reputation enhancement and involvement in delinquency among high school students
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 17 November 2014, At: 20:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Disability,Development and EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd20
Reputation Enhancement andInvolvement in Delinquency Among HighSchool StudentsAnnemaree Carroll a , Shauna Green a , Stephen Houghton b &Robert Wood ca Fred and Eleanor Schonell Special Education Research Centre,TheUniversity of Queensland, Brisbane Qld 4072, Australiab Graduate School of Education, The University of WesternAustralia, Perthc Australian Graduate School of Management, University of NewSouth Wales, SydneyPublished online: 03 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Annemaree Carroll , Shauna Green , Stephen Houghton & RobertWood (2003) Reputation Enhancement and Involvement in Delinquency Among High SchoolStudents, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 50:3, 253-273, DOI:10.1080/1034912032000120444
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1034912032000120444
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
International Journal of Disability, Development and EducationVol. 50, No. 3, September 2003
Reputation Enhancement and Involvementin Delinquency Among High SchoolStudentsANNEMAREE CARROLL* & SHAUNA GREENFred and Eleanor Schonell Special Education Research Centre,The University ofQueensland, Brisbane Qld 4072, Australia
STEPHEN HOUGHTONGraduate School of Education, The University of Western Australia, Perth
ROBERT WOODAustralian Graduate School of Management, University of New South Wales, Sydney
ABSTRACT The present research explored the relationship between high school students’self-reported delinquency and the importance of their social reputations. The prevalence ofself-reported delinquency was investigated in a sample of 965 (467 males, 498 females)Years 8 to 12 students attending high schools in Brisbane and Perth, Australia. The resultsrevealed that males are significantly more prone to all forms of delinquent behaviour thantheir female peers. Most forms of delinquency appeared to peak at Year 9, with theexception of drug use which increased with age. A cluster analysis was performed on theprevalence data and students were separated into two groups: students with high and lowinvolvement in delinquency. The reputations of students with high and low delinquencyinvolvement were investigated. Students identified as having low involvement in delin-quency desired a more conforming reputation than those with high involvement. Femalesalso desired a more conforming reputation than their male counterparts. In relation to yearlevel, junior high school students were less conforming than senior high school students.Ways to address the powerful nature of adolescent reputations and the link betweenreputational status and involvement in delinquent activities are highlighted.
At-risk and delinquent behaviour refers to a continuum of behaviours that deviatefrom mainstream social standards in ways that could result in serious disciplinary oradjudicatory consequences (Lorion, Tolan, & Wahler, 1987). According to Lorionet al., the continuum includes behaviours that are simply socially unacceptable to
ISSN 1034-912X (print)/ISSN 1465-346X (online)/03/030253-21 2003 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/1034912032000120444
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
254 A. Carroll et al.
school authorities (e.g., disrupting the classroom, rejecting teacher support, poormotivation), that are illegal and problematic by virtue of the age of the offender (e.g.,status offences such as truancy, running away, substance use), and that are illegalcriminal acts independent of the offender’s age (e.g., assault, vandalism, arson,robbery, rape). The outcomes of these at-risk and delinquent behaviours can lead todisciplinary consequences ranging from school suspension and expulsion to legalconvictions and incarceration.
Why adolescents engage in at-risk and delinquent behaviours has been investi-gated by numerous researchers (e.g., Cloward & Ohlin, 1960; Hirschi, 1969, 1986;Miller, 1958; Sutherland & Cressey, 1970). More recently, the social psychologicalprocesses used by young people contemplating, or participating in, criminal conduct(e.g., Carroll, Houghton, Hattie, & Durkin, 1999; Emler & Reicher, 1995) has beenthe focus of investigation, with findings indicating the powerful nature of peerreputation. Accumulating evidence now exists which demonstrates that many ado-lescents find successfully engaging in illegal activities to be rewarding in terms of thesocial status it affords them among their peers (Agnew, 1991; Carroll et al., 1999;Emler & Reicher, 1995; Oyserman & Saltz, 1993). While much of this research hasfocused on male incarcerated youths, little is known of the relationship between highschool students’ self-reported delinquency and the importance they place on theirsocial reputations. The purpose of the present research is to examine self-reportedrates of delinquency for male and female high school students and to identify thedifferences in the social reputations of students reported as having high and lowdelinquency involvement.
At-risk and Delinquent Behaviour
Adolescents may be designated as at-risk of beginning on a negative life pathway ifthey engage in delinquent activities, but have not had these activities officiallyrecorded by a caution or warrant or have not been incarcerated in a juvenileinstitution. According to self-report data, approximately 50% of individuals engagein delinquent activities at some time during their adolescent years and as much as98% of adolescent delinquent behaviour is not reported in official data (Dryfoos,1990; Dunford & Elliott, 1982; West & Farrington, 1977).
In Western societies, youth crime rates have increased substantially over the past10 years. For example, in the USA, arrests of individuals under 18 years of age haveincreased 98% for assault, 23% for property offences, and 120% for drug offences(Stahl, 1998). In Australia, the Australian Institute of Criminology (2002) cites theoffending rate for persons aged 15 to 19 years to have been more than five times theoffender rate of the remainder of the Australian population in 2000–2001. Althoughoffender rates have remained relatively stable for the juvenile population from 1995to 2001, there has been an increase in the percentage of female juvenile offendersfrom 21% in 1995 to 25% in 2001 (Australian Institute of Criminology 2002). Thedelinquent activities in which individuals most frequently engaged include burglaryand theft offences (50.9%), driving offences (16.6%), good order offences (9.6%),
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Delinquency and Reputation in High School Students 255
property damage (5.5%), offences against the person (8.9%), and drug offences(4.6%) (Fernandez & Loh, 2001).
A recent longitudinal study conducted over a 3-year period with 249, Years 8 to10 Western Australian high school students has revealed a number of trendspertaining to the delinquency rates and developmental trajectories of young personsat-risk during this critical period when many young persons begin their offending(Houghton & Carroll, 2002). Specifically, individuals at risk of dropping out ofschool were significantly more involved than their not at-risk counterparts in allcategories of delinquency with the exception of assault. Furthermore, involvement indelinquency increased from Years 8 to 10. For example, from Year 8 to Year 10there was a 6-fold increase in purchasing alcohol, almost a 4-fold increase indrinking alcohol in public places, and a 3-fold increase in using marijuana. For moreserious delinquent activities there was nearly a 3-fold increase in driving a car at highspeeds in the city, while peddling drugs increased over 2.5-fold.
Social Reputations
Recent research has revealed that many adolescents resort to illegal methodsto obtain their goals (Carroll, 1995; Carroll, Durkin, Hattie, & Houghton, 1997;Carroll et al., 1999; Emler, 1990; Emler & Reicher, 1995; Houghton & Carroll,1996, 2002). Success through these illegal methods is reinforcing to non-conforming reputations and so involvement in at-risk and delinquent behaviours toachieve goals is often maintained or enhanced. From his research, Emler (1984,1990) concluded that delinquency is a form of communication and a means ofseeking approval from the immediate peer audience. The long-term goal of theseadolescents is to establish a delinquent reputation and maintain this reputationwithin the peer group.
