ChapterPDF Available

Birds of a Feather?: Individual Differences and Gang Membership

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Gang membership has a robust relationship with crime and violence, leading scholars to take an interest in examining the sources of gang joining. One understudied line of inquiry has been individual differences, which are rank order and time stable characteristics that vary between people. One reason for this lack of attention is the debate around whether researchers should examine individual differences at all. This chapter takes stock of studies conducted on individual differences and gang joining to determine their relevance for research. First, we provide an overview of the state dependence and population heterogeneity perspectives for gang joining. Next, we review research conducted on eleven individual differences spanning fifty studies and determine that research at the individual-level is ultimately worth pursuing. However, conclusions must be interpreted with caution due to neglected theorizing on the relationship, lack of longitudinal research, and minimal empirical studies conducted. Indeed, many individual differences are still up for debate. Finally, we chart directions forward for research on this topic.
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Birds of a feather?
Individual differences and gang membership
Jennifer J. Tostlebe1*
Jose Antonio Sanchez2
1School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
University of Nebraska Omaha
2Department of Sociology
University of Colorado Boulder
Forthcoming in The Oxford Handbook of Gangs and Society.
This is the authors’ pre-print copy of the manuscript.
Abstract: Gang membership has a robust relationship with crime and violence, leading scholars
to take an interest in examining the sources of gang joining. One understudied line of inquiry has
been individual differences, which are rank order and time stable characteristics that vary
between people. One reason for this lack of attention is the debate around whether researchers
should examine individual differences at all. This chapter takes stock of studies conducted on
individual differences and gang joining to determine their relevance for research. First, we
provide an overview of the state dependence and population heterogeneity perspectives for gang
joining. Next, we review research conducted on eleven individual differences spanning fifty
studies and determine that research at the individual-level is ultimately worth pursuing.
However, conclusions must be interpreted with caution due to neglected theorizing on the
relationship, lack of longitudinal research, and minimal empirical studies conducted. Indeed,
many individual differences are still up for debate. Finally, we chart directions forward for
research on this topic.
Keywords: Gang Membership, Individual Differences, Population Heterogeneity, Selection
*Correspondence: Direct correspondence to: Jennifer Tostlebe, School of Criminology and Criminal
Justice, University of Nebraska Omaha, 6001 Dodge Street, 218 CPACS, Omaha, NE 68182, USA.
Email: jtostlebe@unomaha.edu.
2
INTRODUCTION
[V]iolent gangs are essentially a product of the unstable slum; however, this fact alone
does not explain why certain boys “join” violent gangs and many others, with the same
opportunity, do not. The explanation of this more explicit issue necessitates going beyond
the sociocultural influences into the social-psychological condition of the individual
violent-gang member. (Yablonsky 1962: 236, emphasis in original)
The researcher who fails to seek the structural differences or who studies but one gang or
one gang type will publish false generalizations and mislead his or her colleagues. (Klein
and Maxson 2006: 165, emphasis added)
It is well documented that gang members engage in higher levels of offending and
violence than non-gang members (Pyrooz et al. 2016). Researchers have spent the better part of a
century trying to explain the causes and consequences of gang joining. To this end, typologizing
gang and non-gang members based on individual differences, which are characteristics
generally time stablethat an individual possesses which may raise their proclivity for gang
joining, has become one of the more contentious subjects in criminology. Prominent gang
researchlike the works cited abovevary widely in terms of whether gang members can be
differentiated based on individual characteristics. Some researchers argue that individuals who
join gangs are inherently different from those who do not join gangs, even when residing within
the same neighborhood (e.g., Sanchez-Jankowski 1991). Others disagree and contend the key
difference lies within the social environment individuals are embedded within, which creates the
driver for gang joining (e.g., Klein 1995; Short and Strodtbeck 1965).
Today, merely posing the question of whether gang members are unique from non-gang
members at the individual-level is a surefire way to ignite debates, which are often spearheaded
with emotion rather than grounded in science. This emotion centers around the where the blame
for gang membership lies. That is, typologizing gang members at the individual-level shifts the
blame from structural inequalities and racism that give rise to gangs to the individuals
3
themselves being inherently different. While there may be scientific basis for rejecting
individual-level explanations, critical scholars who oppose this research often fall short in key
areas. First, they largely rely on invoking emotion to argue that individual-level research
“demonizes” or “dehumanizes” gang members and displays a lack of cultural knowledge, while
selectively choosing poor examples or misrepresenting the research (Marzo 2020; Swaner 2022;
Weide 2022). Second, these scholars rarely attempt to tackle one of the most important questions
in gang research focused on structural explanations: why do most people, even in the most
disadvantaged of neighborhoods, never join a gang? Finally, critical scholars propose inadequate
theoretical frameworks to solve perceived shortcomings of the gang literature. For example,
intersectionality, while growing in popularity, has run into definitional issues raising questions
among scholars about whether it is a theory, a methodology for feminist research, or a method
that is only applicable to those with multiple marginalized identities (e.g., Cho, Crenshaw, and
McCall 2013).
Despite opposition, we argue that studying gang members at the individual-level is
beneficial for two reasons. First, it could aid in determining why not everyone joins a gang.
Second, the findings of this research could have implications for responses to gangs and gang
members. This chapter begins by discussing theoretical frameworks found in criminological
research to explain antisocial behavior (and gang joining): state dependence and population
heterogeneity. State dependence is the idea that one’s previous actions influence future actions
while population heterogeneity argues that the focus should be on stable individual differences.
