i

EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION AND ADOLESCENT

ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR: THE ROLE OF DEVIANT PEER AFFILIATION AND
PERCEIVED FRIENDSHIP CLOSENESS

A thesis submitted
to Kent State University in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Arts

by

Andrea D. Mata

May, 2009

i
 ii

Thesis written by
Andrea D. Mata
B.S., Valparaiso University, 2006
M.A., Kent State University, 2009

Approved by

Manfred H. M. van Dulmen, PhD Advisor

Mary Ann Parris Stephens, PhD Chair, Department of Psychology

Timothy Moerland, PhD Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... IV

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... V

ACKOWLEDGMETS .............................................................................................. VI

ITRODUCTIO............................................................................................................. 1

CURRET STUDY .......................................................................................................... 6

METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 8
PARTICIPATS.................................................................................................................... 8
ATTRITIO AALYSES ......................................................................................................... 9
MEASURES ....................................................................................................................... 10
DATA AALYSES ............................................................................................................... 13

RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 16

DISCUSSIO .................................................................................................................. 34

REFERECES................................................................................................................ 40

iii
 List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of negative binomial regression analyses predicting aggressive and

nonaggressive antisocial behavior for academic participation. ......................... 17

Table 2. Summary of negative binomial regression analyses predicting aggressive and

nonaggressive antisocial behavior for sports participation................................ 19

Table 3. Summary of negative binomial regression analyses predicting aggressive and

nonaggressive antisocial behavior for creative activities participation ............. 21

Table 4. Summary of negative binomial regression analyses predicting aggressive and

nonaggressive antisocial behavior for language and agricultural clubs
participation ....................................................................................................... 23

Table 5. Summary of negative binomial regression analyses predicting aggressive and

nonaggressive antisocial behavior for music participation................................ 25

iv
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Deviant peer affilation as a mediator of the ABEA association model.............. 3

Figure 2. Perceived friendship closeness as a moderator of the ABEA association model

................................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 3. The moderation of perceived closeness on the ABEA association impacted by

levels of deviant peer affiliation ............................................................................. 5

Figure 4. Mediation of deviant peer affiliation on the assocation between types of

activities and aggressive antisocial behavior ........................................................ 28

Figure 5. Mediation of the deviant peer affiliation on the association between types of
activities and nonaggressive antisocial behavior. ................................................. 29

Figure 6. Moderation of deviant peer affilation on the assocation between music

participation and aggressive antisocial behavior. ................................................. 30

Figure 7. Moderation of deviant peer affiliation on the association between sports

participation and nonaggressive antisocial behavior ............................................ 31

Figure 8. Moderation of perceived friendship closeness on the assocaition between

creative activities participation and nonaggressive antisocial behavior ............... 32

Figure 9. Moderation of perceived friendship closeness on the association between

creative activities participation and nonaggressive antisocial behavior for females.
............................................................................................................................... 33

v
 Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Manfred van Dulmen for mentoring me throughout this

project. I would like to acknowledge John Dunlosky for helping me with this project. I

would also like to thank the members of my committee: Daniel Flannery, Josefina Grau,

and Beth Wildman. I would like to acknowledge Tara Baluck and Megan McElroy for

their many hours of syntax writing. I would also like to thank my labmates Liz Goncy

and Katie Schinka for their enduring support. I am forever indebted to my parents and

brothers for their unconditional love, support and encouragement. I am grateful to Lauren

Marshall and Liz Mikos for allowing me to be myself at all times. I would also like to

thank my best friend, John Barry, who can make me smile and make any frustration

disappear within minutes. Finally, I would like to acknowledge Susanne Biehle, Crystal

Gabert, and Maria Pacella because I would not make it through graduate school without

the times spent with these three.

vi
 Introduction

“Idle hands are the devil’s playthings” is an old saying that pushes parents to

encourage their child’s participation in extracurricular activities but not in antisocial

behavior. However, antisocial behavior and participation in extracurricular activities are

associated (ABEA association) with adolescents who participate in extracurricular

activities—participants—displaying lower levels of antisocial behavior during

adolescence as compared to adolescents who do not participate—non-participants

(Mahoney, 2000). However, why participating in extracurricular activities is associated

with lower levels of antisocial behavior is unclear.

The current study aimed to better understand the ABEA association by

investigating the role of adolescent peer and friendship relationships. Peer and friendship

relationships play a key role in understanding differences in individual functioning during

adolescence (Berndt, 1979). For example, friendships provide adolescents with

opportunities to learn and improve social skills and social competence (Collins &

Steinberg, 2006) but are also instrumental in understanding risk for antisocial behavior

(Jaccard, Blanton, & Dodge, 2005; Haynie, 2002; Piquero, Gover, MacDonald, &

Piquero, 2005). This study focused specifically on two dimensions of peer and friendship

relationships that can clarify the ABEA association: deviant peer affiliation and perceived

friendship closeness.

1
 2

Possible Factors Clarifying the ABEA Association: Deviant Peer Affiliation

Adolescents who spend increased unsupervised time with peers have higher levels

of antisocial behavior because unsupervised time with peers is conducive to participating

in antisocial behavior (Osgood, Wilson, O’Malley, Bachman, & Johnston, 1996).

Spending more time in a context that is conducive to participating in antisocial behavior

allows for more opportunities to participate in antisocial behavior. On the other hand,

participants who are spending supervised time with peers have fewer opportunities to

affiliate with deviant peers. Deviant peer affiliation is one of the strongest predictors of

antisocial behavior—adolescents who affiliate with more deviant peers have higher levels

of antisocial behavior and spend more unsupervised time with peers compared to

adolescents with lower levels of antisocial behavior (Jaccard et al., 2005; Haynie, 2002;

Haynie & Osgood, 2005; Piquero et al., 2005). Therefore, I hypothesized that the ABEA

association can be explained by participants having fewer opportunities to affiliate with

deviant peers—lower deviant peer affiliation, and non-participants having greater

opportunities to affiliate with deviant peers—higher deviant peer affiliation. More

specifically, I hypothesized that the ABEA association is mediated by deviant peer

affiliation (Figure 1).

 3

Deviant Peer Affiliation

Extracurricular Activity
Participation Antisocial Behavior

Figure 1. Deviant peer affiliation as a mediator of the ABEA association model.

Possible Factors Clarifying the ABEA Association: Perceived Friendship Closeness

Extracurricular activities are a form of a clique—a relatively small group of

individuals who have regular interaction with peers of the same age (Brown, 1990).

Adolescents within a clique develop close relationships and behave similarly (Brown,

1990; Savin-Williams & Berndt, 1990). Additionally, adolescents are influenced more by

their friends who they spend more time with (Laird, Pettit, Dodge, & Bates, 1999).

