The paper outlines the critical role that peer pressure plays in influencing delinquency among adolescents. It reviews different ways that peers affect distinct antisocial behaviors together with the manner in which antisocial adolescents select friends who are likeminded (homophily). It also explores where both peer influences and peer selection exist together in line with their effects, whereby similar adolescents as well as behaviors co-occur in the two directional areas. It also discusses the ecological, particularly family influences and the influence they have on the selection of peers and their effects together with the manner in which effects from peer networks differ regarding deviance. This is especially between those limited to adolescents and those that persist during life. Lastly, the paper reviews early-experiential and biological vulnerabilities, which subject adolescents to choosing antisocial peers briefly.
Introduction
In the current society, peer affiliations serve as among the key predictors of the behaviors that adolescents portray. Affiliation with friends who take alcohol is significantly linked to use of alcohol, use of illicit drugs, violent behavior, and delinquency. Studies have found the influences to remain consistent in diverse countries worldwide (Sweeten, Piquero, & Steinberg, 2013) . In fact, evidence prevails, which reveals that peer affiliations might serve as mechanisms that contribute to conflicts in families and social disadvantages, which pose serious repercussions in the later life of adolescents as well as when they attain adulthood, such as sexual promiscuity, criminal activities, and bearing children at an early age (Omboto, Ondiek, Odera, & Ayugi, 2013) . Whereas some might argue that associating with friends who take risks increases chances for using substances, delinquency, and unsafe sexual practices, it is possible to explain and conceptualize this kind of a relationship in several ways. The different explanations feature distinct implications concerning how affiliations with negative peers develop in line the manner in which they influence deviance (Meldrum, Miller, & Flexon, 2013) . Thus, understanding the impact that peer pressure has on juvenile delinquency would assist in determining the ideal approaches of dealing with such situations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Cause and Effect Relationship on Peer Selection
Conventional theories on criminology especially control theories, including the self-control theory, reveal deviant peers as correlating to propensity for violating norms or individual deviance. For instance, associating with antisocial peers is attributed to reduced self-control levels in line with other traits. Therefore, adolescents might choose peers who portray similar traits as them (Young & Weerman, 2013) . For instance, evidence reveals that adolescents who engage in acts, such as smoking cigarettes might associate themselves with other smokers as opposed to affiliating with smoking friends encouraging a peer to smoke. Furthermore, studies have revealed that antisocial adolescents might select many “best friends” who also portray delinquent behavior (Fanti, Demetriou, & Kimonis, 2013) . This mode of selecting peers is referred to as peer homophily. It refers that individuals affiliated with a similar practice usually remain together.
By contrast, social learning theories, including differential association theory stipulates that deviant peers normally serve as the major forces behind the development of delinquency among adolescents. Adolescents who find themselves in wrong crowds might commence showing antisocial behaviors, which they did not portray previously. For instance, in the case of older adolescents, for example, the time they spend with their friends together with their individual delinquency might contribute to participation in minor delinquencies, such as damaging property or theft (Alleyne & Wood, 2014) . An additional example reveals that adolescents who are raised by parents who show significant attention in their lives usually resist influences from peers. Furthermore, affiliations with disruptive colleagues especially during middle school lead individuals to engage in delinquent behavior while in high school (Monahan, Rhew, Hawkins, & Brown, 2014) . Recent experiments offer evidence support the perspective on social learning whereby 38 percent of students subjected to deviant experimental confederate later portrayed intending cheating on a task for recalling words when compared to no student in a controlled environment. In this case, evidence reveals that exposure to peers and deviate peer vulnerability leads young individuals to take part in deviant behavior among young individuals (Sweeten, Piquero, & Steinberg, 2013) .
Explanations of peer influence and peer homophily are not considered as mutually exclusive, nonetheless. Several studies have tried comparing two issues via empirical means while using a cross-lagged or growth curve panel of modeling. Numerous studies have revealed reciprocal influences whereby engaging in risky behavior results to peer influence and vice versa. Additional studies have revealed stronger influences affiliated with peer influence as opposed to peer homophily and vice versa. Moreover, other studies have shown proof or homophily or several of key behaviors (Monahan, Rhew, Hawkins, & Brown, 2014) . In this case, it is vital to realize that, irrespective of the longitudinal designs utilized, the work is correlational while it does not permit for causal relations.
Additionally, research has suggested several deviant behaviors are forecasted through peer influence while others are attributed to the influence of homophily. For instance, in the case of proactive aggression, which serves as an antisocial behavior started with the goal of attaining a certain goal, it contributes to peer influence. In the case reactive aggression, which entails responding to a perceived or real threat, it occurs when responding to the behavior of peers (Alleyne & Wood, 2014) . Moreover, particular groups of teenagers might likely be attracted toward antisocial peers, whereas others feel the effects of antisocial peers on a situational basis. In the event of aggressive adolescents who do not receive invitations from their peers, they might perceive antisocial networks as ways of fitting in with individuals with similar orientations (Young & Weerman, 2013) . These kinds of antisocial networks usually play the role of influencing the antisocial behaviors that adolescents portray. The adolescents establish friendships regularly, which revolve around deviant practices. Other teenagers might affiliate themselves with the antisocial networks on a temporary basis as a means of experimenting with antisocial behavior, although they might end up desisting from the behavior once they approach the end of their adolescence (Alleyne & Wood, 2014) . Nonetheless, adolescents facing rejection from peers while embarking on a life consistent with delinquency might continue portraying deviant behavior even as adults.