We also discuss Thornberry and colleague’s (1993) model of selection, facilitation, and
enhancement. Selection argues certain people self-select into gangs; facilitation states that gangs
are responsible for an individual’s higher rate of offending, and enhancement argues for a
4
combination of both. Next, while systematic reviews of risk and protective factors for gang
membership have been done (Higginson et al. 2018; O’Brien et al. 2013; Raby and Jones 2016),
we instead provide a review of eleven individual-level differences that have been studied in
relation to joining gangs. For each individual difference, we define the concept; identify its
origins and evolution, including the stability of the factor over the life course; describe its
relationship to criminal behaviors; discuss the theoretical mechanisms giving rise to gang
membership; and detail empirical evidence for its relationship with gang joining. We conclude
this chapter with recommendations for future directions regarding micro-level gang research.
POPULATION HETEROGENEITY, STATE DEPENDENCE, AND GANG
INVOLVEMENT
Theories in criminology that seek to explain continuity in criminal behavior have
historically fallen into two camps (Nagin and Paternoster 2000). One side, state dependence,
argues that the future state of an individual (i.e., criminality) is dependent upon their current
state. In other words, continuation in crime results from prior criminal behavior eroding
conventional ties and strengthening incentives to a criminal lifestyle. While there is nothing
inherently criminal about the status of affiliating with a gang, a state dependence argument
would say that differences in social settings, structures, and circumstances (e.g., low SES and
school failure) are the key factors for determining differences in joining a gang.
Alternatively, and critical to this chapter, the population heterogeneity perspective states
that observed correlations between past and future offending are due to stable differences
between individuals in their proclivity to commit crime. In other words, there are individual
differences that distinguish offenders from non-offenders. Individual differences are relatively
time stable characteristics present in a person (e.g., self-control). This means outside influences
5
will only incrementally, and without rank-order shifts, fluctuate across people throughout the
life-course (Nagin and Paternoster 1993). As such, disparities in the likelihood of joining a gang
are due to these mostly rank-order and time stable characteristics that vary between people.
Theoretically, individual differences have generally been applied to criminal behavior. In
some instances, they have also been applied to the onset of gang membership. Thornberry and
colleagues’ (1993) seminal piece on the gang-offending link outlines, among others, the selection
hypothesis, which contends that individual differences can be found before the onset of gang
membership. When it comes to the selection hypothesis, individual deficits, such as poor self-
control, personality deficits, or conduct disorders, encourage selection into gangs. There is
nothing special about gangs; instead, gangs are an assortment of individuals with common
preexisting characteristics that predispose them to “flock together,” assuming the opportunity is
available (e.g., Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). They come together because prosocial peer
groups often shun youth who exhibit criminal propensities, increasing the likelihood that
antisocial youth will end up in the company of each other.
Since Thornberry and colleagues’ (1993) seminal piece, a large body of research has
focused on why people join gangs (e.g., poor parental supervision or personality characteristics),
but the mechanisms that explain selection remain mostly understudied largely owing to a tunnel-
vision on macro-level societal problems. Importantly, Kerig and colleagues (2013: 775-776)
state: “youth do not experience themselves as the helpless pawns of social forces, nor as the
dependent variable affected by these independent variables; rather, they experience
themselves as the protagonists of their own life stories.” As such, it is critical to investigate the
mechanisms linking micro-level explanations (e.g., psychopathologies) of gang membership. As
the study of gangs was once the study of delinquency (Pyrooz and Mitchell 2015), the current
6
inventory of explanations on risk-factors for gang joining center around four major perspectives
from general theories of crime (i.e., propensity theory, social bond theory, general strain theory,
and social learning theory). There are also a variety of gang-centered perspectives (e.g.,
integrated theory, multiple marginality, and unified theory) and alternative perspectives from
other disciplines and applied to gangs (i.e., signaling theory). An in-depth discussion of these
falls outside the scope of this review (for a discussion, see Decker, Pyrooz, and Densley 2022).
Suffice it to say, many explanations exist highlighting ongoing questions regarding how people
enter gangs and the consequent implications. In this review, we focus on propensity theory,
specifically individual differences, which fall under the population heterogeneity perspective,
and its relationship to gang membership.
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND GANG MEMBERSHIP
To determine the current body of research on individual differences and gang joining, we
proceeded in three steps. First, we referenced empirical works on individual differences within
the broader criminological research (e.g., Nagin & Paternoster, 1993), as well as prior work we
were aware of (e.g., Kissner & Pyrooz, 2009) to determine a starting array of individual
differences linked to gang membership. Second, we conducted a systematic literature review
search using Google Scholar and key words of individual differences (e.g., self-control,
psychopathy) identified in step one. Finally, reference lists from identified journal articles were
reviewed to ascertain potential studies that were not captured during the Google Scholar search.
Table 1 provides an overview of the studies we identified in rank order by the frequency
with which the individual differences were used to study gang joining in published works.