The theory of Reputation Enhancement emerged from Emler’s (1984) researchinto male delinquency. According to Emler, reputations are a social phenomenonarising from social processes within a community of individuals. Reputations linkpeople to particular social identities and it is upon these social identities that anindividual’s attributes and status are acknowledged and their needs met (Hopkins &Emler, 1990). All socially visible behaviour can enhance or threaten an individual’sreputation.
Emler (1984) found that delinquents’ group membership was never stable, astheir position in the group was consistently being challenged by others and/or theirreputation was jeopardised by incongruent behaviours. Delinquents were constantlyclaiming support and proving themselves to their delinquent peers by engaging inhighly visible delinquent activities. The primary purpose of these actions is tomaintain their position in the group and thus maintain their reputation as adelinquent (Reicher & Emler, 1988).
During adolescence, peer groups play a fundamental role in the development ofsocial reputations and exert a great deal of influence over the type of reputation anindividual manifests. Delinquent adolescents have been documented to be con-cerned with establishing and maintaining their delinquent credentials to the in-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
256 A. Carroll et al.
group, and establishing and maintaining a bad reputation to outsiders. Accordingly,Carroll et al. (1997) found that the goals of delinquent and at-risk participants (e.g.,engaging in illegal behaviour), whereas the not at-risk participants set goals (e.g.,educational achievement) were consistent with a nonconforming reputation thatwere congruent with a conforming reputation. Thus, it appears that differentadolescents are concerned about maintaining different types of reputations. Whilerecent longitudinal research has revealed that at-risk high school students aresignificantly more involved in delinquency than their not at-risk peers, little researchhas investigated whether students identified as having high involvement in delin-quency desire a more nonconforming reputation than those with low involvement.
Method
Participants
A total of 965 students (467 males, 498 females) aged 12 to 18 years, attending 10state high schools in Brisbane (Queensland) and Perth (Western Australia) weresurveyed. Brisbane and Perth were specifically chosen because we wished to capturea representative sample of Australian high school students. With Queensland beingthe third largest state by population and Western Australia being the fifth largeststate by population, the capital cities of these two states provided us with arepresentation of social and contextual milieus of Australian cities. Four schoolswere located in low socio-economic status areas, three were in middle socio-econ-omic status areas, and three were in high socio-economic status areas.
Participants completed the Adapted Self-Report Delinquency Scale (Carroll, Durkin,Houghton, & Hattie, 1996) and a K-means cluster analysis separated participantsinto two groups: high involvement in delinquent behaviours and low involvement indelinquent behaviours. Six participants were unable to be classified and weredropped from all subsequent analyses. The distribution of students by year level,gender, and delinquency involvement is shown in Table I. As can be seen in TableI, 83 participants (62 males, 21 females) were classified as having high involvementin delinquent behaviours and 876 participants were classified as having low involve-ment in delinquent behaviours. These data are in line with Dryfoos (1990) whoindicated that 10% of adolescents are at high risk of maladjustment and delin-quency.
Settings
All questionnaires were administered by one of the four authors to participants intheir regular classrooms. Furniture layout in the classrooms was comparable toexamination conditions and instructions for administration were consistent acrossadministrations. Participants were informed that if they encountered any difficultieswith the questionnaire, they were to raise their hand to obtain assistance from theresearcher administering the questionnaires.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Delinquency and Reputation in High School Students 257
TABLE I. The sample distribution of students for gender, year level, and delinquencyinvolvement
Lowinvolvement in High involvement
Male Female delinquency in delinquency
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Male 399 86.6 62 13.4Female 477 95.8 21 4.2
Year 8 101 21.6 104 20.9 196 95.6 9 4.4Year 9 112 24.0 116 23.3 204 90.3 22 9.7Year 10 137 29.3 132 26.5 240 89.9 27 10.1Year 11 57 12.2 57 11.4 103 91.2 10 8.8Year 12 60 12.8 89 17.0 133 89.9 15 10.1
Total 467 100 498 100 876 91.3 83 8.7
Instrumentation
Two scales were administered to all participants. The Adapted Self-Report DelinquencyScale (Carroll et al., 1996) comprises 46 items covering a wide range of frequentlyoccurring delinquent acts in Australia with wording consistent with adolescentusage. Responses relate to the number of times delinquent acts were engaged induring the last 12 months, using a 6-point scale with the following anchor points:never, 1–3 times, 4–6 times, once a month, more than once a month, and more thanonce a week. Factor analysis of the 46 items revealed seven internally consistentsubscales from the scale. These subscales and their reliability coefficients areStealing Offences, � � .90; School Misdemeanours, � � .86; Soft Drug Use, � � .88;Vehicle-Related Offences, � � .94; Abuse of Property, � � .91; Physical Aggression,� � .88, and Hard Drug-Related Offences, � � .89 (Carroll et al., 1996).
The Reputation Enhancement Scale (see Carroll et al., 1999) comprises sevendimensions that relate to friendliness, how adolescents view themselves and theirpeers in terms of conforming or nonconforming behaviour, how they would like tobe viewed, and the communication of positive and negative events to others.Friendliness is made up of eight items (� � .84) that relate to how one feels aboutfriends and being with friends. It is scored on a 6-point scale ranging from stronglyagree to strongly disagree. Admiration comprises 36 items and has two sub-factorswith the following reliability coefficients: Law-Abiding Admiration, � � .89; Law-Breaking Admiration, � � .92. Respondents indicate the extent that they, and otherpeople, might admire particular conforming and nonconforming behaviours. Scoresare obtained on a 6-point scale that consists of the following points: not at all, verylittle, somewhat, quite a bit, very much, and completely. Self-Perception consists of15 items measuring how participants think others view them and has three sub-factors with the following reliability coefficients: Nonconforming Self-Perception,� � .91; Conforming Self-Perception, � � .66; and Reputational Self-Perception,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
258 A. Carroll et al.
� � .77. Ideal Public Self has the same 15 items as the Self-Perception subscale,however, on this scale participants respond as they would ideally like others to viewthem. It also has three sub-factors with the following reliability coefficients: Noncon-forming Ideal Public Self, � � .93; Conforming Ideal Public Self, � � .83; andReputational Ideal Public Self, � � .65. Scores are obtained on a 6-point scale withthe following points: never, hardly ever, occasionally, sometimes, often, and always.Self-Description and Ideal Private Self is measured by 24 items and has foursub-factors with the following reliability coefficients: Activity Self-description,� � .73; Power/Evaluation Self-description, � � .73; Activity Ideal Private Self,� � .83; and Power/Evaluation Ideal Private Self, � � .73. Responses are made on a6-point scale, with semantic differential anchor points ranging from one extreme ofa relevant variable (e.g., “I think I am a leader”) to the other extreme (e.g., “I thinkI am a follower”). Communication of Events comprises 56 items and has threesub-factors with the following reliability coefficients: Peer Communication, � � .91;Adult Communication, � � .84; and Prosocial Adult Communication, � � .89. A4-point response format is used to indicate which group of people the respondentswould disclose information to regarding different events, namely, “friends”,“parents”, “other adults,” and “I would not want anybody to know”.
The scales have a readability at a Year 5 level, with a reading ease score of 91which indicates that less than six years of schooling is required to successfully readthe questionnaire (Flesch, 1948). In addition, information pertaining to the stu-dent’s age, gender, year level at school, origin of birth, and languages spoken athome was also gathered.