Therefore, whether an adolescent perceives to have close friendships changes the ABEA

association. Adolescents who perceive to have higher friendship closeness are more

likely to imitate and model the behavior that is prevalent in their clique and the friends

who they are closest to and spend the most time with. Therefore, I hypothesized that

adolescents who participate in extracurricular activities are less likely to participate in

antisocial behavior because of their perceived friendship closeness to the other

participants who most likely have low levels of antisocial behavior (Haynie & Osgood,

2005; Savin-Williams & Berndt, 1990). In other words, I hypothesized that perceived

friendship closeness moderates the ABEA association (Figure 2).

 4

Perceived Friendship
Closeness

Extracurricular Activity
Participation Antisocial Behavior

Figure 2. Perceived friendship closeness as a moderator of the ABEA association model.

Combined Impact of Perceived Friendship Closeness and Deviant Peer Affiliation on the
ABEA Association

Based on empirical findings in the literature I propose that (a) deviant peer

affiliation mediates the ABEA association and (b) perceived friendship closeness

moderates the ABEA association. In addition to these two models I also propose a third

model to further clarify the ABEA association. This model hypothesizes that the

moderation of perceived friendship closeness on the ABEA association is dependent

upon levels of deviant peer affiliation (Figure 3). An adolescent may become more

deviant if their friends are accepting of deviant behaviors (Agnew, 1991). If the friend

who is accepting of deviant behavior is also a close friend, then this friend will have a

stronger impact on the adolescent participating in antisocial behavior (Agnew, 1991).

Deviant peer affiliation is more strongly associated with an adolescents’ deviancy in the

presence of higher friendship closeness and with friends who they spend the most time

with (Agnew, 1991; Laird et al., 1999; Payne & Cornwell, 2007). Based on these

empirical findings, I hypothesized that adolescents who perceive to have close

friendships and have deviant peers might be impacted the most—leading them to have
 5

higher levels of antisocial behavior compared to adolescents who do not perceive to have

close friendships with deviant peers. Additionally, if adolescents who participate in

extracurricular activities have fewer opportunities to participate in antisocial behavior and

perceive to have close friendships, then they will have the lowest levels of antisocial

behavior.

Deviant Peer Affiliation x Perceived

Friendship Closeness

Extracurricular Activity Antisocial Behavior

Participation

Figure 3. The moderation of perceived closeness on the ABEA association impacted by

levels of deviant peer affiliation model
 Current Study

The purpose of the current study is to investigate the role of deviant peer

affiliation and perceived friendship closeness on the ABEA association. Based on

previous findings, I developed three specific research questions and hypotheses for the

current study. (1) Does deviant peer affiliation (partially) explain the ABEA association?

I hypothesized that extracurricular activity participation indirectly impacts antisocial

behavior through deviant peer affiliation. In other words, the ABEA association will

reduce when deviant peer affiliation is considered in predicting antisocial behavior

(Mahoney & Stattin, 2000; Osgood et al, 1996). (2) Does perceived friendship closeness

change the ABEA association? I hypothesized that the ABEA association strengthens as

levels of perceived friendship closeness increases (Laird et al., 1999). (3) Does deviant

peer affiliation further qualify the moderating role of perceived friendship closeness of

the ABEA association? I hypothesized that the ABEA association weakens as levels of

deviant peer affiliation and perceived friendship closeness increase (Agnew, 1991, Laird

et al., 1999, Payne & Cornwell, 2007).

The Role Different Types of Activities

While not the primary focus of the current study, but given previous empirical

findings suggesting that different types of extracurricular activities (i.e. academic clubs,

sports, music, performance) are associated with different levels of outcomes for the

6
 7

participants in different types of extracurricular activities (Barber, Eccles, & Stone, 2001;

Fletcher, Nickerson, & Wright, 2003; Larson, Hansen, & Moneta, 2006), I investigated

the role of deviant peer affiliation and perceived friendship closeness on the ABEA

association separately for different types of extracurricular activities.

The Role of Gender

Although not the primary focus of the current study, but given previous empirical

findings suggesting that the impact of deviant peer affiliation and perceived friendship

closeness on antisocial behavior may differ by gender (Alarid, Burton, & Cullen, 2000;

Laird, Pettit, Dodge, & Bates, 2005), I also investigated the possibility that gender

moderates the aforementioned hypotheses.

 Method

Participants

The current study used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent

Health (Bearman, Jones, Udry, 1997). This study is more commonly referred to as Add

Health. Add Health is a nationally representative sample of United States adolescents in

school. Ninety thousand participants were asked to participate in interviews during

school. Approximately 20,000 participants of the original 90,000 were asked to

participate in a more in-depth in-home interview that occurred at three different waves.

Wave one was collected when the participants were between the ages of 11 through 20.

The second wave was collected approximately one year after the initial interview and

wave three was collected approximately six years after the initial interview.

The sample in the current study consisted of 9th and 10th graders who had

complete data (N = 1,729). The exclusion criteria that limited the sample size the most

was that a participant needed to have nominated at least one peer in the peer network

dataset who was also a participant in the study (N = 6,630). Additionally, the sample was

limited to 9th and 10th graders because this age-group has the most opportunities to

participate in extracurricular activities (Larson & Verma, 1999; Mahoney & Cairns,

1997). The sample was approximately equally divided between females (51.2%) and

males (48.9%) and approximately half of the sample identified ‘White’ as their primary

8
 9

ethnic category (54.7%), followed by ‘Other/Mixed’ (15.3%), ‘Black’ (14.6%), ‘Asian’

(8.7%) and ‘Hispanic’ (6.4%). The mean age of the sample was 15.99 years.

Attrition Analyses

The study sample (N = 1,729) was compared to the larger sample of participants

who nominated at least one friend who was also a participant in the study (N = 6,630) on

age, gender, ethnicity, extracurricular activity participation, deviant peer affiliation,

perceived friendship closeness, and antisocial behavior. Independent sample t-tests

showed statistically significant group mean differences for age (t (6585.858) = 9.328, p <

.001, d = .23). The study sample (M = 16.29, SD = 1.87) were older than the larger

sample (M = 15.99, SD = .72). Chi square analyses showed statistical differences between

the two samples for academic (χ² = 28.27, p < .001), creative activities (χ² = 10.31, p =

.001) and music (χ² = 7.95, p = .005). Academic participants were 1.53 times less likely

to be in the study, creative activities participants were 1.24 times less likely to be in the

study, and music participants were 1.22 times less likely to be in the study. Logistic

regressions were conducted to compare the study sample to the larger sample on deviant

peer affiliation. For aggressive deviant peer affiliation, participants who had all non

deviant peers (B = .24, eb = 1.27, p = .002) or a mix of deviant and non deviant peers (B =

.24, eb = 1.27, p = .01) were more likely to be in the study compared to participants who

had all deviant peers. For nonaggressive deviant peer affiliation, participants who had all

non deviant peers were less likely to be in the study compared to participants with all

deviant peers (B = -.32, eb = .73, p < 001). No statistical differences were indicated
 10

between the two samples on gender, ethnicity, perceived friendship closeness, and

antisocial behavior.

