Liu uses this article to discuss how the impact of labels given to you by your peers and parents was bigger than they were aware of. “Peer attitudes toward delinquency and peer involvement in delinquency are hypothesized to modify the relationship between parental labeling, both actual and perceived, and youth delinquency involvement.
The models were tested using data from the initial three waves of the National Youth Survey. As hypothesized, both actual and perceived parental labeling increase subsequent youth delinquency. Parental labeling has a stronger effect on youth delinquency when peer attitudes toward delinquency are more positive and when youths reported more friends engaging in delinquency.
The conditional effects were observed for both actual parents’ labeling and youth perception of parental labeling. Peer attitudes toward delinquency and peer participation in delinquency had independent interactive influences on the relationship between parental labeling and subsequent youth delinquency.”
127 our experts are availableright now
Going on to mention how informal labels become more impactful when compared to formal labels. Labeling a child “Bad” or a “Delinquent” at a young again, is making them more likely to become bad or a delinquent due to already being labeled one. “Perceptions of informal labeling is likely to predict delinquency directly. The underlying mechanism for such influence may include one youth self evaluation or self labeling, to increase frustration with conventional communities, and/or three decreased traditional values and institutions.”
Labeling has such a strong impact when it comes from parents due to the parents changing their behavior towards the person who was labeled. Using studies such as Matsueda 1992); Triplett and Jarjoura 1994) Which proved that when parents recognize the labels given to their children they have a shift in behavior themselves such as: loving and accepting their children less, ignore them which then causes these children to become involved in delinquent behaviors.
With the persona that they’re already looked at as bad so they might as well live up to that label. Carrying that label given to you by your parents with you everywhere you go, will cause that person to do one of two things when finding making friends: “Deviant peers in their support for delinquency may exacerbate the adverse experience of informal labeling by significant others in this me and thus may enhance youth’s motives to depart from the conventional ties and social institutions (Kaplan 1884; Paternoster and Iovanni 1989) or these youth may be more exposed to negative sentiments against the conventional group in their concurrent value system (Akers 1985).
Although this article doesn’t discuss every aspect of labeling, such as the most common choice made when it comes to pre-labeled youth picking friends it does hit on the very common aspect of labeling. This has become a very looked over issue, as people we subconsciously label our youth every chance we get.
We label new born baby’s things like “divas” and “mean” not considering this theory at all no the power of the tongue. After a while these labels began to sick with these children transpiring into a sad reality. This article will highlight this issue so that we as a community are able to take advantage of these findings and sop the labeling before it becomes a reality.
“This journal explores the plausibility of the conflicting theoretical assumptions underlying the main criminological perspectives on juvenile delinquents, their peer relations and social skills: the social ability model, represented by Sutherland’s theory of differential associations, and the social disability model, represented by Hirschi’s control theory.
It does so by applying the principles associated with Granovetter’s theory of strong and weak ties, drawing out its theoretical implications for the criminological theories and deriving a number of hypotheses. The article uses “strategic research materials” in the form of a data set strongly biased towards the social disability model and containing information on co-offending relations among a population (N = 580) of juveniles in a Swedish town during a three-year period.
Results from cross-sectional empirical analyses using, among other things, the Quadratic Assignment Procedure, clearly support the social ability model. The robustness of the initial analyses is checked through longitudinal analyses applying actor-oriented statistical models for network evolution. The articles implications for criminological, as well as multidisciplinary, research are discussed.” (Smångs,Mattias).
Addressing how youth that surround themselves with juvenile delinquents are more likely to become one themselves. Proving the phenomenon that “birds of a feather flock together.” also known as ““the social disability model” and the “social ability model” (Hansell and Wiatrowski 1981) Theories embracing the social ability model, for example, differential association theory (Sutherland 1992), sub-culture theory (Cohen 1955) and social learning theory (Akers 1998) posit that delinquent behavior, like all forms of behavior, is learned through social interaction with others.”
Yet, this journal is geared towards critiquing the assumptions associated with the social skills and social relations of delinquents. By using an analytical approach to address these assumptions allows researchers to use the proper breakdown to explore the micro-process at work as it relates to juvenile delinquents.
With three hypotheses tested throughout this journal ”(1) In networks of delinquents, local bridges are disproportionately weak ties. (2) The stronger the tie between two delinquents, the more contacts they have in common. (3) In networks of delinquents, the proportion of all persons tied to either one or both of two given actors and to whom they will both be tied by a strong or weak tie is least when their tie is absent, intermediate when it is weak, and most when it is strong.”
When it comes to using this source for my paper it will all me to explore the different affects the people child surrounds themself with has on them and how when removing them from that group of people morphs their social skills and behavior.
Mentioning how children between the ages of 7-14 were thought to be incapable of committing a criminal acts, in having factual evidence about how this thought was quickly changed, by mentioning examples of juveniles coming serious crimes. The group discussion also discusses the different types of crimes such as serious and petty crimes, and which category certain crimes fall under. The graphical information in this documented group discussion will allow very sequential information to guide the essay about juveniles being tried and punished as adults. Half of the information in this discussion is opinionated however the other half is factual based on the sources provided.
This textbook is a great source when it comes to finding information about juvenile delinquents. It mentions various points, such as “Treatment & Prevention of juvenile delinquency”also mentioning how school dropouts and the amount of juveniles being incarcerated are correlated. To go more in dept about how this textbook is a good source, it mentions what is known as the “Social Control Theory, which proposes that juveniles develop attachments to various parts of their social world, these attachments/ bonds help deter them in religious services, the less they will be develop involvement” Even though the textbook does not mention specific examples, it is a published textbook that is used as a resource to students located around the world, making it a trustworthy source.
Do our youth act out in school as a call for help? As this book talks about a program called SSET (Support for Students Exposed to Trauma). This is a support group that helps students to deal with trauma experienced in their lives, preventing youth that are victims of trauma from acting out in school, having low moods, perform risky behaviors but also helping with nervousness and anxiety and prevention of isolating themselves. SSET does this by having one hour sessions with students from grade 4- 9th grade teaching them skills such as introduction, relaxation strategies, expressing thoughts and feelings, facing their fears, story telling of traumas, problem solving, practice with problems they are facing socially, and planning for the future as well as graduation. “Designed specifically for use by teachers and school counselors, SSET is a non-clinical adaptation of the Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS) Program. SSET teaches many of the same cognitive and behavioral skills as CBITS, such as social problem solving, psychoeducation, and relaxation.”
Due to SSET being a confidential support group it doesn’t specify the growth of the students nor does it give statistics based on the support groups growth. However, it is a good source to inform people of the resources around them,if notice their child beginning to show signs of delinquent behavior.
“A conceptual distinction is drawn between delinquent behavior and official delinquency (apprehended and recorded delinquent behavior). Data from a national sample of 13- to 16-year old boys and girls are examined for empirical evidence of this conceptual distinction. The frequency and seriousness of self-reported delinquent behavior are analyzed for sex, age, race, and socioeconomic status differences.
These data are then compared with data on self-reported police contacts and with data found in police and court records. Our findings demonstrate that the distinction between delinquent behavior and official delinquency is indeed useful and necessary: the distribution of official delinquency among categories of sex, age, race, and socioeconomic status does not parallel the distribution of delinquent behavior. The data also help to identify the points at which various discrepancies develop in the process of turning delinquent behavior into official delinquency.”