Procedure
The principals of each of the 10 high schools were approached for permission toundertake the research. All principals agreed and a consent form and informationsheet pertaining to the purpose and nature of the study were given to all students ineach class (approximately 30) in each of the schools. The students and their parentswere required to give written consent to participate. There was a response rate ofapproximately 70%. The scales were administered to students in groups of approx-imately 20 during class time in a room specifically set aside for the purpose of theresearch. Students were informed about the nature of the study and assured ofconfidentiality and anonymity by one of the four researchers, prior to the dissemi-nation of the scales. Participants completed the scales in approximately 30 min inthe presence of at least one of the researchers and one school staff member. Thosestudents who were identified by school personnel as experiencing literacy difficultieswere administered the scales in small groups, where the researcher read the scalesaloud, verbatim.
Results
Four multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were conducted. The firsttwo-way MANOVA explored the seven dependent variables of self-reported delin-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Delinquency and Reputation in High School Students 259
quency for Year Level (8, 9, 10, 11, 12) and Gender (male, female). The secondtwo-way MANOVA investigated the effect of the independent variables of Gender(male, female) and Delinquency Involvement (high, low) on the dependent variables(i.e., the subscales of the Reputation Enhancement Scale). The subscales of theReputation Enhancement Scale were also investigated in relation to the independentvariables of Year Level and Gender in a third two-way MANOVA. The finaltwo-way MANOVA investigated the relationship between the dependent variablesfor reputation and the independent variables of delinquency involvement by YearLevel (junior, senior). Since the cell sizes for year level were small, the five year levelswere condensed to represent junior (Years 8 to 10) and senior (Years 11 and 12)levels. Wilks’ Lambda was used to evaluate multivariate significance. Univariate Ftests were conducted when significant multivariate results were obtained. F valueswere determined to be significant at p � .01 to control for Type 1 errors. Effect sizesand power estimates are reported. Scheffe post hoc comparisons were also conduc-ted to explore mean differences and are reported where there were significantdifferences among the means. The numbers vary slightly across analyses due tomissing data.
Gender and Year Level Differences in Self-Reported Delinquency
The results of the 2 � 5 (Gender by Year Level) MANOVA based on the sevendependent variables of self-reported delinquency revealed no significant interactioneffects, however, there were main effects for both Gender F(7, 943) � 10.94,p � .001 and Year Level F(28, 3401.46) � 5.76, p � .001. The follow-up UnivariateF tests revealed significant differences for the seven dependent variables for the maineffect of Gender. An examination of the observed means in Table II shows thatmales reported higher involvement than females on all seven variables of self-reported delinquency.
The results of the Univariate F tests and observed means for Year Level presentedin Table III, reveal significant differences for two of the seven variables, namelyschool misdemeanours and soft drug use (p � .001). Scheffe post hoc comparisonsconducted revealed that for school misdemeanours, significant differences wereevident between Year 8 and Years 10, 11, and 12 students, with Year 8 studentsreporting less involvement than Years 10, 11, and 12 students. For soft drug use,significant differences were found between Year 8 students and all other year levels.Year 8 students reported lower usage of soft drugs with soft drug use increasing withage.
Reputation Enhancement: Gender and Delinquency Involvement
The results of the 2 � 2 (Gender by Delinquency Involvement) MANOVA conduc-ted on each of the 16 Reputation Enhancement variables revealed no significantinteraction effect, but there were main effects for Gender, F(16, 891) � 8.04,p � .001 and Delinquency Involvement, F(16, 891) � 23.89, p � .001. The Univari-ate F-tests and observed means for the main effect of Gender which are presented
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
260 A. Carroll et al.
TA
BL
EII
.Uni
vari
ate
Fst
atis
tics
,obs
erve
dm
eans
,and
stan
dard
devi
atio
nsfo
rth
ese
lf-re
port
edde
linqu
ency
vari
able
s(d
f�1,
949)
wit
hge
nder
asth
ein
depe
nden
tva
riab
le
Mal
eF
emal
eM
ean
Eff
ect
Pow
erD
epen
dent
Var
iabl
esq
uare
F-v
alue
p-va
lue
size
esti
mat
eM
SD
MS
D
Har
ddr
ug-r
elat
edof
fenc
es17
.63
26.0
5�
.001
.03
.99
1.40
a.0
41.
12b
.04
Sch
ool
mis
dem
eano
urs
46.5
729
.05
�.0
01.0
31.
03.
41a
.06
2.94
b.0
6S
oft
drug
use
offe
nces
11.1
26.
87�
.01
.01
.75
2.19
a.0
61.
97b
.06
Ste
alin
gof
fenc
es17
.82
27.6
5�
.001
.03
1.0
1.50
a.0
41.
21b
.04
Veh
icle
-rel
ated
offe
nces
18.9
129
.87
�.0
01.0
31.
01.
39a
.04
1.09
b.0
4A
buse
ofpr
oper
ty19
.34
29.6
6�
.001
.03
1.0
1.49
a.0
41.
19b
.04
Phy
sica
lag
gres
sion
54.4
159
.73
�.0
01.0
61.
01.
81a
.05
1.31
b.0
5
Not
e.M
eans
wit
hin
row
sha
ving
noco
mm
onsu
bscr
ipt
diff
erat
p�
.01.
TA
BL
EII
I.U
niva
riat
eF
-tes
ts,
obse
rved
mea
ns,
and
stan
dard
devi
atio
nsfo
rth
ese
lf-re
port
edde
linqu
ency
vari
able
s(d
f�4,
949)
wit
hye
arle
vela
sth
ein
depe
nden
tva
riab
le
Yea
r8
Yea
r9
Yea
r10
Yea
r11
Yea
r12
Mea
nE
ffec
tP
ower
Dep
ende
ntva
riab
lesq
uare
F-v
alue
p-va
lue
size
esti
mat
eM
SD
MS
DM
SD
MS
DM
SD
Har
ddr
ug-r
elat
edof
fenc
es1.
582.
34.0
5.0
1.6
8S
choo
lm
isde
mea
nour
11.2
77.
26�
.001
.03
1.00
2.77
a.0
93.
11ab
cd.0
83.
20bc
d.0
83.
42bc
d.1
23.
37bc
d.1
1S
oft
drug
use
offe
nces
26.4
516
.34
�.0
01.0
61.
001.
52a
.09
1.96
bcd
.09
2.10
bcd
.08
2.35
bcde
.12
2.56
de.1
1S
teal
ing
offe
nces
.98
1.52
.19
.01
.48
Veh
icle
-rel
ated
offe
nces
.71
1.11
.35
.01
.35
Abu
seof
prop
erty
1.40
2.15
.07
.01
.64
Phy
sica
lag
gres
sion
2.37
2.6
.04
.01
.73
Not
e.M
eans
wit
hin
row
sha
ving
noco
mm
onsu
bscr
ipt
diff
erat
p�
.05.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Delinquency and Reputation in High School Students 261
in Table IV revealed significant effects for 10 of the 16 reputation variables weresignificant. Females scored higher than males on the variables of friendliness,admiration of law-abiding activity, conforming self-perception, conforming idealpublic self, activity self-description, power/evaluation self-description, activity idealprivate self, and prosocial communication. Males scored higher than females on thevariables of admiration of law-breaking activities and nonconforming ideal publicself.