Measures

Extracurricular Activity Participation. The extracurricular activity participation

variables used in the current study were based on exploratory and confirmatory factor

analyses with the Add Health data (Mata, Goncy, Vest, & van Dulmen, in preparation).

Five factors were derived from the factor analysis of 31 activities. Two activities (e.g.

tennis, Spanish club) were excluded from all of the factors because the factor loadings

did not meet statistical inclusion criteria (i.e. factor loadings were smaller than .30,

Preacher & MacCallum, 2003). The five factors were: academic (French club, computer

club, history club, math club, honors society, science club), sports (baseball/softball,

basketball, field hockey, football, ice hockey, soccer, swimming, track, volleyball,

wrestling), creative activities (debate team, drama club, cheerleading/dance team,

newspaper, student council, yearbook), language and agricultural clubs (German club,

Latin Club, book club, future farmers of America), and music (band, chorus/choir,

orchestra). The extracurricular activity participation variables were dichotomous

variables with individuals who endorsed participating in any of the activities within each

factor being considered a participant on that specific activity variable, and anyone who

did not participate in any of the activities under that specific activity variable were

classified as non-participants.

Deviant Peer Affiliation. The operationalization of the deviant peer affiliation

variable was informed by work of Aseltine (1995), Crosnoe, Erickson, and Dornbusch
 11

(2002), and Haynie (2002). The current study measured a participant’s peer network

antisocial behavior by utilizing the nominated peers’ self report on the antisocial behavior

(e.g. aggressive and nonaggressive) that was used as the dependent variable in the current

study. Participants were asked to nominate five same sex peers and five opposite sex

peers. If the nominated peer was also a participant in the study then the nominated peer’s

identification number was listed instead of the nominated peer’s name or initials. Syntax

was created to match the nominated peers’ antisocial behavior dichotomous variable

scores (0 = no engagement in any of the behaviors, 1 = engagement in at least one of the

behaviors) to their identification numbers. The total number of peers nominated and the

total number of deviant peers (nominated peers who had a 1 on the antisocial behavior

dichotomous variable) were calculated. The number of deviant peers was then divided by

the number of total number of peers nominated to create a proportion of deviant peer

affiliation variable in the participant’s nominated peers. Two three level deviant peer

affiliation variables (e.g. aggressive peers, nonaggressive peers) were created based off

the proportion score. These two three level deviant peer affiliation variables were used

because this was the conceptualization of similar constructs in a previous study using

Add Health data (Haynie, 2002). If the participant had no deviant peers then their score

on the deviant peer affiliation variable was 1 (no deviant peers). If the participant had

some non-deviant peers and some deviant peers, then they received a score of 2 on the

deviant peer affiliation variable (mix of deviant and non-deviant peers). If all of the peers

nominated by the participant were deviant, then the participant’s score on the deviant

peer affiliation variable was 3 (all deviant peers).

 12

Perceived Friendship Closeness. The perceived friendship closeness variable was

based on one item from the wave one in-home interview. Participants were asked to

endorse how much they believe their friends care about them on a five point Likert scale

(1 = not at all, 5 = very much). This item has been previously used in other studies to

measure friendship closeness (Haynie, 2001; Haynie & Osgood, 2005).

Antisocial Behavior. Antisocial behavior has typically been studied as a

unidimensional variable. However, recent research (Eley, Lichtenstein, & Moffitt, 2003)

has argued that antisocial behavior is multidimensional and other studies (Maughan,

Pickles, Rowe, Costello & Angold, 2000; van Dulmen & Goncy, 2006) have provided

further support for the multidimensionality of antisocial behavior. In concordance with

these research findings, antisocial behavior was conceptualized as having two

dimensions: aggressive and nonaggressive. These two dimensions were conceptualized

by factor analyzing the delinquency items in Add Health (Grotevant, van Dulmen,

Dunbar, Nelson-Christinedaughter, Christensen, Fan, et al., 2006). During the wave one

in-home interview, participants were asked if they had participated in any of the items

used to create the two dimensions of antisocial behavior in the past twelve months. The

aggressive antisocial behavior variable was based on the sum of eight items (threaten to

use a weapon, take part in a group fight, hurt someone badly enough they needed

bandages or care from doctor or nurse, used a weapon in a fight, carried a weapon to

school, pulled a knife or gun on someone, shot or stabbed someone, and how many times

in a physical fight in which injured and had to be treated by a doctor or nurse). The

nonaggressive antisocial behavior variable was based on the sum of four items (e.g.,
 13

property damage, steal something worth more than $50, sell marijuana or other drugs,

steal something worth less than $50).

Data Analyses

Sample weights. The use of sample weights is necessary when using Add Health

data to correct for the clustered sample design and oversampling of underrepresented

populations. Biased results may occur due to the clustered sample design and

oversampling of underrepresented populations if the incorrect statistical analyses are used

and sample weights and are not used (Chantala, 2006). Two statistical programs, Mplus

and STATA, were used to correct for the clustered sample design and allowed for the

inclusion of sample weights (Chantala, 2006).

Mediation Models. The three steps for mediation described in Baron and Kenny

(1986) were used to determine if deviant peer affiliation was a statistically significant

mediator of the ABEA association. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), the

independent variable (e.g. extracurricular activity participation) needs to be statistically

significantly associated with the outcome variable (e.g. antisocial behavior) and the

mediator variable (e.g. deviant peer affiliation), and the mediator variable needs to be

statistically significantly associated with the outcome variable, which leads to a reduction

in the association between the independent variable and outcome variable. The Sobel test

is typically used to determine if the reduction in the association between the independent

variable and the outcome variable is statistically significant. In the current study, path

analyses were conducted in Mplus to test for mediation of deviant peer affiliation in the

ABEA association. Path analyses in Mplus were conducted because the mediation
 14

analyses required a combination of linear and logistic regressions. The Sobel test could

not be used with unstandardized coefficients from linear and logistic regressions because

they are not equivalent. However, conducting the meditational model with path analyses

in Mplus did not have the issue with not equivalent unstandardized coefficients.