Before we elaborate theoretically and empirically on these relationships, we reach several
observations. First, there are many studies examining individual differences as they relate to
7
gang membership. Indeed, we uncovered 50 studies on this topic, which as a collective is quite
substantial. However, within each of the eleven individual differences identified, there is a dearth
of research; psychopathy (10) and self-control (8) had the largest inventories of empirical study,
with the remaining individual differences covered by four or fewer studies each. Second, nearly
all these studies employed cross-sectional research designs. While individual differences are
theoretically rank-order and time stable, there is research demonstrating attitudinal and
behavioral shifts corresponding with gang joining and leaving. As such, longitudinal research
would provide further evidence to reach firm conclusions about selection into gangs. Finally, for
most of the individual differences, evidence of a selection mechanism into gangs is mixed, a
point we return to at the conclusion of each section.
**Table 1 about here**
Low self-control
Low self-control is the inability to consider long-term consequences or delay immediate
gratification. Individuals with low self-control exhibit six characteristics that elevate one’s
predisposition to engage in deviance: impulsivity, short-sightedness, risk-seeking, action-
oriented, volatile tempered, and self-centeredness. Gottfredson and Hirschi introduced low self-
control to criminology in their general theory of crime (1990) where they argued that self-control
is developed through parental socialization and is rank-order stable after age ten. There is a long
record of studies linking self-control to a variety of criminal behaviors. A meta-analysis of 99
empirical studies looked at the relationship between self-control and deviance (Vazsonyi,
Mikuška, and Kelley 2017). Findings indicated that self-control is a moderately strong predictor
of all types of deviance (r=0.53), with general deviance (r=0.56) and physical violence (r=0.46)
having the strongest effect sizes.
8
From a self-control perspective, individuals who eventually join gangs should
demonstrate low self-control before, during, and after gang membership, making the relationship
between gang membership and offending spurious. This is decisively clear according to
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990: 214) who stated that “there is no need for theories designed
specifically to account for gang crime.” Youth with low self-control are “unreliable,
untrustworthy, selfish, and thoughtless” and “do not tend to make good friends” (Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990: 89-90). Because of these qualities, they have trouble forming lasting relationships
with prosocial peers and tend to “gravitate to the street,” in turn, winding up in the company of
one another. However, it is possible that the association between gang membership and
offending is not spurious owing to self-control; many sociological perspectives privilege the role
of peers and gangs in the explanation of crime. Furthermore, while Gottfredson and Hirschi
viewed self-control as rank-order stable across the life-course, recent research suggests there is
rank-order instability in self-control (Burt 2020), which may be influenced by environmental
influences (Wikström and Treiber 2007) or intra-group processes that alter behaviors, identity,
beliefs, and routines (Melde and Esbensen 2011).
Evidence that explores the link between self-control and gang membership leads to
unclear conclusions. Research on this association points to a weak relationship between self-
control and gang membership, however, it relies primarily on cross-sectional data which prevents
strong conclusions on the selection hypothesis. One exception is Pyrooz and colleagues (2021),
who used a prospective longitudinal research design over a five-year period and concluded that
while low self-control has a significant direct positive effect on the onset of gang membership,
self-control was not the singular selection factor contributing to gang joining. Even so, this study
9
provides clarity to the selection hypothesis: “self-control is one, but not the only, source of
selection into gangs” (Pyrooz et al. 2021: 243).
Psychopathy
Psychopathy is a personality disorder generally defined by a constellation of
interpersonal (e.g., superficial charm), affective (e.g., callous), lifestyle (e.g., thrill-seeking), and
antisocial (e.g., criminal versatility) characteristics (Cleckley 1941; Hare 2003). Although the
concept of psychopathy has been around for over 200 years (Pinel 1806; Prichard 1842) and the
term has existed for over 100 years, it was popularized and precisely defined in 1941 by Hervey
Cleckley and later elaborated on by Robert Hare (1983, 1996). Currently, psychopathy falls
under Antisocial Personality Disorder in the DSM-V. While low self-control is commonly
conceived as the quintessential population heterogeneity perspective, “the constellation of
features that comprise psychopathy may better measure antisocial propensity” (McCuish,
Bouchard, and Beauregard 2021: 694). Indeed, psychopathy combines characteristics of low self-
control and interpersonal deficits that often provide a vehicle for offending. Furthermore,
psychopathy “[is] diffuse and inflexible, begins in adolescence or early adulthood, [and] it is
stable over time” (American Psychiatric Association 2013: 645). Researchers report moderate-
to-high rank-order stability (ρ = 0.31 to 0.76), as well as individual-level stability from mid
adolescence to early adulthood (e.g., Lynam et al. 2007; Hemphälä et al. 2015). There is a long
record of empirical studies linking psychopathy to a wide range of criminal behaviors with an
overall meta-analytic effect size between 0.23 and 0.68 (e.g., Geerlings et al. 2020; Fox and
DeLisi 2019), akin to self-control, with stronger effect sizes related to violent behavior.
The features of psychopathy provide a basis for selection into a gang (Sanchez-Jankowski
1991; Yablonsky 1962; see also, Tostlebe and Pyrooz 2022). Evidence for the selection
10
explanation of gang membership using psychopathy begins akin to low self-control: by
acknowledging that people with psychopathic personality traits may have difficulty making and
keeping friends due to traits within the interpersonal and affective facets of the personality
disorder, pushing them to select into delinquent peer groups, like gangs (for a review of push and
pull factors, see, Densley 2015). The gang also “pulls” those with psychopathic personality
characteristics toward it. Indeed, those with “impulsive, selfish, callous, egocentric, and
aggressive tendencies can easily blend in withand may even set the tone formany of the
gang’s activities” (Hare 1999: 176). Studies have demonstrated evidence of within-individual
change in psychopathy, highlighting developmental malleability in this construct (e.g., Hawes et
al. 2018; McCuish and Lussier 2018), particularly between the ages of 16-18 and 32 (Bergstrøm
and Farrington 2021), the former describing a common age range for joining a gang (Pyrooz and
Sweeten 2015). This body of research raises continued questions about the gang-psychopathy
link, including whether psychopathy is a rank-order stable individual difference that can predict
who will join gangs.