The Univariate F-tests and observed means for the variable of level of involvementin delinquency is reported in Table V. Significant effects were found for 10 of the16 reputation variables. Students with high involvement in delinquency reported thehighest scores on the variables of admiration of law-breaking activities, reputationalself-perception and nonconforming self-perception, nonconforming ideal public self,and peer communication. Students with low involvement in delinquency scoredhighest on the variables of conforming self-perception, conforming ideal public self,activity self-description, activity ideal private self, and prosocial communication.
Gender and Year Level Differences in Reputation Enhancement
A 2 � 5 (Gender by Year Level) MANOVA performed on the 16 ReputationEnhancement variables revealed no interaction effects, however, there weresignificant main effects for both Gender, F(16, 889) � 15.99, p � .001 and YearLevel, F(64, 3482.55) � 2.48, p � .001. Table VI presents the Univariate F-tests andobserved means for the main effect of Gender when the main effect of Year Levelis removed.
As can be seen in Table VI, gender was significant for 13 of the 16 reputationenhancement variables with females scoring highest for the variables of friendliness,admiration of law-abiding activities, conforming self-perception, conforming idealpublic self, activity self-description, power/evaluation self-description, activity idealprivate self, and prosocial communication. Generally, females tended to strive for amore socially acceptable reputation than their male peers. Males on the other handreported greater admiration of lawbreaking behaviour and scored significantly higheron reputational self-perception, nonconforming self-perception, reputational idealpublic self, and nonconforming ideal public self.
The Univariate F-tests and observed means for the main effect of Year Levelwhich are shown in Table VII revealed significant effects for 6 of the 16 reputationenhancement variables. Admiration of law-breaking activities, nonconforming self-perception and nonconforming public self were greatest for Years 9 and 10 students,while conforming ideal public self was greatest for Years 8, 11, and 12 students.Prosocial communication was greatest for Year 12 students. Year 8 students scoredsignificantly higher than other year levels on activity self-description.
Reputation Enhancement: Year Level (Junior/Senior) and Delinquency Involvement
A 2 � 2 (Year Level by Delinquency Involvement) MANOVA was performed on the16 Reputation Enhancement variables using the independent variables of Year Level(junior, senior) and Delinquency Involvement (high, low involvement). A significant
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
262 A. Carroll et al.
TA
BL
EIV
.Uni
vari
ate
Fst
atis
tics
,obs
erve
dm
eans
,and
stan
dard
devi
atio
nsfo
rth
ere
puta
tion
enha
ncem
entv
aria
bles
(df�
1,90
6)w
ith
gend
eras
the
inde
pend
ent
vari
able
Mal
eF
emal
eM
ean
Eff
ect
Pow
erD
epen
dent
vari
able
squa
reF
-val
uep-
valu
esi
zees
tim
ate
MS
DM
SD
Fri
endl
ines
s13
.12
21.5
4�
.001
.02
1.00
3.65
a.0
64.
15b
.09
Adm
irat
ion
ofla
w-a
bidi
ngac
tivi
ties
22.6
827
.9�
.001
.03
1.00
3.00
a.0
73.
66b
.10
Adm
irat
ion
ofla
w-b
reak
ing
acti
viti
es5.
57.
75�
.005
.01
.79
2.88
a.0
62.
56b
.10
Rep
utat
iona
lse
lf-pe
rcep
tion
.02
.001
.97
.00
.05
Non
conf
orm
ing
self-
perc
epti
on2.
373.
61.0
6.0
0.4
8C
onfo
rmin
gse
lf-pe
rcep
tion
4.92
7.59
�.0
06.0
1.7
94.
44a
.06
4.74
b.0
9R
eput
atio
nal
idea
lpu
blic
self
5.44
3.78
.05
.00
.49
Non
conf
orm
ing
idea
lpu
blic
self
17.1
220
.84
�.0
01.0
21.
002.
65a
.07
2.1 b
.10
Con
form
ing
idea
lpu
blic
self
13.0
519
.54
�.0
01.0
21.
004.
63a
.06
5.13
b.0
9A
ctiv
ity
self-
desc
ript
ion
4.64
7.9
�.0
05.0
2.8
04.
03a
.06
4.11
b.0
5P
ower
/eva
luat
ion
self-
desc
ript
ion
8.27
13.2
5�
.001
.01
.95
2.81
a.0
63.
21b
.09
Act
ivit
yid
eal
priv
ate
self
4.64
7.9
�.0
05.0
1.8
04.
7 a.0
65.
0 b.0
9P
ower
/eva
luat
ion
idea
lpr
ivat
ese
lf.0
1.1
2.8
9.0
0.0
5A
dult
com
mun
icat
ion
.09
3.97
.05
.00
.51
Pro
soci
alco
mm
unic
atio
n.4
011
.35
�.0
01.0
1.9
2.5
2 a.0
1.6
1 b.0
2P
eer
com
mun
icat
ion
4.87
.43
.51
.01
.50
Not
e.M
eans
wit
hin
row
sha
ving
noco
mm
onsu
bscr
ipt
lett
erdi
ffer
atp
�.0
1.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Delinquency and Reputation in High School Students 263
TA
BL
EV
.U
niva
riat
eF
stat
isti
cs,
obse
rved
mea
ns,
and
stan
dard
devi
atio
nsfo
rth
e16
repu
tati
onen
hanc
emen
tva
riab
les
(df�
1,90
6)w
ith
delin
quen
cyin
volv
emen
tas
the
inde
pend
ent
vari
able
Hig
hin
volv
emen
tL
owin
volv
emen
tM
ean
Eff
ect
Pow
erD
epen
dent
vari
able
squa
reF
-val
uep-
valu
esi
zees
tim
ate
MS
DM
SD
Fri
endl
ines
s.4
1.6
8.4
1.0
0.1
3A
dmir
atio
nof
law
-abi
ding
acti
viti
es1.
882.
32.1
3.0
0.3
3A
dmir
atio
nof
law
-bre
akin
gac
tivi
ties
44.9
463
.29
�.0
01.0
71.
003.
17a
.11
2.26
b.0
3R
eput
atio
nal
self-
perc
epti
on33
.74
28.5
4�
.001
.03
1.00
4.01
a.1
43.
21b
.04
Non
conf
orm
ing
self-
perc
epti
on22
1.93
338.
27�
.001
.27
1.00
3.83
a.1
11.
79b
.03
Con
form
ing
self-
perc
epti
on11
.417
.6�
.001
.02
.99
4.4 a
.11
4.8 b
.03
Rep
utat
iona
lid
eal
publ
icse
lf4.
83.
33.0
7.0
0.4
5N
onco
nfor
min
gid
eal
publ
icse
lf10
8.58
132.
18�
.001
.13
1.00
3.08
a.1
21.
65b
.03
Con
form
ing
idea
lpu
blic
self
10.6
415
.94
�.0
01.0
2.9
84.
65a
.11
5.1 b
.03
Act
ivit
yse
lf-de
scri
ptio
n80
.76
142.
47�
.001
.02
.99
3.45
a.1
14.
69b
.03
Pow
er/e
valu
atio
nse
lf-de
scri
ptio
n3.
725.
96.0
2.0
1.6
8A
ctiv
ity
idea
lpr
ivat
ese
lf53
.22
90.8
1�
.001
.91
1.00
4.34
a.1
05.
34b
.03
Pow
er/e
valu
atio
nid
eal
priv
ate
self
.08
.01
.91
.00
.05
Adu
ltco
mm
unic
atio
n.0
82.
