
30Cumulatief effect van sociale bindingen sterker dan van elke factor apart

31. Chapter 10 individual characteristics
External locus of control
OverallVery low Low High
Very high
NO PYG 97.7 %
(470)
95.6%
(736)
90.4 %
(689)
80.7 %
(305)
92.0 %
(2200)
PYG 2.3 % (11) 4.4 % (34) 9.6 % (73) 19.3 %
(73)
8.0 %
(191)
Total 100.0 %
(481)
100.0 %
(770)
100.0 %
(762)
100.0 %
(378)
100.0 %
(2391)
PYG-involvement and external locus of control
31

32. Chapter 10 individual characteristics
low moral beliefs Overall
High moral
beliefs Medium
Low moral
beliefs
NO PYG 99.1 % (668) 95.6%
(1158)
75.8 % (430) 92.0 %
(2256)
PYG 0.9 % (6) 4.4 % (53) 24.2 % (137) 8.0 % (196)
Total 100.0%
(674)
100.0%
(1211)
100.0%
(567)
100.0%
(2452)
PYG-involvement by low moral beliefs
Chi Square = 269.32, df = 2, p < 0.000
32

33. Chapter 10 individual characteristics
Ability to exercise self-control Total
High Medium Low
NO PYG 99.1 %
(667)
93.1%
(1102)
79.8 %
(407)
91.9 %
(2176)
PYG 0.9 % (6) 6.9 % (82) 20.2 %
(103)
8.1 % (191)
Total 100.0%
(673)
100.0%
(1184)
100.0%
(510)
100.0%
(2367)
PYG-involvement by ability to exercise self-control
Chi-square = 1490.93, df = 2, p < 0.000 33

34. Chapter 10 individual characteristics
School social bond
TotalVery low Low High
Very
high
NO VYG 86.1 %
(630)
92.4%
(620)
94.5 %
(496)
97.1%
(501)
91.9 %
(2247)
VYG 13.9 %
(102)
7.6 %
(51)
5.5 %
(29)
2.9 % (15) 8.1 %
(197)
Total 100.0%
(732)
100.0%
(671)
100.0%
(525)
100.0%
(516)
100.0
%
(2444)
45: VYG-involvement by school social bond
Chi-square: 57.32, df 3, p < 0.000
34

35. Chapter 10 individual characteristics
Parental monitoring
TotalVery low Low High Very high
NO PYG 81.1 %
(559)
94.0 %
(719)
97.7 %
(473)
97.8%
(497)
91.9 %
(2248)
PYG 18.9 %
(130)
6.0 % (46) 2.3 % (11) 2.2 % (11) 8.1 %
(198)
Total
100.0%
(689)
100.0%
(765)
100.0%
(484)
100.0%
(508)
100.0%
(2446)
VYG-involvement by parental monitoring
Chi-square:158.00, df 3, p < 0.000
35

36. Chapter 10 individual characteristics
Class integration Total
Low Medium High
NO PYG 89.1 %
(293)
91.1% (514) 92.9 %
(1441)
92.0 %
(2248)
PYG 10.9 % (36) 8.9 % (50) 7.1 % (110) 8.0 % (196)
Total 100.0%
(329)
100.0%
(564)
100.0%
(1551)
100.0%
(2444)
VYG-involvement by class integration
Chi-square 6.16, df 3, p < 0.05
36

37. Chapter 10 individual characteristics
Social bond variables
B Sig. O.R.
Class integration
-0.08 0.28 0.92
Family bonds
0.02 0.75 0.02
Parental monitoring
-0.80 0.00 0.43
School bond
-0.34 0.00 0.70
Constant -208.00 0.00 0.05
Multivariate analysis of VYG on social bonds
37

38. Chapter 10 individual characteristics
External locus of control
TotalVery low Low High Very high
NO VYG 97.7 %
(470)
95.6%
(736)
90.4 %
(689)
80.7 %
(305)
92.0 %
(2200)
VYG 2.3 %
(11)
4.4 %
(34)
9.6 %
(73)
19.3 %
(73)
8.0 %
(191)
Total 100.0 %
(481)
100.0 %
(770)
100.0 %
(762)
100.0 %
(378)
100.0 %
(2391)
VYG-involvement and external locus of control
Chi Square = 103.21, df= 3, p < 0.000
38