When it comes to the empirical evidence, Tostlebe and Pyrooz (2022: 324) contended
that “the state of the evidence is premature to afford empirical primacy to either [psychopathy as
a source or consequence of gang membership].” This conclusion is spurred by the fact that nearly
all studies examining the psychopathy-gang membership link employ cross-sectional research
designs. Given that there is evidence of within-individual change in psychopathy, there is a need
for longitudinal research. Additionally, the evidence of a selection effect is mixedsome research
reveals psychopathy is an individual difference that corresponds to gang membership, while
other work reveals no association at all.
Antisocial Personality Disorder
11
Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) is defined as a pattern of maladaptive behavior
characterized by deception and violation of the personal and property rights of others without
remorse. ASPD has four diagnostic criteria (American Psychiatric Association 2013):
A. A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring
since age 15, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, as
indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning
others for personal profit or pleasure.
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or
assaults.
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain
consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing
having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
B. The individual is at least age 18 years.
C. There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of
schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. (659)
Influential to the diagnostic criteria for ASPD was the work of Lee Robins (1966), who
conducted a longitudinal study of 524 children. Robins concluded that “ASPD is a chronic,
persistent disorder that seldom remits” (Black 2015: 310). Indeed, research reports high rank-
order stability (ρ = 0.58 to 0.65) over a ten year period, while mean levels of ASPD traits
decrease to a moderate degree over time from late adolescence throughout adulthood
(Reichborn-Kjennerud et al. 2015; Hopwood et al. 2013). Additionally, case reports and
longitudinal studies link a high prevalence of ASPD traits in childhood to antisocial and violent
behaviors in adulthood (Wojciechowski 2020; Shepherd, Campbell, and Ogloff 2018).
Given that violent behavior is also common among gang members, it is perhaps
unsurprising that ASPD traits are related to gang membership (Raby and Jones 2016). As
psychopathy falls under the category of ASPD, the theoretical mechanisms giving rise to gang
12
membership align in large part with those from psychopathy. To be diagnosed with ASPD,
individuals must be at least 18 years old. As individuals tend to join gangs around 15 years of
age, a formal diagnosis of ASPD is off-the-table until after the selection process has generally
occurred. However, early indicators of ASPD can be observed among children (see below for
conduct disorder) and nearly 80 percent of people with ASPD develop their first symptom by age
11 (Black 2015). There are also indicators that crime-related traumatic events experienced
during gang membership may increase the risk of developing ASPD (e.g., Wood and Dennard
2017). To establish whether ASPD influences selection into gang membership, longitudinal
research is required. While the current inventory of empirical studies on ASPD demonstrates a
positive association between ASPD traits and gang membership, all four studies employ cross-
sectional research designs, severely restricting our ability to discern selection effects.
Behavioral disorders: Conduct Disorder (CD) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD)
Conduct disorder is a behavioral disorder with three diagnostic criteria (American
Psychiatric Association 2013):
A. A repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others
or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated, as manifested by the
presence of at least three of the following 15 criteria in the past 12 months from
any of the categories below, with at least one criterion present in the past 6
months:
Aggression to People and Animals
1. Often bullies, threatens, or intimates others
2. Often initiates physical fights
3. Has used a weapon that can cause serious physical harm to others (e.g., a bat,
brick, broken bottle, knife, gun)
4. Has been physically cruel to people
5. Has been physically cruel to animals
6. Has stolen while confronting a victim (e.g., mugging, purse snatching,
extortion, armed robbery)
7. Has forced someone into sexual activity
Destruction of Property
13
8. Has deliberately engaged in fire setting with the intention of causing serious
damage
9. Has deliberately destroyed others’ property (other than by fire setting)
Deceitfulness or Theft
10. Has broken into someone else’s house, building, or car
11. Often lies to obtain goods or favors or to avoid obligations (i.e., “cons” others)
12. Has stolen items of nontrivial value without confronting a victim (e.g.,
shoplifting, but without breaking and entering; forgery)
Serious Violations of Rules
13. Often stays out at night despite parental prohibitions, beginning before age 13
years
14. Has run away from home overnight at least twice while living in parental or
parental surrogate home (or once without returning for a lengthy period)
15. Is often truant from school, beginning before age 13 years
B. The disturbance in behavior causes clinically significant impairment in social,
academic, or occupational functioning
C. If the individual is age 18 years or older, criteria are not met for Antisocial
Personality Disorder
Children and adolescents with CD demonstrate stable and persistent patterns of behavior (Frick
and Loney 1999). However, as with psychopathy, recent research has identified possible distinct
trajectories of CD traits, with some trajectories demonstrating individual variability and change
in problem behavior (both increasing and decreasing) over time (e.g., Frick and Nigg 2012).