84.0
9.0
0.3
9P
roso
cial
com
mun
icat
ion
.99
28.0
3�
.001
.03
1.00
.50 a
.03
.64 b
.01
Pee
rco
mm
unic
atio
n1.
9618
.10
�.0
01.0
31.
00.5
7 a.0
3.3
8 b.0
1
Not
e.M
eans
wit
hin
row
sha
ving
noco
mm
onsu
bscr
ipt
lett
erdi
ffer
atp
�.0
1.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
264 A. Carroll et al.
TA
BL
EV
I.U
niva
riat
eF
stat
isti
cs,o
bser
ved
mea
ns,a
ndst
anda
rdde
viat
ions
for
the
repu
tati
onen
hanc
emen
tva
riab
les
(df�
1,90
4)w
ith
gend
eras
the
inde
pend
ent
vari
able
Mal
eF
emal
eM
ean
Eff
ect
Pow
erD
epen
dent
vari
able
squa
reF
-val
uep-
valu
esi
zees
tim
ate
MS
DM
SD
Fri
endl
ines
s25
.04
41.2
7�
.001
.04
1.00
3.76
a.0
44.
11b
.04
Adm
irat
ion
ofla
w-a
bidi
ngac
tivi
ties
65.3
780
.95
�.0
01.0
81.
003.
14a
.05
3.7 b
.04
Adm
irat
ion
ofla
w-b
reak
ing
acti
viti
es17
.32
22.7
4�
.001
.03
1.00
2.54
a.0
52.
16b
.04
Rep
utat
iona
lse
lf-pe
rcep
tion
9.02
7.43
�.0
07.0
1.7
83.
36a
.06
3.15
b.0
5N
onco
nfor
min
gse
lf-pe
rcep
tion
31.5
234
.18
�.0
01.0
41.
002.
13a
.05
1.74
b.0
5C
onfo
rmin
gse
lf-pe
rcep
tion
27.8
241
.74
�.0
01.0
41.
004.
6 a.0
44.
97b
.04
Rep
utat
iona
lid
eal
publ
icse
lf26
.21
18.0
5�
.001
.02
1.00
3.87
a.0
63.
51b
.06
Non
conf
orm
ing
idea
lpu
blic
self
33.8
034
.72
�.0
01.0
41.
001.
96a
.05
1.55
b.0
5C
onfo
rmin
gid
eal
publ
icse
lf32
.99
48.8
9�
.001
.05
1.00
4.88
a.0
45.
28b
.04
Act
ivit
yse
lf-de
scri
ptio
n8.
0412
.27
�.0
01.0
41.
004.
49a
.04
4.68
b.0
4P
ower
/eva
luat
ion
self-
desc
ript
ion
20.4
032
.37
�.0
01.0
41.
002.
96a
.04
3.27
b.0
4A
ctiv
ity
idea
lpr
ivat
ese
lf10
.87
16.5
7�
.001
.02
1.00
5.16
a.0
45.
38b
.04
Pow
er/e
valu
atio
nid
eal
priv
ate
self
3.53
5.89
.02
.01
.68
Adu
ltco
mm
unic
atio
n.1
14.
35.0
4.0
1.5
5P
roso
cial
com
mun
icat
ion
.74
20.4
2�
.001
.02
1.00
0.6 a
.01
0.66
b.0
1P
eer
com
mun
icat
ion
.55
5.01
.03
.01
1.00
Not
e.M
eans
wit
hin
row
sha
ving
noco
mm
onsu
bscr
ipt
diff
erat
p�
.01.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Delinquency and Reputation in High School Students 265
TA
BL
EV
II.
Uni
vari
ate
Fst
atis
tics
,ob
serv
edm
eans
,an
dst
anda
rdde
viat
ions
for
the
repu
tati
onen
hanc
emen
tva
riab
les
(df�
4,90
4)w
ith
year
leve
las
the
inde
pend
ent
vari
able Y
ear
8Y
ear
9Y
ear
10Y
ear
11Y
ear
12M
ean
Eff
ect
Pow
erD
epen
dent
vari
able
squa
reF
-val
uep-
valu
esi
zees
timat
eM
SDM
SDM
SDM
SDM
SD
Fri
endl
ines
s.3
2.5
2.7
2.0
0.1
8A
dmir
atio
nof
law
-abi
ding
activ
ities
1.59
1.96
.10
.01
.59
Adm
irat
ion
ofla
w-b
reak
ing
activ
ities
3.0
3.95
�.0
03.0
2.9
12.
23ad
.06
2.38
ab.0
62.
47b
.08
2.33
ad.0
82.
14d
.08
Rep
utat
iona
lsel
f-pe
rcep
tion
1.77
1.46
.21
.01
.46
Non
conf
orm
ing
self-
perc
eptio
n3.
94.
27�
.002
.02
.93
1.77
a.0
72.
08b
.07
2.04
c.0
62.
00d
.09
1.79
a.0
8C
onfo
rmin
gse
lf-pe
rcep
tion
.82
1.23
.3.0
1.3
9R
eput
atio
nali
deal
publ
icse
lf1.
07.7
4.5
7.0
0.2
4N
onco
nfor
min
gid
ealp
ublic
self
3.81
3.91
�.0
04.0
2.9
01.
63a
.07
1.95
b.0
71.
85dc
.06
1.74
ad.0
91.
61ac
.09
Con
form
ing
idea
lpub
licse
lf2.
153.
19�
.01
.01
.83
5.18
a.0
64.
93b
.06
5.00
c.0
55.
14ac
.08
5.13
ac.0
7P
ower
self-
desc
ript
ion
.37
.58
.68
.00
.19
Act
ivity
self-
desc
ript
ion
4.04
6.17
�.0
01.0
1.9
44.
84a
.06
4.48
b.0
64.
56c
.06
4.52
d.0
74.
53e
.07
Act
ivity
idea
lpri
vate
self
1.93
2.95
.02
.01
.79
Pow
er/e
valu
atio
nid
ealp
riva
tese
lf1.
863.
11.0
2.0
1.8
2A
dult
com
mun
icat
ion
.04
1.71
.15
.01
.83
Pro
soci
alco
mm
unic
atio
n.0
64.
32�
.002
.02
.93
.62 a
.01
.59 b
.01
.62 a
.01
.64 d
.12
.67 c
.12
Pee
rco
mm
unic
atio
n.1
41.
31.2
7.0
1.7
0
Not
e.M
eans
wit
hin
row
sha
ving
noco
mm
onsu
bscr
ipt
diff
erat
p�
.01.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
266 A. Carroll et al.
interaction effect for Year Level by Delinquency Involvement was found, F(16,891) � 3.34, p � .001, and significant multivariate main effects were evident for YearLevel, F(16, 891) � 3.76, p � .001 and Delinquency Involvement, F(16, 891) �23.81, p � .001.
The Univariate F-tests and observed means for the interaction effect which arepresented in Table VIII revealed significant effects for 3 of the 16 reputationvariables. Participants who were highly engaged in delinquent behaviour, regardlessof year level, scored higher than those with low involvement on the variables ofnonconforming self-perception and nonconforming ideal public self. Those with lowinvolvement, regardless of year grouping, scored higher than those with highinvolvement on the variable of conforming self-perception. Junior students highlyinvolved in delinquency scored higher than senior students highly involved indelinquency on all of the reputation variables, significantly influencing the interac-tion effect.