Additionally, path models in Mplus tested for the statistically significant reduction of the

association between the independent variable and the outcome variable when a mediator

was added.

Moderation Models. Negative binomial regressions were conducted in STATA to

investigate the moderating effect of perceived friendship closeness, the moderation of

perceived friendship closeness on the ABEA association with different levels of deviant

peer affiliation, and the potential role of gender as a moderator. Negative binomial

regressions were conducted because the two outcome variables are count variables and

highly positively skewed. Using ordinary least squares regressions with highly positively

skewed data may lead to inaccurate standard errors and increase the likelihood of a Type

I or Type II error (Karazsia & van Dulmen, 2008). The negative binomial regressions

take the highly positively skewed nature of the outcome variables into consideration, and

unlike the restrictive assumptions needed for Poisson models, which are also

recommended for count data, the assumption of mean and variance being equal is not

required (Long & Freese, 2006).

Age, gender and ethnicity were entered as control variables in step one of the

negative binomial regressions. Age and gender were controlled for because in previous

studies antisocial behavior increased with age during adolescence (Moffitt, 1993) and
 15

boys had higher levels of antisocial behavior (Piquero et al., 2005; Steffensmeier, 1996).

Additionally, gender and ethnicity were included as control variables because previous

studies showed girls and White adolescents participated more in extracurricular activities

compared to boys and other ethic groups (Brown & Evans, 2002; Eccles & Barber, 1999;

Hull, Kilbourne, Reece, & Husaini, 2008). The five types of extracurricular activities

were entered in step two of five separate (one for each type of extracurricular activity)

negative binomial regressions. The perceived friendship closeness variable was entered

into step three of negative binomial regressions. The type of extracurricular activities by

perceived friendship closeness interaction terms were entered separately into the 4th step

of negative binomial regressions. The three way interaction terms (e.g. type of

extracurricular activities by deviant peer affiliation by perceived friendship closeness)

were entered into the 5th step of separate negative binomial regressions.
 Results

Control variables.

The three control variables were entered into step one of two negative binomial

regressions with aggressive and nonaggressive antisocial behavior as outcome variables.

Results from the negative binomial regressions are shown in Tables 1-5. Results showed

age (B = .12, eb = 1.12, p < .05), gender (B = -.76, eb = .47, p < .001) and ethnicity

differences for Black (B = .74, eb = 2.09, p < .001), and Hispanic (B = .80, eb = 2.22, p =

.001) adolescents for aggressive antisocial behavior. Older and male study participants

report higher levels of aggressive antisocial behavior compared to younger and female

study participants, respectively. Blacks and Hispanics report higher levels of aggressive

antisocial behavior compared to Whites. There were no statistically significant

differences for Others and Asians compared to Whites on aggressive antisocial behavior.

16
 17

Table 1. Summary of egative Binomial Regression Analyses Predicting Aggressive and

onaggressive Antisocial Behavior for Academic Participation ( = 1,729).

Aggressive Antisocial Nonaggressive Antisocial

Behavior Behavior

B SE B eb P B SE B eb P

Step 1: Controls

Age .12 .06 1.12* .05 -.05 .09 .95 .56

Gender -.76 .13 .47*** .00 -.43 .10 .65*** .00

Other .34 .22 1.40 .13 .28 .22 1.32 .21

Black .74 .16 2.09*** .00 -.11 .21 .89 .60

Asian .05 .32 1.05 .89 .25 .28 1.29 .37

Hispanic .80 .24 2.22** .00 .38 .28 1.47 .18

Step 2: Predictors

Academic -.30 .16 .74 .06 -.02 .16 .98 .89

Step 3: Moderators

Deviant peer affiliation .24 .06 1.27*** .00 .20 .06 1.22*** .00

Perceived friendship -.14 .07 .87 .05 -.13 .06 .88* .03
closeness

Step 4: Two-way interactions

Academic x Deviant peer -.01 .14 .99 .92 -.24 .16 .78 .13
affiliation

Academic x Perceived .04 .18 1.04 .83 .15 .16 1.16 .36
friendship closeness

Continued on next page

 18

Table 1 (continued)

Aggressive Antisocial Nonaggressive Antisocial

Behavior Behavior

B SE B eb P B SE B eb P

Step 5: Three-way
interactions

Academic x Deviant peer -.03 .11 .97 .77 -.05 .13 .95 .72
affiliation x Perceived
friendship closeness

Note: The analyses for deviant peer affiliation and perceived friendship closeness were
entered into separate negative binomial regressions.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001
 19

Table 2. Summary of egative Binomial Regression Analyses Predicting Aggressive and

onaggressive Antisocial Behavior for Sports Participation ( = 1,729).

Aggressive Antisocial Nonaggressive Antisocial

Behavior Behavior

B SE B eb P B SE B eb P

Step 1: Controls

Age .12 .06 1.12* .05 -.05 .09 .95 .56

Gender -.76 .13 .47*** .00 -.43 .10 .65*** .00

Other .34 .22 1.40 .13 .28 .22 1.32 .21

Black .74 .16 2.09*** .00 -.11 .21 .89 .60

Asian .05 .32 1.05 .89 .25 .28 1.29 .37

Hispanic .80 .24 2.22** .00 .38 .28 1.47 .18

Step 2: Predictors

Sports .04 .11 1.04 .73 .05 .19 1.05 .81

Step 3: Moderators

Deviant peer affiliation .24 .06 1.28*** .00 .20 .06 1.22** .00

Perceived friendship -.13 .07 .88 .07 -.12 .06 .88* .03
closeness

Step 4: Two-way interactions

Sports x Deviant peer .09 .10 1.09 .36 .24 .10 1.27* .02
affiliation

Sports x Perceived -.03 .10 .97 .73 -.09 .11 .92 .43
friendship closeness

Continued on next page

 20

Table 2 (continued)

Aggressive Antisocial Nonaggressive Antisocial

Behavior Behavior

B SE B eb P B SE B eb P

Step 5: Three-way
interactions

Sports x Deviant peer -.05 .07 .95 .52 .01 .07 1.01 .86
affiliation x Perceived
friendship closeness

Note: The analyses for deviant peer affiliation and perceived friendship closeness were
entered into separate negative binomial regressions.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001
 21

Table 3. Summary of egative Binomial Regression Analyses Predicting Aggressive and

onaggressive Antisocial Behavior for Creative Activities Participation ( = 1,729).