Individuals who are diagnosed with CD are, by definition, more likely to engage in deviant and
criminal behavior than those who do not satisfy the criteria for the disorder. In a thirty-year
follow-up of former Norwegian child psychiatric in-patients, Mordre and colleagues (2011)
found that a conduct disorder diagnosis significantly predicted future criminal behavior.
Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) is a disorder of emotion regulation characterized
by irritability, hostility, and vindictive behavior. Specifically, ODD has three diagnostic criteria
(American Psychiatric Association 2013):
A. A pattern of angry/irritable mood, argumentative/defiant behavior, or
vindictiveness lasting at least 6 months as evidenced by at least four symptoms
14
from any of the following categories, and exhibited during interaction with at
least one individual who is not a sibling.
Angry/Irritable Mood
1. Often loses temper
2. Is often touchy or easily annoyed
3. Is often angry and resentful
Argumentative/Defiant Behavior
4. Often argues with authority figures or, for children and adolescents, with
adults
5. Often actively defies or refuses to comply with requests from authority figures
or with rules
6. Often deliberately annoys others
7. Often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior
Vindictiveness
8. Has been spiteful or vindictive at least twice within the past 6 months
B. The disturbance in behavior is associated with distress in the individual or others
in his or her immediate social context (e.g., family, peer group, work colleagues)
or it impacts negatively on social, educational, occupational, or other important
areas of functioning,
C. The behavior does not occur exclusively during the course of a psychotic,
substance use, depressive, or bipolar disorder. Also the criteria are not met for
disruptive mood dysregulation disorder.
Typically, ODD has early onset at home and escalates to other contexts, such as school. Studies
suggest that ODD is usually present as a precursor to childhood-onset conduct disorder (which is
a precursor to psychopathy), but most children with ODD do not develop conduct disorder.
However, independent of conduct disorder, ODD is a mostly stable disorder. A longitudinal
study of preschool children demonstrated stability in ODD over a five-year period, leading the
authors to conclude that “[w]hile some young children with ODD ‘grow out of it,’ a substantial
proportion do not” (Lavigne et al. 2001: 1399). Like conduct disorder, ODD is significantly
related to antisocial behavior in adolescence and adulthood (Langbehn et al. 1998; Plattner et al.
2009; for exception see Boduszek et al. 2014).
15
Both CD and ODD can be diagnosed in childhood, making them relevant to the onset of
gang membership during adolescence. As these behavioral disorders are disruptive in nature and
characterized by a struggle to respect authority figures and behaving in ways that go contrary to
social rules in ways that disrespect or harm others, they may naturally lead adolescents to self-
select into gangs. Oppositionality toward authorities is common within gangs (e.g., (Decker and
Van Winkle 1996; Vigil 1988), and a lack of guilt and sympathy for others has been indicated as
a risk factor for selecting into a gang (Peterson and Morgan 2014).
To our knowledge, only one study, which used a longitudinal research design, has
examined the relationship between CD and gang membership. Lahey and colleagues (1999)
conducted a six-year longitudinal study of 185 adolescent African American males (reduced
sample) and found that conduct disorder traits identified at baseline were associated with an
increased risk of joining a gang by subsequent waves. Retrospective cross-sectional studies have
demonstrated an association between ODD and gang membership, where gang members had
higher rates of ODD diagnosis than non-gang members (e.g., Harris et al. 2013). Only one
project employed a longitudinal research design, concluding that ODD traits measured at age
seven were not predictive of future gang involvement at age 17 (Smith, Gomez Auyong, and
Ferguson 2019; Gomez Auyong, Smith, and Ferguson 2018). All and all, the research is
decisively mixed regarding the selection hypothesis for behavioral disorders and gang joining,
with some support for CD.
Emotional intelligence and empathy
Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to think about one’s emotions and use them to
aid reasoning and to identify with another’s emotional state. Empathy is the ability to understand
and share the feelings of another. These are individual characteristics that have been identified as
16
moderately rank-order stable constructs from early childhood to young adulthood (Oh et al.
2020; Parker et al. 2005). Additionally, both have been linked with deviant behavior (e.g.,
Megreya 2015; Jolliffe and Farrington 2004), in particular violence. This finding is unsurprising
as high levels of emotional intelligence and empathy would constrain people from engaging in
harmful criminal activities.
Furthermore, low emotional intelligence and a lack of empathy have been identified
both theoretically and in researchas possible risk-factors for gang joining (Mallion and Wood
2018). Drawing from research on the gang-offending link, it seems feasible that low levels of
emotional intelligence may be associated with gang membership. This is because gang
membership commonly involves acts of interpersonal violence, and the influence of emotions is
established as a predictor of violent and aggressive behaviors (García-Sancho, Salguero, and
Fernández-Berrocal 2016).[S]election on propensity toward violence and aggression is built
into the DNA of gangs” (Wu and Pyrooz: 533), which naturally leads to a description of gang
members as lacking in emotional intelligence and empathy. Furthermore, through intra-gang
micro-level processes (McGloin and Collins 2015), such as normative influence, which is the
way gangs establish and enforce commitment to the group, as well as the display of acceptable
norms and values, gang members may be socialized to beliefs, norms, and practices that place
value on violence while deemphasizing victims and their emotional states.