Hence, the role that peers play in the event of juvenile delinquency is significantly sophisticated. Certain adolescents have higher chances of self-selecting deviant peer association. Also, certain antisocial behaviors have higher chances of leading individuals to choose them while others might result because of the influence of peers. Influence and selection take place concurrently and might influence each other via a feedback look. The concept of peer influence toward delinquency is therefore multifaceted and dynamic (Monahan, Rhew, Hawkins, & Brown, 2014) .
Genetic and Environmental forces behind Deviant Peer Affiliations
Questions prevail as to what subjects adolescents to involve themselves with antisocial behavior where via social influence or self-selection. According to research, the processes in the family, especially the closeness of parents with adolescents and monitoring by the parents play an essential role in safeguarding adolescents from exposure to peers that might influence negatively. In the event that parents sustain a warm as well as involved relationship with their young adolescents, they have higher chances of observing them (Omboto, Ondiek, Odera, & Ayugi, 2013) . As such, the adolescents have higher chances of disclosing vital information to their parents. In this case, the parents are well equipped in intervening with the adolescents in the event that deviant adolescents appear to be influencing them. By contrast, in the event that the relationship that exists between adolescents and parents is characterized by conflicts, parents might not gain sufficient information regarding whom their children interact with. In this case, the adolescents might be highly susceptible to the influence that antisocial friends bring their way (Fanti, Demetriou, & Kimonis, 2013) .
When it comes to the adolescents who chose antisocial friends actively, they might be characterized by severe and persistent problems in the family. For instance, studies reveal that people coming from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds and who encountered significant levels of conflicts while they were young end up seeking deviant friends when they attain adolescence (Meldrum, Miller, & Flexon, 2013) . Other stressors from the environment, including ethnic/racial discrimination might subject adolescents from ethnic minority groups to affiliate themselves with deviant behavior. Young persons who have encountered traumatic encounters, including sexual or physical abuse or encountered violence repeatedly, they might experience increased risks of engaging in violent crimes together with deviate friends. Also, having a parent who abuses drugs also subjects adolescents to certain antisocial peers (Sweeten, Piquero, & Steinberg, 2013) .
When it comes to biological variables, they might also forecast association with antisocial peers and delinquency afterwards. Evidence reveals that kids and adolescents portraying various genetic predispositions have higher chances of choosing certain antisocial peers as well as give in to their influences (Fanti, Demetriou, & Kimonis, 2013) . Indeed, adolescents portraying particular genetic profiles have higher chances of using substances in the event that they associate themselves with friends who use them. Regarding boys showing increased testosterone levels as well as do not have neurocognitive capacity of controlling their behavior, their chances of taking part in antisocial practices with their friends are also high (Omboto, Ondiek, Odera, & Ayugi, 2013) . In this perspective, therefore, selection of peers might be affiliated with biology to a certain extent.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the paper has revealed the role that affiliation with peers influences delinquent behavior as well as use of substances during adolescence. Two major perspectives have emerged in the study, which include peer influences and peer selection/homophily. It has also revealed the manner in which the explanations intersect and coexist with each other. Furthermore, neurobiological and genetic vulnerabilities, severe or traumatic encounters during childhood and, and peer rejection led adolescents to opt for certain deviant friends. In the event of the adolescents who portray a transient behavior, conflict in the family and poor monitoring by parents can lead teenagers to feel increased effects of antisocial behaviors. In any instance, whereas friends serve as strongest contributor toward deviant behavior, processes witnessed in other areas, particularly family might be possible to mobilize to assist in minimizing chances of adolescents associating with antisocial peers. Overall, therefore, it is apparent that influence from peers has significant influence on delinquent behavior.
References
Alleyne, E., & Wood, J. L. (2014). Gang involvement: Social and environmental factors. Crime & Delinquency, 60 (4), 547-568.
Fanti, K. A., Demetriou, C. A., & Kimonis, E. R. (2013). Variants of callous-unemotional conduct problems in a community sample of adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42 (7), 964-979.
Meldrum, R. C., Miller, H. V., & Flexon, J. L. (2013). Susceptibility to peer influence, self ‐ control, and delinquency. Sociological Inquiry, 83 (1), 106-129.
Monahan, K. C., Rhew, I. C., Hawkins, J. D., & Brown, E. C. (2014). Adolescent pathways to co ‐ occurring problem behavior: The effects of peer delinquency and peer substance use. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24 (4), 630-645.
Omboto, J. O., Ondiek, G. O., Odera, O., & Ayugi, M. E. (2013). Factors influencing youth crime and juvenile delinquency. International Journal, 1 (2), 2307-227X.
Sweeten, G., Piquero, A. R., & Steinberg, L. (2013). Age and the explanation of crime, revisited. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42 (6), 921-938.
Young, J. T., & Weerman, F. M. (2013). Delinquency as a consequence of misperception: Overestimation of friends' delinquent behavior and mechanisms of social influence. Social Problems, 60 (3), 334-356.