Aggressive Antisocial Nonaggressive Antisocial

Behavior Behavior

B SE B eb P B SE B eb P

Step 1: Controls

Age .12 .06 1.12* .05 -.05 .09 .95 .56

Gender -.76 .13 .47*** .00 -.43 .10 .65*** .00

Other .34 .22 1.40 .13 .28 .22 1.32 .21

Black .74 .16 2.09*** .00 -.11 .21 .89 .60

Asian .05 .32 1.05 .89 .25 .28 1.29 .37

Hispanic .80 .24 2.22** .00 .38 .28 1.47 .18

Step 2: Predictors

Creative activities -.26 .16 .77 .11 -.37 .12 .69** .00

Step 3: Moderators

Deviant peer affiliation .24 .06 1.27*** .00 .20 .06 1.22** .00

Perceived friendship -.12 .07 .88 .08 -.11 .05 .90* .05
closeness

Step 4: Two-way interactions

Creative activities x .00 .15 1.00 1.00 -.09 .14 .91 .51
Deviant peer affiliation

Creative activities x .08 .17 1.08 .64 .42 .17 1.53* .01
Perceived friendship
closeness

Continued on next page

 22

Table 3 (continued)

Aggressive Antisocial Nonaggressive Antisocial

Behavior Behavior

B SE B eb P B SE B eb P

Step 5: Three-way
interactions

Creative activities x .06 .11 1.06 .62 .05 .13 1.05 .73
Deviant peer affiliation x
Perceived friendship
closeness

Note: The analyses for deviant peer affiliation and perceived friendship closeness were
entered into separate negative binomial regressions.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001
 23

Table 4. Summary of egative Binomial Regression Analyses Predicting Aggressive and

onaggressive Antisocial Behavior for Language and Agricultural Clubs Participation
( = 1,729).

Aggressive Antisocial Nonaggressive Antisocial

Behavior Behavior

B SE B eb P B SE B eb P

Step 1: Controls

Age .12 .06 1.12* .05 -.05 .09 .95 .56

Gender -.76 .13 .47*** .00 -.43 .10 .65*** .00

Other .34 .22 1.40 .13 .28 .22 1.32 .21

Black .74 .16 2.09*** .00 -.11 .21 .89 .60

Asian .05 .32 1.05 .89 .25 .28 1.29 .37

Hispanic .80 .24 2.22** .00 .38 .28 1.47 .18

Step 2: Predictors

Language and agricultural .07 .35 1.07 .84 -.18 .23 .84 .43
clubs

Step 3: Moderators

Deviant peer affiliation .24 .06 1.28*** .00 .20 .06 1.22** .00

Perceived friendship -.13 .07 .88 .06 -.12 .06 .88* .03
closeness

Continued on next page

 24

Table 4 (continued)

Aggressive Antisocial Nonaggressive Antisocial

Behavior Behavior

B SE B eb P B SE B eb P

Step 4: Two-way interactions

Language and agricultural -.46 .23 .63 .05 -.15 .17 .86 .37
clubs x Deviant peer
affiliation
Language and agricultural .23 .23 1.26 .32 .13 .15 1.14 .38
clubs x Perceived
friendship closeness

Step 5: Three-way
interactions

Language and agricultural -.09 .21 .91 .67 -.03 .18 .97 .88
clubs x Deviant peer
affiliation x Perceived
friendship closeness

Note: The analyses for deviant peer affiliation and perceived friendship closeness were
entered into separate negative binomial regressions.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001
 25

Table 5. Summary of egative Binomial Regression Analyses Predicting Aggressive and

onaggressive Antisocial Behavior for Music Participation ( = 1,729).

Aggressive Antisocial Nonaggressive Antisocial

Behavior Behavior

B SE B eb P B SE B eb P

Step 1: Controls

Age .12 .06 1.12* .05 -.05 .09 .95 .56

Gender -.76 .13 .47*** .00 -.43 .10 .65*** .00

Other .34 .22 1.40 .13 .28 .22 1.32 .21

Black .74 .16 2.09*** .00 -.11 .21 .89 .60

Asian .05 .32 1.05 .89 .25 .28 1.29 .37

Hispanic .80 .24 2.22** .00 .38 .28 1.47 .18

Step 2: Predictors

Music -.29 .12 .74* .02 -.18 .12 .84 .15

Step 3: Moderators

Deviant peer affiliation .24 .06 1.27*** .00 .20 .06 1.22** .00

Perceived friendship -.13 .07 .88 .08 -.12 .06 .89* .04
closeness

Step 4: Two-way interactions

Music x Deviant peer -.32 .15 .72* .04 .04 .12 1.04 .74
affiliation

Music x Perceived .04 .16 1.04 .82 -.03 .18 .97 .86
friendship closeness

Continued on next page

 26

Table 5 (continued)

Aggressive Antisocial Nonaggressive Antisocial

Behavior Behavior

B SE B eb P B SE B eb P

Step 5: Three-way
interactions

Music x Deviant peer .09 .12 1.10 .43 .06 .15 1.06 .71
affiliation x Perceived
friendship closeness

Note: The analyses for deviant peer affiliation and perceived friendship closeness were
entered into separate negative binomial regressions.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001
 27

Results of the negative binomial regressions with nonaggressive antisocial

behavior as the outcome variable showed a gender effect (B = -.43, eb = .65, p < .001).

Females report lower levels of nonaggressive antisocial behavior compared to males. Age

and ethnicity were not found to have statistically significant effects on nonaggressive

antisocial behavior.

The Association between Type of Extracurricular Activity and Antisocial Behavior

Negative binomial regressions tested if the ABEA association differed when

investigating various types of extracurricular activities after controlling for age, gender

and ethnicity. The results showed an association between music and aggressive antisocial

behavior (B = -.29, eb = .74, p = .02) and an association between creative activities and

nonaggressive antisocial behavior (B = -.37, eb = .69, p = .004). Music participants report

lower levels of aggressive antisocial behavior compared to music non-participants.

Creative participants report lower levels of nonaggressive antisocial behavior compared

to creative activities non-participants. There were no statistically significant associations

between antisocial behavior and academic, sports or language and agriculture clubs.

Does deviant peer affiliation mediate the ABEA association?