Research surrounding emotional intelligence and gang membership is sparse. A recent
study on 74 prisoners in the UK concluded that emotional intelligence was lower among street
gang prisoners (Mallion and Wood 2021), although results were not statistically significant, the
sample was small, and the research design was cross-sectional. A lack of empathy is commonly
observed among gang members (e.g., Salas-Wright, Olate, and Vaughn 2013), which has led
17
scholars to examine whether low empathy predicts gang joining. The bulk of work on the gang-
empathy link is cross-sectional; although results do indicate differences, with gang members
reporting significantly lower levels of empathy than non-gang members. Only one study
employed a longitudinal design, finding support for a selection effect between empathy and gang
membership. Using a three-wave sample of 2,353 students, Wu and Pyrooz (2016) examined
empathy before and during gang membership, finding that those low in empathy were at a
greater risk of joining a gang and that their empathy further declined during gang membership.
Genetics
The term “genetics” or how certain traits are passed from parents to offspring as a result
of changes in DNA sequence was coined in 1906 to designate the science of heredity (Gayon
2016). Regarding stability, the genetic composition of individuals is…fixed at contraception”
(Knafo & Plomin 2006: 773). However, different genes may be expressed at different
developmental periods (Vogler 2006), indicating that behavioral changes may occur through
shifts in genetic effects at different ages. In criminology, there has been an accelerated amount of
research examining genetic influencesas stable individual differenceson antisocial behaviors
(e.g., Wright et al. 2008). Most of this research has focused on partitioning the variation in
deviance into the proportion caused by genetic influences and the proportion caused by the
environment. Studies on genetic influences (i.e., heritability) commonly compare phenotypes
within and between families, revealing that genetic factors explain a substantial portion (e.g., 30-
90%) of the variance in criminal and analogous behaviors, and little significance is provided to
shared environments (e.g., Wright et al. 2008; Beaver et al. 2013).
Behavioral genetic research has also examined gang membership, focusing on general
genetic factors, as well as the candidate gene, monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) or the “warrior
18
gene,” which is related to increased levels of aggression and violence. The idea is that those with
certain genetic coding are more likely to join gangs because they self-select into groups based on
shared characteristics (e.g., personality traits and behaviors). Recent research in genetics and
psychiatry suggests that friendship dyads appear to have correlated genotypes (i.e., the genetic
constitution of a person; e.g., Fowlera et al. 2011) and variation in the propensity to affiliate with
antisocial friendship networks is partially accounted for by genetic factors (Kendler et al. 2007).
Results from studies examining the genetic-gang link suggest that much of the selection
process into gangs can be explained by genetic factors. Indeed, analyzes of kinship pairs (e.g.,
twin pairs, full sibling pairs, cousin pairs) point to genetic influences as an explanation for a
large amount of variance in gang membership, while the remaining variance was accounted for
by nonshared environmental influences (Connolly and Beaver 2015; Barnes, Boutwell, and Fox
2012). Specific polymorphism variants in the MAOA gene (i.e., low MAOA activity alleles) also
predicted gang joining (Beaver et al. 2010), however this result was only found among males and
the DNA data was not nationally representative. While genetic research designs suggest that
gang affiliation is significantly influenced by genetic factors, only a handful of empirical studies
have been devoted to the influence of genetics on selection into gangs and the range of genetic
factors’ influence on the variance in gang membership is large (26-77%), invoking questions
regarding the precision of this information. Additionally, much of the research on the genetic-
gang link is conceptually flawed as it is atheoretical (i.e., lacks details on the how and why
genetics matter) and fails to account for household discordances in gang involvement,
1
or sturdy
shared predictors of gang involvement (e.g., parental supervision; Hill et al., 1999). As such, it is
premature to reach any sound conclusions on the topic.
1
Hashimi and colleagues (2021) demonstrate a statistically significant, but not perfect, sibling influence on gang
entry and reentry. There was not a significant sibling influence on gang exit.
19
Low self-esteem
Self-esteem is a person’s evaluation of their personal worth, value, or importance
(Blascovich and Tomaka 1991). Rosenberg (1979) explained that self-esteem is comprised of
self-acceptance, self-respect, and self-worth. Self-esteem scholars have generally discussed self-
esteem as a stable trait (Harter 1998; Rosenberg 1965). However, the assumption of stability has
not gone unquestioned (see Conley 1984). One study found that self-esteem was a relatively
stable trait with its stability becoming more pronounced as one ages (Trzesniewski, Donnellan,
and Robins 2003). This means that self-esteem stability is weakest in childhood but grows
stronger in adolescence and early adulthood, which could be influenced by other factors. A meta-
analysis of 42 studies between 1990 and 2015 found that self-esteem had a significant negative
relationship with delinquency, albeit a small one (Mier and Ladny 2018).
Researchers have argued that low self-esteem could lead to self-selection into gang
membership as gangs offer those with low self-esteem a sense of belonging and peer approval
(Hirschi 1969; Leary, Schreindorfer, and Haupt 1995). An early gang study concluded that low
self-esteem was correlated with gang joining across all races and ethnicities (Wang 1994). In
testing Thornberry and colleagues’ (1993) model, Dukes and colleagues (1997: 159) found
support for the selection hypothesisself-esteem predicted gang membershipand concluded
that gang members often had low self-worth and identity problems. Finally, Alleyne and Wood
(2010) observed that prospective, current, and former gang members had lower self-esteem than
people with no gang involvement.