39. Chapter 10 individual characteristics
39

40. Chapter 10 individual characteristics
40

41. Chapter 10 individual characteristics
41

42. Chapter 10 individual characteristics
42

43. Chapter 10 individual characteristics
43

44. Chapter 11 Situational exposure and
PYG
44

45. Chapter 11 Situational exposure and
PYG
45
Interacties
tussen
situationele
kenmerken

46. Chapter 11 Situational exposure and
PYG
46
Interacties
tussen
situationele
kenmerken

47. Chapter 11 Situational characteristics
47
Interacties
tussen
propensity &
exposure

48. Chapter 11 Situational characteristics
48

49. Chapter 11 Situational characteristics
49

50. Chapter 11 Situational characteristics
B Sig. Exp(B)
First quartile
Second quartile 1.330 .019 3.780
Third quartile 2.779 .000 16.099
Fourth quartile 3.998 .000 54.511
VYG by overall number of risk factors
50

51. 51
Parameter Exp(B)
PYG
Exp(B)
OFFENDING
(variety scale)
Being male 1.40 1.42
Age (15-16) 0.70 0.99
Belgian background 0.504 0.79
Cumulative Family Structural Risk
One risk factor 1.34 0.98
Two risk factors 1.04 0.97
Cumulative social bonds risk
Three risk factors 2.51 1.64
Two risk factors 2.02 1.50
One risk factor 1.15 1.37
Cumulative street-level disorganization
Two risk factors 2.97 1.31
One risk factor 2.43 1.11
Cumulative objective neighbourhood risk
Two risk factors 1.08 0.92
One risk factor 1.26 0.99

52. 52
Vervolg VYG OFFENDING
Cum. Lifestyle Risk
Two risk factors 9.77 1.87
One risk factor 2.66 1.57
Cum. Alienation Risk (subj alienation + low
morals)
Two risk factors 5.97 1.76
One risk factor 3.96 1.32
Cumulative self-control risk
Two risk factors 2.66 1.84
One risk factor 2.17 1.44
Violent Youth Group Involvement -- 1.33
Previous Arrest 1.43
1.43
Substance Use Risk
Very high 5.62 2.59
high 4.37 3.46
Medium 2.68 3.28
Low 1.82 2.98

53. Chapter 12: testing the integrative
model
53

54. 54
Cumulative
Micro-place risk
External locus
of control
Low self-
control
Cumulative
low
integration
Conditions-cognitions-exposure model “causes of the causes”
Low moral
beliefs
0.20
0.27
0.41
0.14
0.32
0.36
0.57
Deel 1

55. 55
Low self-
control
PYG
Conditions-cognitions-exposure model of PYG involvement from propensity to PYG
Lifestyle risk /
exposure
Low moral
beliefs
Variety scale
offending0.28
0.18
0.24
0.20
0.16
0.64
0.17
0.57
0.29
0.46
0.25
Deel 2

56. 56
Volledig model

57. Chapter 13 Key findings
• Individual differences in PYG are substantial
• Small percentage (8%) but strong
involvement in crime (high odds-ratios)
• Demographic characteristics:
–Ses (NS), family structure (NS), gender (S),
immigrant background (S), school failure
(S)
–Demographic characteristics have indirect
effects
57

58. Chapter 13 Key findings
• Social bonds: parental attachment (S), school social bond (S),
parental monitoring (S)! Class integration (NS)
• Individual control mechanisms: moral beliefs (S), self-control
(S), locus of control (S)
• Situational exposure: peers+ unstructured routines +
substance use
– Strong cumulative effects!
– Strong interaction between the person (propensity) and
the environment (exposure),
– Therefore, becoming involved in a problematic
youthgroup is always a situated choice of a developing
person in a moral context!!
58

59. Chapter 13 Key findings
• The theoretical model (conditions-controls-exposure
theory)
• Context of development:
– micro-place deterioration affects social bonds, locus of
controls, moral beliefs and self-control
• Moral beliefs and self-control key mechanisms that
explain the self-selection (choosing a risky lifestyle)
• The risky lifestyle (= “exposure”) is the strongest
situational predictor (but only for people who have
high scores on propensity
• The model is surprisingly stable in subgroups
59