I hypothesized that extracurricular activity participation indirectly impacted

antisocial behavior through deviant peer affiliation—the ABEA association would reduce

when deviant peer affiliation was considered in predicting antisocial behavior. Results of

the statistical analyses did not indicate any statistically significant mediation models for

deviant peer affiliation (see Figures 4 and 5). Only two of the types of extracurricular
 28

activities (e.g. music and creative activities) were significantly associated with antisocial

behavior (p<.05). None of the types of extracurricular activities were significantly

associated with deviant peer affiliation. Deviant peer affiliation was significantly

associated with antisocial behavior, however, extracurricular activity participation was

neither associated with deviant peer affiliation, nor was extracurricular activity

participation associated with antisocial behavior for all but two activities (e.g. music and

creative activities).

a) -.24(.16), ns a) .28(.07), p <.001

b) -.13(.14), ns Deviant Peer Affiliation b) .29(.07), p <.001
c) -.23(.15), ns c) .28(.07), p <.001
d) .06(.21), ns d) .29(.07), p <.001
e) -.11(.14), ns e) .28(.07), p <.001

Extracurricular Activity
Participation Antisocial Behavior
a) -.24(.15), ns
b) .07(.11), ns
c) -.21(.16), ns
d) .04(.36), ns
e) -.24(.13), ns

Figure 4. Mediation of deviant peer affiliation on the association between types of

activities and aggressive antisocial behavior.
Note: a) academic activities, b) sports, c) creative activities, d) language and agricultural
clubs, 3) music.
 29

a) .02(.14), ns Deviant Peer Affiliation a) .25(.07), p <.007

b) .09(.15), ns b) .25(.07), p <.001
c) -.15(.16), ns c) .25(.07), p <.001
d) -.16(.20), ns d) .25(.07), p <.001
e) -.28(.17), ns e) .25(.07), p <.001
Extracurricular Activity
Participation Antisocial Behavior

a) -.02(.16), ns
b) .05(.19), ns
c) -.35(.12), p = .004
d) -.16(.23), ns
e) -.13(.12), ns

Figure 5. Mediation of deviant peer affiliation on the association between types of

activities and nonaggressive aggressive antisocial behavior.
Note: a) academic activities, b) sports, c) creative activities, d) language and agricultural
clubs, 3) music.

Surprisingly, deviant peer affiliation was not shown to mediate the ABEA

association. Therefore, an alternative model—moderation—was tested. Moderation could

be plausible because participants in extracurricular activities have more prosocial peers

(Eccles, Barber, Stone, & Hunt, 2003; Eccles & Barber, 1999; Fredricks and Eccles,

2005); however, they still may have some delinquent peers (Haynie, 2002). Therefore, I

hypothesized that as deviant peer affiliation increased, the ABEA association weakened.

The type of extracurricular activities by deviant peer affiliation interaction term was

entered into the 4th step of negative binomial regressions. Results showed deviant peer

affiliation moderated the association between aggressive antisocial behavior and music (B

= -.32, eb = .72, p = .04). Music non-participants’ aggressive antisocial behavior levels

increase as deviant peer affiliation increase. Decomposition of the interaction term

indicated that music non-participants who have all aggressive peers have the highest

levels of aggressive antisocial behavior (see Figure 6). A second statistically significant
 30

association showed that deviant peer affiliation moderated the association between sports

and nonaggressive antisocial behavior (B = .24, eb = 1.27, p = .02). Decomposition of the

interaction term indicated that sports participants’ nonaggressive antisocial behavior

levels increase as deviant peer affiliation increase but that sports participants with all

nonaggressive peers have the highest levels of nonaggressive antisocial behavior (see

Figure 7). Deviant peer affiliation did, however, not moderate the ABEA association

when investigating academic, creative activities or language and agricultural clubs.

0
A g g re ssi v e A n ti soc ia l B e ha vi or

-0.5

-1 No
Mixed
-1.5 All

-2

-2.5

Participation
Non-Participation

Figure 6. Moderation of deviant peer affiliation on the association between music

participation and aggressive antisocial behavior.
 31

0.7

0.6
Nonaggressive Antisocial Behavior

0.5

0.4
No
0.3 Mixed
All
0.2

0.1

-0.1

Non-Participation Participation

Figure 7. Moderation of deviant peer affiliation on the association between sports

participation and nonaggressive antisocial behavior.

Does perceived friendship closeness moderate the ABEA association?

I hypothesized that the ABEA association would strengthen as levels of perceived

friendship closeness increased. This hypothesis was investigated by entering the type of

extracurricular activities and perceived friendship closeness interaction terms in the 4th

step of the negative binomial regressions. Results showed perceived friendship closeness

moderated the association between creative activities and nonaggressive antisocial

behavior (B = .42, eb = 1.52, p = .01). Decomposition of the interaction term indicated

that creative activities participants’ nonaggressive antisocial behavior levels increase as

perceived friendship closeness increase compared to creative non-participants whose

nonaggressive antisocial behavior levels increase as perceived friendship closeness

decrease (see Figure 8). Perceived friendship closeness did, however, not moderate the

ABEA association for academic, sports, language and agriculture clubs or music.
 32

1
0.9
Nonaggressive Antisocial Behaviora

0.8
0.7
0.6 Low
0.5 Medium
0.4 High
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Non-Participation Participation

Figure 8. Moderation of perceived friendship closeness on the association between

creative activities participation and nonaggressive antisocial behavior.

Does the moderation of perceived friendship closeness on the ABEA association depend
on the level of deviant peer affiliation?

I further hypothesized that the ABEA association would weaken as levels of

deviant peer affiliation and perceived friendship closeness increased. To investigate this

hypothesis I entered three way interaction terms in the 5th step of negative binomial

regressions. Results showed no statistically significant results. These results indicate that

the moderating role of perceived friendship closeness on the ABEA association was not

dependent on the level of deviant peer affiliation.

Does gender combined with deviant peer affiliation/perceived friendship closeness

moderate the ABEA association?

I also explored whether the proposed models differed by gender. Three way

interaction terms (i.e. type of extracurricular activity by deviant peer affiliation/perceived

friendship closeness by gender) were entered into the 5th step of negative binomial
 33

regressions. Results did show gender further moderated the association between creative

activities and perceived friendship closeness (B = .38, eb =1.46, p = .04) on nonaggressive

antisocial behavior (see Figure 9). For female creative participants, nonaggressive

antisocial behavior decrease as perceived friendship closeness decrease. For female

creative non-participants, nonaggressive antisocial behavior increase as perceived

friendship closeness decrease. Results showed that gender did not moderate any other

associations.

0.5
0.4
Nonaggressive Antisocial Behaviora

0.3
0.2
0.1 Low
Medium
0
High
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

Non-Participation Participation

Figure 9. Moderation of perceived friendship closeness on the association between

creative activities participation and nonaggressive antisocial behavior for females.
 Discussion

The current study investigated the role of deviant peer affiliation and perceived

friendship closeness on the ABEA association by testing three models. The deviant peer

affiliation mediation model was not supported. However, an alternative model

investigating the moderating effect of deviant peer affiliation on the ABEA association

was partially supported, as was the perceived friendship closeness as a moderator model.