Despite these findings, scholars have often failed to find that self-esteem predicts gang
membership (e.g., Thornberry et al. 2003; Watkins and Melde 2016). A shortcoming of most
studies on the self-esteem-gang link is they utilize a cross-sectional research design. This is only
20
truly problematic when attempting to determine causality and if self-esteem is not rank-order
stable. Additionally, most studies (e.g., Dmitrieva et al. 2014) observe the relationship between
participants and self-esteem after they have joined a gang versus before, which would better
indicate whether self-esteem predicts gang joining. At best, self-esteem appears to be correlated
with gang joining, however, the evidence is not robust enough to make such claims.
Moral disengagement
Moral disengagement is a process through which an individual sidelines their moral
standards, allowing justification for deviant behavior (Bandura et al. 1996). Bandura outlined
eight interrelated mechanismsdistortion of consequences, diffusion of responsibility,
advantageous comparison, displacement of responsibility, moral justification, euphemistic
labeling, and attribution of blamethat allow a person to set aside their morality and engage in
injurious behavior (Bandura et al. 1996: 371). Although there is some malleability, it is generally
seen “as a relatively stable cognitive orientation” (Moore 2015: 202). Moral disengagement has
been found to be correlated with delinquent behavior (Agnew 1994; Férriz-Romeral et al. 2019).
Moral disengagement may lead to self-selection into gangs. For example, moral
disengagement may be conducive to gang joining as gangs foster an environment where violence
is encouraged (Alleyne, Fernandes, and Pritchard 2014) and people scoring high on this
individual difference may feel at-home in their attitudes and behaviors compared to when in
conventional society. Then, when entering a gang, individuals with higher levels of moral
disengagement may experience positive reinforcement, which could further elevate their already
heightened moral disengagement (Bandura et al. 1996; Frisby-Osman and Wood 2020).
Studies on the effects of moral disengagement on gang joining are few and far between.
What research has been done, however, found that gang members typically engage in moral
21
disengagement more often than non-gang members. Alleyne and colleagues (2014) highlighted
that dehumanizing victims mediated the gang membership to violence relationship. A study of 91
school aged youths (ages 11-18) found that moral disengagement was the second strongest
predictor of gang involvement (behind rumination) out of eight potential predictors included in
the study (Frisby-Osman and Wood 2020). However, the cross-sectional design restricted its
ability to untangle whether this link was predictive. In other words, are the people who engage in
moral disengagement also those most inclined to join a gang or is it a spurious effect? An earlier
study found no direct effect of moral disengagement on gang involvement after it was mediated
by anti-authority attitudes (Alleyne and Wood 2010). Indeed, the authors concluded “since moral
disengagement on its own did not have an effect on gang involvement, anti-authority attitudes
may serve as a justification for gang membership, perhaps serving as a cognitive strategy to
rationalize gang involvement” (Alleyne and Wood 2010: 22), which is in concordance with a
selection hypothesis. The evidence appears to support the selection hypothesis; however, moral
disengagement is one of the most understudied individual differences we have reviewed.
Intelligence
Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Lower intelligence
quotient (IQ) level, a score from standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence, has be
critiqued as simply reflecting middle-class membership rather than innate intelligence
(Richardson 2002). Even so, while highly disputed, it is expected that individual differences in
intelligence profiles remain relatively stable over the lifespan (Larsen, Hartmann, and Nyborg
2008); consistent with a rank-order stable individual difference. Within criminological
scholarship, low-IQ has been linked to criminogenic outcomes (e.g., Beaver & Wright 2011;
although see, Ozer & Akbas 2020).
22
IQ may be a risk factor for gang membership (Spergel 1995). Intelligence is generally
very controversial; however, scholars have examined intelligence when looking at selection into
gangs and we look to establish its credence. Sociologists have noted gang members tend to have
lower levels of cognitive ability compared to non-gang members (e.g., Short and Strodtbeck
1965). A variety of factors play into this relationship. For example, individuals with low-IQ may
experience a lack of inclusion, integration, motivation, and differential treatment in school
causing them to seek alternative forms of success and socialization, which could be a gang
(Cohen 1955). Indeed, between 19-25% of students report gang activity in their public schools
and 10-30% of students self-report gang membership (Clark, Pyrooz, and Randa 2018). Second,
low-IQ individuals may find safety and socioeconomic advantages in gang activities not
provided to them through other avenues (Seals and Stern 2013). Third, gangs are active in the
selection process, reading “between the signs” to avoid adverse selection, an evolving process
that continues throughout gang membership (Pyrooz and Densley 2016). Through this process,
gangs may purposefully select low-IQ individuals into the gang, as they may have fewer options
outside gang life (Seals and Stern 2013) increasing commitment.
When it comes to the evidence, using longitudinal data from the National Longitudinal
Survey of Youth and Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, Seals and
Stern (2013) concluded that low IQ was a robust predictor of gang participation in both datasets.
While research does find support for IQ as a risk factor, we emphasize that this conclusion is
based on one empirical studyalthough longitudinal in design and drawing from two sources of
dataand more research is required to make any firm conclusions.
CHARTING DIRECTIONS FORWARD
23
We conclude this review by highlighting key areas that future research on individual
differences should address. Specifically, we will discuss three broad areas: theory, data, and
empirics. Addressing these areas will be critical for research moving forward on individual
propensities and selection into gangs. We also believe it is crucial to acknowledge that many of
our recommendations for directions forward are not mutually exclusive, but rather intertwined.