The results of the Univariate F-tests and observed means for the main effect ofDelinquency Involvement presented in Table IX show significant effects for 14 ofthe 16 reputation variables. Students who had a high level of Delinquency Involve-ment reported higher admiration for law-breaking activities, reputational self-perception and nonconforming self-perception, nonconforming ideal public self, andadult and peer communication. Participants with a low level of DelinquencyInvolvement scored highest on the other remaining variables (friendliness, admir-ation of law-abiding behaviour, conforming self-perception, conforming ideal publicself, activity self-description, power/evaluation self-description, activity ideal privateself, and prosocial communication).
The Univariate F-tests and observed means for the main effect of Year Level(senior, junior) with reputation as the dependent variable are presented in Table X.The junior participants scored higher than seniors on the variables of admiration oflaw-breaking activities, nonconforming self-perception, and nonconforming idealpublic self indicating a high concern for their reputation. Participants in the senioryear levels scored higher than their junior counterparts on activity ideal private selfand prosocial communication.
Discussion
Results pertaining to delinquency involvement support other research (Emler &Reicher, 1995; Houghton & Carroll, 2002) that males are engaged in all types ofdelinquency at a higher rate than females. The types of delinquent behaviourengaged in by high school students varied with year level. Drug use (hard and soft)increased with year level which supports other research that drug use increases withage (Odgers, Houghton, & Douglas, 1995, 1997). The delinquent behaviours ofstealing, school misdemeanours, vehicle-related offences, and property and persondamage were greatest among Year 9 students. Previous research has found thatdelinquency reaches its peak between the ages of 14 and 15 (Blackburn, 1993;Emler & Hopkins, 1990) and in the present research Year 9 students were approx-imately 15 years of age. After Year 9 there is a gradual decline in these activities. Asmost of the research relies on school populations, this may be a result of students
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Delinquency and Reputation in High School Students 267
TA
BL
EV
III.
Uni
vari
ate
Fst
atis
tics
,obs
erve
dm
eans
,and
stan
dard
devi
atio
nsfo
rth
ein
tera
ctio
nef
fect
betw
een
year
leve
land
delin
quen
cyin
volv
emen
tfo
rth
ere
puta
tion
enha
ncem
ent
vari
able
s(d
f�1,
906) L
owin
volv
emen
tH
igh
invo
lvem
ent
Juni
orS
enio
rJu
nior
Sen
ior
Mea
nE
ffec
tP
ower
Dep
ende
ntva
riab
lesq
uare
F-v
alue
p-va
lue
size
esti
mat
eM
SD
MS
DM
SD
MS
D
Fri
endl
ines
s1.
752.
72.0
9.0
03.3
8A
dmir
atio
nof
law
-abi
ding
acti
viti
es3.
724.
24.0
4.0
05.5
4A
dmir
atio
nof
law
-bre
akin
gac
tivi
ties
5.37
7.55
.01
.008
.78
Rep
utat
iona
lse
lf-pe
rcep
tion
6.82
5.78
.02
.006
.67
Non
conf
orm
ing
self-
perc
epti
on11
.76
17.9
2�
.001
.019
.99
1.79
.03
1.73
.05
4.19
.12
3.21
.17
Con
form
ing
self-
perc
epti
on8.
1212
.20
�.0
01.0
13.9
44.
8.0
34.
9.0
54.
5.1
23.
9.1
7R
eput
atio
nal
idea
lpu
blic
self
2.61
1.79
.18
.002
.27
Non
conf
orm
ing
idea
lpu
blic
self
14.5
817
.64
�.0
01.0
19.9
91.
17.0
41.
56.0
63.
64.1
32.
5.1
9C
onfo
rmin
gid
eal
publ
icse
lf2.
473.
55.0
6.0
04.4
7A
ctiv
ity
self-
desc
ript
ion
2.90
5.13
.02
.001
.99
Pow
erse
lf-de
scri
ptio
n1.
071.
66.2
0.0
02.2
5A
ctiv
ity
idea
lpr
ivat
ese
lf3.
806.
45.0
1.0
07.7
18P
ower
/eva
luat
ion
idea
lpr
ivat
ese
lf.1
5.2
4.6
3.0
00.0
78A
dult
com
mun
icat
ion
.02
.72
.40
.001
.135
Pro
soci
alco
mm
unic
atio
n.0
92.
50.1
1.0
03.3
52P
eer
com
mun
icat
ion
4.55
.42
.52
.001
.500
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
268 A. Carroll et al.
TA
BL
EIX
.Uni
vari
ate
Fst
atis
tics
,obs
erve
dm
eans
,and
stan
dard
devi
atio
nsfo
rthe
repu
tati
onen
hanc
emen
tvar
iabl
es(d
f�1,
906)
wit
hde
linqu
ency
invo
lvem
ent
asth
ein
depe
nden
tva
riab
le
Low
invo
lvem
ent
Hig
hin
volv
emen
tM
ean
Eff
ect
Pow
erD
epen
dent
vari
able
squa
reF
-val
uep-
valu
esi
zees
tim
ate
MS
DM
SD
Fri
endl
ines
s5.
238.
13�
.004
.01
.813
3.98
a.0
33.
67b
.10
Adm
irat
ion
ofla
w-a
bidi
ngac
tivi
ties
12.9
314
.74
�.0
01.0
2.9
73.
5 a.0
43.
02b
.12
Adm
irat
ion
ofla
w-b
reak
ing
acti
viti
es48
.22
67.8
4�
.001
.07
1.00
2.21
a.0
33.
14b
.12
Rep
utat
iona
lse
lf-pe
rcep
tion
23.9
620
.31
�.0
01.0
2.9
93.
22a
.04
8.87
b.1
4N
onco
nfor
min
gse
lf-pe
rcep
tion
211.
7032
2.48
�.0
01.2
61.
001.
76a
.03
3.7 b
.10
Con
form
ing
self-
perc
epti
on25
.55
38.4
2�
.001
.04
1.00
4.87
a.0
34.
2 b.1
0R
eput
atio
nal
idea
lpu
blic
self
5.8
3.98
.05
.00
.51
Non
conf
orm
ing
idea
lpu
blic
self
120.
1114
5.33
�.0
01.1
41.
001.
61a
.03
3.07
b.1
2C
onfo
rmin
gid
eal
publ
icse
lf26
.12
37.5
2�
.001
.04
1.00
5.16
a.0
34.
48b
.11
Pow
erse
lf-de
scri
ptio
n6.
429.
93�
.002
.01
.99
3.15
a.0
32.
81b
.10
Act
ivit
yse
lf-de
scri
ptio
n76
.78
135.
64�
.001
.28
1.80
4.68
a.0
33.
51b
.13
Act
ivit
yid
eal
priv
ate
self
57.9
898
.42
�.0
01.0
91.
005.
36a
.03
4.35
b.1
0P
ower
/eva
luat
ion
idea
lpr
ivat
ese
lf.0
5.0
9.7
7.0
0.0
6A
dult
com
mun
icat
ion
.19
7.96
�.0
05.0
1.8
1.0
8 a.1
0.1
4 b.0
2P
roso
cial
com
mun
icat
ion
1.38
39.3
5�
.001
.04
1.00
.65 a
.01
.49 b
.02
Pee
rco
mm
unic
atio
n1.