Finally, the model depicting moderating effect of perceived friendship closeness on the

ABEA association being dependent on the level of deviant peer affiliation was not

supported. The results from the current study extend the literature by showing that peer

and friendship relationships are salient developmental contexts for further understanding

the ABEA association, but also that the role of peer and friendship relationships is

specific to extracurricular activity type. This suggests that activity culture needs to be

taken into consideration when further disentangling the effect of extracurricular activity

participation on adolescent behavior problems. For example investigating the moderating

effect of deviant peer affiliation on the ABEA association—sports participants who have

all nonaggressive peers have the highest levels of nonaggressive antisocial behavior. The

sport activity culture accepts aggressive behaviors within the activity (Stephens, 1998),

and the sport activity culture accepts participation in nonaggressive antisocial behavior

outside of the activity. Therefore, if a sports participant has no nonaggressive peers, it is

34
 35

less likely that the sport participant will participate in nonaggressive antisocial behavior

because (s)he is not negatively, but positively, affected by their peers and their activity.

However, if sports participants are hanging out with all nonaggressive peers and the sport

activity culture states nonaggressive antisocial behavior is socially acceptable, then the

sports participants who have all nonaggressive peers will have the highest levels of

nonaggressive antisocial behavior.

The results from the current study suggest that perceived friendship closeness

partially plays a role in further understanding the ABEA association. Perceived friendship

closeness strengthens the ABEA association for one of the activities, namely creative

activities—as perceived friendship closeness decreases, nonaggressive antisocial

behavior increases for female creative activities non-participants. The importance of

perceived friendship closeness, however, needs to be considered with caution. First, it

only strengthens the ABEA association for one –and not other extracurricular activities.

Second, there is a very small percentage (< 2%) of females in creative activities who

report low perceived friendship closeness. Therefore, it appears an adolescents’ antisocial

behavior level is not affected by their perceived friendship closeness (Haynie, 2002;

Heimer, 1996, Morash, 1996).

I previously noted the importance of investigating activity culture due to the

inconsistent results for the moderational effect of deviant peer affiliation on the ABEA

association. The results of the current study also highlight the importance of investigating

the different types of extracurricular activities within the ABEA association. The results

from the current study demonstrate participation in music and creative activities is
 36

associated with lower levels of antisocial behavior. The finding that participation in only

two types of extracurricular activities is associated with lower levels of antisocial

behavior is surprising. This finding is surprising because empirical findings provide

support for the ABEA association (Mahoney, 2000). However, previous studies

demonstrate the ABEA association when extracurricular activities are aggregated, but not

when the different types of extracurricular activities are investigated (Fletcher et al.,

2003). The findings of the current study suggest that research aggregating data across

different types of extracurricular activities--that may or may not be homogeneous--

potentially leads to misleading conclusions as the effect of extracurricular activity

participation is stronger for some activities as compared to others.

The findings of the current study also extend the extracurricular activity literature

with the conceptualization of the antisocial behavior outcome variable. In the

extracurricular activity literature, the antisocial behavior outcome variable is typically

aggregated with substance use (Barber et al., 2001). Findings from this body of research

indicate sports participants have higher levels of risk taking behavior compared to non-

participants. However, the current study does not show higher levels of antisocial

behavior for sports participants (without investigating their association with deviant

peers) and therefore this earlier association might be an artifact of aggregating items of

substance abuse and antisocial behavior.

Limitations of the Current Study

The current study is limited by the lack of information about extracurricular

activity participation. The information about extracurricular activity participation is

 37

limited to whether or not the participant participated in the activity in the last year. More

information about different aspects (i.e. time commitment, activity culture) may explain

why some activities are associated with antisocial behavior and why others are not. For

example, in the current study I found that music and creative activities participants have

lower levels of antisocial behavior than non-participants, but participants in academic,

sports and language and agricultural clubs do not.

A possible explanation for these findings is the interaction of time commitment

and activity culture of the different types of extracurricular activities. The extracurricular

activities classified under sports, creative activities, and music typically require higher

time commitments compared to the extracurricular activities classified under academic

and language and agricultural clubs. However, the sports activity culture is different than

the activity culture of the other two extracurricular activities that have higher time

commitments—creative activities and music with that the sports activity culture is

accepting of antisocial behavior (Stephens, 1998). The findings of the current study that

there are differences on antisocial behavior levels depending on type of extracurricular

activity could therefore be explained by the interaction of time commitment and activity

culture. These latter aspects are, however, not directly measured in the current study and

future studies are needed to test this hypothesis.

The second explanation for why creative activities and music participants have

lower levels of antisocial behavior than non-participants and the academic, sports, and

language and agricultural participants do not could be due to a selection effect (i.e. self-

selection in certain activities). There might be something about creative activities and
 38

music participants, and not the extracurricular activity itself that is associated with lower

levels of antisocial behavior. Creative activities and music participants might have lower

levels of antisocial behavior because they are less likely in the first place to participate in

antisocial behavior. Therefore, research is needed to determine if it is something about

the participants in creative activities and music or the activity itself that is associated with

lower levels of antisocial behavior.

Future Directions

As previously stated the greatest limitation of the current study is the lack of

information about extracurricular activity participation. The results from previous studies

(Barber et al., 2001; Fletcher et al., 2003; Larson et al., 2006) and the current study

indicate that some, but not all, types of extracurricular activities are associated with

adolescent behavior problems. This suggests that future studies should collect more

detailed information on aspects of extracurricular activities (e.g. activity culture, norms,

values), and investigate to what degree this can explain why some types of extracurricular

activities are associated with adolescent behavior problems and others are not. The

investigation of aspects of extracurricular activities is important because the current body

of research focuses on the surface level question of whether or not participation in

extracurricular activities is associated with adolescent behavior problems (Larson, 2006).

Therefore, empirical studies are needed to disentangle why some types of extracurricular

activities are associated with adolescent behavior problems and other types of

extracurricular activities are not associated with adolescent behavior problems. Research
 39

investigating the aspects of types of extracurricular activities allows for this

disentanglement.

An important next step for the current study is to further utilize the Add Health

peer network data set and investigate the role of peers within the same activities.

Research is needed that investigates whether or not the peers an adolescent has are peers

that he or she participates with in activities is important because Mahoney (2000) found

reductions in criminal arrests only when at least 50% of an adolescents’ social network

also participated in extracurricular activities. The peer network data will be utilized

similarly to how the antisocial behavior scores were matched to the peers nominated; the

activities the nominated peers participate in will be matched to the nominated peers. This

matching will indicate if the participant and their nominated peers participate in the same

activities and allow for investigation of the peer dynamics occurring within the activities.

