A genetically-controlled, cross-lagged study of the association between friends’ deviance and participants’ delinquency during adolescence: A replication.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the present study was to replicate Burt et al. (2009) and Hou et al. (2013) findings by determining the contribution of peers' deviance to changes in participants' (monozygotic [MZ] twins') self-reported delinquency from mid- to late adolescence while controlling for possible gene-environment correlations (rGE) through the use of the cotwin method in the context of a cross-lagged design. Two separate samples were used to this purpose. The first sample included 289 MZ-twin pairs (48.42% female; 65.5% of European descent, 21.7% of African descent, 12.8% other; average age at first assessment = 16.20 years) and relied on perceived measures of peer deviance, as in the two original studies. The second sample comprised 181 MZ-twin pairs (50.67% female; 84% of European descent, 3% of African descent, 2% of Asian descent, 2% Native North Americans, and 9% unspecified; average age at first assessment = 13.05 years) and used direct measures to assess peers' deviance. Participants in the first sample were part of a large representative sample of American adolescents, whereas the second sample included families with twins born in a large Canadian city. Results showed that within-pair differences in self-reported delinquency were stable from midadolescence to late adolescence in both samples. As in Burt et al. (2009) and Hou et al. (2013) within-pair differences in peer deviance did not predict changes in within-pair differences in self-reported delinquency in both samples (i.e., no socialization effect). In contrast to Burt et al. (2009) and Hou et al. (2013), however, we found no predictive link from twins' self-reported delinquency to peers' deviance (i.e., no selection effect). Finally, as in Burt et al. (2009) we found that peers' deviance was stable from middle to late adolescence and that peers' deviance and participants' delinquency were cross-sectionally correlated in the first sample, but not in the second sample. These results are interpreted in the context of the ongoing debate in regard to peers' socialization vs selection effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".