4913
.66
�.0
01.0
31.
00.3
8 a.0
1.5
3 b.0
2
Not
e.M
eans
wit
hin
row
sha
ving
noco
mm
onsu
bscr
ipt
diff
erat
p�
.01.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Delinquency and Reputation in High School Students 269
TA
BL
EX
.Uni
vari
ate
Fst
atis
tics
,obs
erve
dm
eans
,and
stan
dard
devi
atio
nsfo
rth
ere
puta
tion
enha
ncem
ent
vari
able
s(d
f�1,
906)
wit
hye
arle
vel
asth
ein
depe
nden
tva
riab
le
Juni
orS
enio
rM
ean
Eff
ect
Pow
erD
epen
dent
vari
able
squa
reF
-val
uep-
valu
esi
zees
tim
ate
MS
DM
SD
Fri
endl
ines
s.6
0.9
4.3
3.0
0.1
6A
dmir
atio
nof
law
-abi
ding
acti
viti
es.1
9.2
2.6
4.0
0.0
8A
dmir
atio
nof
law
-bre
akin
gac
tivi
ties
11.1
15.6
2�
.001
.02
.98
2.9 a
.06
2.45
b.0
9R
eput
atio
nal
self-
perc
epti
on4.
73.
98.0
5.0
0.5
1N
onco
nfor
min
gse
lf-pe
rcep
tion
15.2
223
.19
�.0
01.0
31.
002.
99a
.06
2.47
b.0
9C
onfo
rmin
gse
lf-pe
rcep
tion
2.9
4.41
.04
.01
.56
Rep
utat
iona
lid
eal
publ
icse
lf2.
71.
85.1
7.0
0.2
8N
onco
nfor
min
gid
eal
publ
icse
lf21
.87
24.4
7�
.001
.03
1.00
2.65
a.0
72.
03b
.09
Con
form
ing
idea
lpu
blic
self
.01
.05
.82
.00
.06
Pow
erse
lf-de
scri
ptio
n.7
51.
16.2
8.0
0.1
9A
ctiv
ity
self-
desc
ript
ion
1.08
1.91
.17
.01
.13
Act
ivit
yid
eal
priv
ate
self
5.23
8.88
�.0
03.0
1.8
54.
70a
.06
5.01
b.0
8P
ower
/eva
luat
ion
idea
lpr
ivat
ese
lf.6
61.
09.3
.00
.18
Adu
ltco
mm
unic
atio
n.0
1.3
9.5
8.0
0.0
9P
roso
cial
com
mun
icat
ion
.48
13.6
7�
.001
.02
.96
.53 a
.01
.62 b
.02
Pee
rco
mm
unic
atio
n7.
59.6
9.4
1.0
1.9
3
Not
e.M
eans
wit
hin
row
sha
ving
noco
mm
onsu
bscr
ipt
diff
erat
p�
.01.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
270 A. Carroll et al.
involved in these activities being expelled from school or incarcerated for theirbehaviour. Alternatively, young people may leave school after this age and reorientthemselves to adult responsibilities such as finding a career path or paid employ-ment.
The present research identified significant differences among the desired reputa-tions of male and female high school students. Females placed more value onfriendship and group membership, admired law-abiding behaviour more than males(returning what they have borrowed, obeying parents, receiving good grades),perceived themselves to be more conforming (get along well with others, have agood reputation), would ideally like to be perceived by others as conforming(trusting, good), described themselves with positive attributes (kind, friendly), andcommunicated more with adults and parents than did males. Thus, females reporteda higher desire than males for a conforming reputation and were more likely toparticipate in activities that supported this reputation.
In comparison to their female counterparts, males were identified as having ahigher admiration for law-breaking activities (e.g., dealing drugs, stealing, truancy,taking drugs), perceived themselves to be nonconforming (e.g., breaking rules,getting into trouble), and reported informing their peers of their nonconformingbehaviour. Males would ideally like to be perceived as tough, leaders and popular.It can be concluded, therefore, that males in this study were more interested thanfemales with attaining and sustaining a nonconforming reputation. Since the malesin this study reported a significantly higher degree of delinquent behaviour theseresults suggest a relationship between delinquency and a nonconforming reputation.
Students with high involvement in delinquency admired law-breaking behaviour(e.g., fighting, stealing, drug taking) more than those with minimal delinquencyinvolvement. Furthermore, those with high involvement perceived themselves asnonconforming (e.g., breaking rules, bad reputation) and ideally wanted to beperceived in this manner. They informed peers of their behaviour, but not adults.Conversely, students with low delinquency involvement perceived themselves andideally wanted to be seen as conforming (trustworthy, likely to succeed, get alongwell with others). They described themselves in terms of power/evaluation attributes(e.g., leaders, good looking) and activity attributes (kind, friendly). Ideally theywanted to be described as people who do not break the rules, are smart, and kind.They communicated prosocial behaviour (e.g., receiving a certificate, a good grade)to others (e.g., peers, parents, and other adults), and admired law-abiding behaviour(e.g., obeying parents, good grades). These results support Emler (1990) andCarroll (1995) who found that male delinquents desired a nonconforming repu-tation, participated in activities that supported a nonconforming reputation, andcommunicated behaviour supporting their reputation to peers.
When year levels were dichotomised into junior (Years 8, 9, 10) and senior (Years11, 12) groupings, junior participants were identified as most concerned with theirnonconforming reputations. Compared to the senior group, junior students admiredlaw-breaking activities, perceived themselves to be tough, leaders, popular, andnonconforming (e.g., trouble makers). There were some junior students, however,who perceived themselves as conforming (e.g., having a good reputation). Since
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Delinquency and Reputation in High School Students 271
most junior students are in the early stages of adolescence, the choice of a conform-ing or nonconforming reputation assumes increasing importance. The results of thepresent research therefore add support to Emler’s (1990) findings that reputationsbecome highly important at the onset of adolescence.
Cotterell’s (1996) claim that students attending large high schools may have agreater need to be affiliated with crowd types to find their place in the school system(i.e., social categorisation) provides further support for the current findings. Crowdtypes may serve the same purpose as reputations (but may not be as long lasting),by providing an identifiable reference group for students, whereby individual needs(e.g., friendship, identity) are met and virtues acknowledged. In the early years ofhigh school, crowd types and thus reputations may be more important than in thelater years when friendships are established and less energy is needed to ensure one’svirtues are acknowledged.
Reputational differences were found among year levels. Year 12 students, forexample, ideally liked to be described in terms of power/evaluation attributes (e.g.,leaders, powerful) more than other year levels which is not totally unexpected sinceat this age leadership roles are adopted. Year 12 students reported high prosocialcommunication (e.g., would tell others if they received a certificate, good grade)which again is associated with an achievement-oriented year.
Year 8 students reported least concern for a nonconforming reputation andpreferred to be seen by others in terms of activity attributes (e.g., kind, smart, andfriendly); they also described themselves in this way. As students new to the highschool, they may be finding their place in the system and doing their best to conformto the socially accepted norms promoted by the school. Additionally, they may nothave been exposed to forms of nonconforming behaviour because nonconformingbehaviour such as delinquency involvement increases during high school (Emler,1984).