The investigation of peer dynamics occurring within the activities allows for

investigation of the different activity cultures—that the current study have shown is

important.
 References

Agnew, R. (1991). The interactive effects of peer variables on delinquency. Criminology,

29, 47-72.

Alarid, L. F., Burton, V. S. Jr., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). Gender and crime among felony

offenders: Assessing the generality of social control and differential association

theories. Journal of Res Crime Delinquency, 37, 171-199.

Aseltine, R. H. Jr. (1995). A reconsideration of parental and peer influences on

adolescent deviance. Journal of Health Social Behavior, 36, 103-121.

Barber, B. L., Eccles, J. S., & Stone, M. R. (2001). Whatever happened to the Jock, the

Brain, and the Princess? Young adult pathways linked to adolescent activity

involvement and social identity. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 429-455.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bearman, P. S., Jones, J., &. Udry, J. R. (1997). The ational Longitudinal Study of

Adolescent Health: Research design [Online]. Available:

http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design.html

Berndt, T. J. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents.

Developmental Psychology, 15, 608-616.

40
 41

Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.),

At the Threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 171-196). Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Brown, S. L. (n.d.). KidsHealth KidsPoll—Are kids too busy? Summary of findings.

Retrieved on February 3, 2009, from

http://www.nahec.org/KidsPoll/busy/Busy_Summary_of_Findings.pdf

Chantala, K. (2006, October 1). Guidelines for analyzing Add Health data. Retrieved July

9, 2008, from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/pubs/guides

Collins, W. A., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal context.

In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child

psychology: Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed.,

pp.1003–1067). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Crosnoe, R., Erickson, K. G., & Dornbusch, S. M. (2002). Protective functions of family

relationships and school factors on the deviant behavior of adolescent boys and

girls: Reducing the impact of risky friendships. Youth and Society, 33, 515-544.

Eccles, J. S. & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or

marching band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of

Adolescent Research, 14, 10-43.

Eccles, J. S., Barber, B. L., Stone, M., & Hunt, J. (2003). Extracurricular activities and

adolescent development. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 865-889.

 42

Eley, T. C., Lichtenstein, P., & Moffitt, T. E. (2003). A longitudinal behavioral genetic

analysis of the etiology of aggressive and nonaggressive antisocial behavior.

Development and Psychopathology, 15, 383-402.

Fletcher, A. C., Nickerson, P., & Wright, K. L. (2003). Structured leisure activities in

middle childhood: Links to well-being. Journal of Community Psychology, 31,

641-659.

Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Developmental benefits of extracurricular

involvement: Do peer characteristics mediate the link between activities and

youth outcomes? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 507-520.

Grotevant, H. D., van Dulmen, M. H. M., Dunbar, N., Nelson-Christinedaughter, J.,

Christensen, M., Fan, X., et al. (2006). Antisocial behavior of adoptees and

nonadoptees: Prediction from early history and adolescent relationships. Journal

of Research on Adolescence, 16, 105-131.

Haynie, D. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter?

American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1013-1057.

Haynie, D. L. (2002). Friendship networks and delinquency: The relative nature of peer

delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 99-134.

Haynie, D. L., & Osgood, D. W. (2005). Reconsidering peers and delinquency: How do

peers matter? Social Forces, 84, 1109-1130.

Heimer, K. (1996). Gender, interaction, and delinquency: Testing a theory of differential

social control. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 39-61.

 43

Hull, P., Kilbourne, B., Reece, M., & Husaini, B. (2008). Community involvement and

adolescent mental health: Moderating effects of race/ethnicity and neighborhood

disadvantage. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 534-551.

Jaccard, J., Blanton, H., & Dodge, T. (2005). Peer influences on risk behavior: An

analysis of the effects of a close friend. Developmental Psychology, 41, 135-147.

Karazsia, B. T., & van Dulmen, M. H. M. (2008). Regression models for count data:

Illustrations using longitudinal predictors of childhood injury. Journal of

Pediatric Psychology, 33, 1076-1084.

Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (1999). Best friendships, group

relationships, and antisocial behavior in early adolescence. Journal of Early

Adolescence, 19, 413-437.

Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (2005). Peer relationship

antecedents of delinquent behavior in late adolescence: Is there evidence of

demographic group differences in developmental processes? Development and

Psychopathology, 17, 127-144.

Larson, R. (2006). The tip of the iceberg? Social Policy Report, 20, 12-13.

Larson, R., Hansen, D., & Moneta, G. (2006). Differing profiles of developmental

experiences across types of organized youth activities. Developmental

Psychology, 42, 849-863.

Larson, R., & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across the

world: Work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin, 125,

701-736.
 44

Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables

using Stata (2nd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.

Mahoney, J. L. (2000). School extracurricular activity participation as a moderator in the

development of antisocial patterns. Child Development, 71, 502-516.

Mahoney, J. L., & Cairns, B. (1997). Do extracurricular activities protect against early

school dropout? Developmental Psychology, 33, 241-253.

Mahoney, J. L. & Stattin, H. (2000). Leisure activities and adolescent antisocial behavior:

The role of structure and social context. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 113-127.

Mata, A. D., Goncy, E. A., Vest, A. E., & van Dulmen, M. H. M. (2009). Statistically

informed conceptualization of extracurricular activity variable. Manuscript in

preparation.

Maughan, B., Pickles, A., Rowe, R., Costello, E. J., & Angold, A. (2000). Developmental

trajectories of aggressive and non-aggressive conduct problems. Journal of

Quantitative Criminology, 16, 199-221.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescent-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior:

A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review 100, 674-701.

Morash, M. (1986). Gender, peer group experiences, and seriousness of delinquency.

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 43-67.

Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D.

(1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American

Sociological Review, 61, 635-655.

 45

Payne, D. C., & Cornwell, B. (2007). Reconsidering peer influences on delinquency: Do

less proximate contacts matter? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23, 127-

149.

Piquero, N. L., Gover, A. R., MacDonald, J. M., & Piquero, A. R. (2005). The influence

of delinquent peers on delinquency: Does gender matter? Youth & Society, 36,

251-275.

Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift's electric factor

analysis machine. Understanding Statistics, 2, 13-43.

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Berndt, T. J. (1990). Friendship and peer relations. In S.

Feldman & G. R. Elliott (eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp.

277-307). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Steffensmeier, D., & Allan, E. (1996). Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of

female offending. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 459-487.

Stephens, D. (1998). Aggression. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise

psychology measurement (pp. 277-292). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information

Technology.

van Dulmen, M. H. M., & Goncy, E. (2006, August). Romantic relationships and

antisocial behavior from adolescence into young adulthood. Paper presented at

the annual meetings of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans

(LA).