Year 9 participants scored the highest on nonconforming self-perception and idealpublic self and on levels of involvement in delinquent behaviour. This is consistentwith Emler’s (1990) claims that individuals engaging in delinquency desire andstrive for nonconforming reputations. Peer communication of nonconforming be-haviour was greatest for Year 9, 10, and 11 students. Consistent with this finding isthe propensity for delinquent behaviour. In the present study, delinquency in avariety of forms increased from Year 9, along with an increased desire for anonconforming reputation. According to Emler, to sustain a nonconforming repu-tation, one must behave in a manner consistent with this reputation and/or com-municate this behaviour to others. The results here suggest that students who arestriving for a nonconforming reputation are acting in the manner described by Emlerin order to sustain their nonconforming reputation.
To date, many intervention strategies have targeted delinquency and other risktaking behaviours by focusing on information pertaining to the risk factors associ-ated with engaging in such behaviours. Other strategies have involved teachingassertiveness skills such as “saying no to drugs”, while the idea of raising self-esteemand self-efficacy has also been popular (Odgers et al., 1995, 1997). The presentresearch findings, coupled with the extensive previous research evidence, clearly
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
272 A. Carroll et al.
highlights the need for a strategy that incorporates a reputation component. Forexample, such interventions might provide opportunities for adolescents to exploredifferent types of social identities and promote the desirability of more conformingreputations. Obviously for some adolescents, nonconforming reputations are attract-ive and the behaviours affiliated with this reputation meet their needs. Too often,students who engage in delinquency are identified under a deficit model. Thesestudents have skills, however, which are commensurate with their needs, albeit thatsuch needs often involve a more dangerous means of achieving desired outcomes.For many students who engage in delinquency, this may be the easiest option. Thus,it may be advantageous to create opportunities whereby students can meet theirneeds through an alternative option within the school system.
Although the behaviours associated with acquiring a conforming reputation (e.g.,doing well at academics, sports, communicating with adults about prosocial activi-ties) are conventional, for some students such behaviours may not fit with theirneeds. The school environment with its focus on conformity, means that studentswho lean towards unconventionality may find it difficult to meet their needs throughtypical school activities. Intervention should therefore focus on supporting thesestudents by designing programs that embrace and make use of skills held. Moreover,if we are to engage these young people in the school system, we need to strengthenways that schools cater for and support all young people in their education. A rangeof measures need to be considered to allow for more flexibility so that young peopleare better equipped for the demands of our society (e.g., offering programs ofworkplace learning and community activities, providing school-to-work transitionprograms, using mentors for young people at risk of disengaging from school).
In conclusion, the present research has further extended the work to date pertain-ing to the importance of reputation enhancement among young persons. Further-more, it has provided valuable evidence about the relationship between reputationand delinquency involvement. What is now required is for practitioners to juxtaposethe research findings with current programs so that young persons involved in orat-risk of involvement in delinquency might achieve success through more conven-tional means.
References
AGNEW, R. (1991). The interactive effects of peer variables on delinquency. Criminology, 29,47–72.
AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY (2002). Australian crime: Facts and figures 2002. Can-berra: Author.
BLACKBURN, R. (1993). The psychology of criminal conduct: Theory, research and practice. New York:John Wiley.
CARROLL, A. (1995). The development of delinquency: Integrating reputation enhancement and goalsetting theory. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, The University of Western Australia,Perth, Australia.
CARROLL, A., DURKIN, K., HATTIE, J., & HOUGHTON, S. (1997). Goal setting among adolescents:A comparison of delinquent, at-risk, and not at-risk youth. The Journal of EducationalPsychology, 89, 441–450.
CARROLL, A., DURKIN, K., HOUGHTON, S., & HATTIE, J. (1996). An adaption of Mak’s self-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Delinquency and Reputation in High School Students 273
reported delinquency scale for Australian adolescents. Australian Journal of Psychology,48(1), 1–7.
CARROLL, A., HOUGHTON, S., HATTIE, J., & DURKIN, K. (1999). Adolescent reputation enhance-ment: Differentiating delinquent and nondelinquent youths. The Journal of Child Psychologyand Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 40, 593–606.
CLOWARD, R.A., & OHLIN, L.E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity. New York: Free Press.COTTERELL, J. (1996). Social networks and social influences in adolescence. London: Routledge.DRYFOOS, J.G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and prevention. New York: Oxford University
Press.DUNFORD, F.W., & ELLIOTT, D.S. (1982). Identifying career offenders with self-reported data. Wash-
ington, DC: National Institute of Mental Health.EMLER, N. (1984). Differential involvement in delinquency: Toward an interpretation in terms of
reputation management. Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 13, 173–239.EMLER, N. (1990). A social psychology of reputation. European Review of Social Psychology, 1,
171–193.EMLER, N., & HOPKINS, N. (1990). Reputation, social identity and the self. In D. ABRAMS & M.
HOGG (Eds.), New directions in social identity theory (pp. 113–130). Hemel Hempstead, UK:Harvester Wheatsheaf.
EMLER, N., & REICHER, S. (1995). Adolescence and delinquency. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.FERNANDEZ, J.A., & LOH, N.S.N. (2001). Crime and justice statistics for Western Australia: 2001.
Perth: The University of Western Australia Crime Research Centre.FLESCH, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221–233.HIRSCHI, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Los Angeles: University of California Press.HIRSCHI, T. (1986). On the compatibility of rational choice and social control theories of crime.
In D.B. CORNISH & R.V. CLARKE (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives onoffending (pp. 105–118). New York: Springer-Verlag.
HOPKINS, N., & EMLER, N. (1990). Social network participation and problem behaviour inadolescence. In K. HURRELMANN (Ed.), Health hazards in adolescence (pp. 385–407). NewYork: de Gruyter.
HOUGHTON, S., & CARROLL, A. (1996). Enhancing reputations: The effective use of behaviourmanagement strategies by high school adolescent males. Scientia Pedagogica Experimentalis,33, 227–244.
HOUGHTON, S., & CARROLL, A. (2002). Longitudinal rates of self-reported delinquency of at-riskand not at-risk high school students. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 35,99–113.
LORION, R.P., TOLAN, P.H., & WAHLER, R.G. (1987). Prevention. In H.C. QUAY (Ed.), Handbookof juvenile delinquency (pp. 383–416). New York: John Wiley.
MILLER, W.B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal ofSocial Issues, 14, 5–19.
ODGERS, P., HOUGHTON, S., & DOUGLAS, G. (1995). Reputation enhancement theory and ado-lescent substance use. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 1015–1022.
ODGERS, P., HOUGHTON, S., & DOUGLAS, G. (1997). The prevalence and frequency of drug useamong Western Australian high school students. Addictive Behaviours, 27, 315–325.
OYSERMAN, D., & SALTZ, E. (1993). Competence, delinquency, and attempts to attain possibleselves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 360–374.
REICHER, S., & EMLER, N. (1988). Managing reputations in adolescents: The pursuit of delinquentand nondelinquent identities. In H. BELOFF (Ed.), Getting into life (pp. 13–42). London:Methuen.
STAHL, A. (1998). Delinquency cases in juvenile courts. Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention Fact Sheet 79. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
SUTHERLAND, E.H., & CRESSEY, D.R. (1970). Principles of criminology (8th ed.). Chicago: Lippin-cott.
WEST, D.J., & FARRINGTON, D.P. (1977). The delinquent way of life. London: Heinemann.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 20:
12 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014