The best tool to have in a controversial debate is sound empirical science. There is almost
de facto opposition to this line of inquiry which comes from ideological not empirical grounds
and therein lies the problem. We should be free to formulate falsifiable theories, test hypotheses,
and let science guide the argument. Even if critics of studies on individual differences and gang
joining are correct in their presumption that this research has no merit, why not allow research to
solidify their stance so we can continue moving forward in other directions? If critics are wrong
about the merits of this research, they could be obstructing the development of appropriate and
effective theoretical knowledge, as well as practitioner responses to gangs. If the research tells us
nothing else, it is that there is some salience to individual differences. Indeed, as stated by
Dupéré and colleagues (2007: 1036), “when facing the opportunity to join a gang, preexisting
configurations of individual traits may greatly increase the likelihood that any given adolescent
actually join the gang.” Moreover, some individual differences may be stronger risk-factors than
others; we found the best evidence for self-control and psychopathy as risk-factors for gang
joining. Perhaps this is an artifact of the larger body of research dedicated to these individual
differences compared to the others identified, but we will only solidify our knowledge on the
value of individual differences by examining them further. Rather than engaging in an
emotionally charged debate about the relevance of individual differences, we encourage scholars
to return to empirical research, which can help drive research, policy, and practice.
24
Second, better data is needed to parse out which individual differences are mostif at
all—relevant for joining a gang. By “better” we mean both in research design and measurement.
When it comes to design, longitudinal studies were scarce in our review. This scarcity is likely
attributed to the lack of current evidence on these individual differences, as well as the expense
and time dedication required to conduct a longitudinal study. Additionally, some individual
differences require licensed practitioners to administer the survey questions, further heightening
the expense of the study. However, despite these complications, longitudinal designs provide us
with prospective and temporally ordered information needed to examine if there are statistically
and substantively significant individual differences between those who join gangs and those who
do not. Regarding measurement, many of the studies examined in this chapter used a measure of
“ever” gang membership. This is problematic as it combines selection and facilitation effects.
Additionally, capturing current membership status (active or former) can provide a more
nuanced discussion to variability. We also believe qualitative research could further examine the
processes underlying the tripartite model (Tewksbury 2009). Unlike quantitative research,
qualitative studies allow for the exploration of meaning and decision making. They can also
establish causality, answering the question of why people act a certain way.
Third, the study of individual differences should be further embedded within
developmental and life-course criminological theory. The first aspect of this venture will be
considering the interaction between individual differences and social influences. Based on our
review of the literature, we find preliminary support for individual-level differences. However,
given the lack of causal methodologies, most studies could not establish causality. Based on the
research, we find it highly likely that both selection and facilitation mechanisms are interacting
across each study included in this chapter, akin to a genetic-environment interaction (GxE).
25
Much research favors Thornberry’s enhancement hypothesis, followed by facilitation, and finally
selection. Pyrooz and colleagues (2021) support this by stating: “[a] meta-analysis (Pyrooz et al.
2016) quantitatively synthesizing [the gang membership and delinquency] relationship found
little evidence for pure selection, some evidence for pure facilitation, and the most evidence for a
blended, or enhancement, perspective” (230, emphasis added). The second part of this venture
regards the obvious fact that these risk-factors are theorized to be rank-order stable over the life
course; empirical research suggests otherwise, at least to some degree. What this means for
research in the realm of individual differences is unclear, though there is evidence suggesting the
possibility of social-environmental influences compromising their rank-order stability.
Furthermore, the instability of individual differences indicates hope for future and current gang
members through social influences, such as rehabilitative programming opportunities.
CONCLUSION
Individual differences have been a topic of inquiry since the early days of criminology
(e.g., Lombroso 2006; Quetelet 1984; Wolfgang, Figlio, and Sellin 1972). Regarding gang
members, however, the cupboard is relatively bare. We contend that some of the reasons for this
have been sociologists’ preference to focus on the macro-level of explanation or scholars being
reluctant to pursue this line of research out of fear of the potential backlash they may face. The
purpose of this chapter was to review what the literature says on individual differences and gang
joining with the hope that it would return empirical science back to this important scholarly
debate. As discussed in the introduction, there are scholars who causally dismiss and even
antagonize this area of research. These individuals often fall into the trap of trivializing or
ignoring the crime and violence committed and experienced by gang members (for a review on
gang homicide, see Sanchez, Decker, and Pyrooz 2021).
26
Jim Short (1998) once argued that we must be “sensitive to context. Doing so requires
that our inquiries be guided by theoretically informed questions that are contextualized in terms
of time and social location” (28). Short highlighted the importance of knowing what level of
measurement and observation we are dealing with and that linking macro and micro level
research may yield the nuances we need to understand human behavior. We concur. While we
are not arguing individual differences hold the answer, we do contend that they are a piece of the
puzzle, and we should not ignore them; preliminary research supports this contention.
27
REFERENCES
Agnew, Robert S. 1994. “The Techniques of Neutralization and Violence.” Criminology 32 (4):
55580.
Alleyne, Emma, Isabel Fernandes, and Elizabeth Pritchard. 2014. “Denying Humanness to
Victims: How Gang Members Justify Violent Behavior.” Group Processes and Intergroup
Relations 17 (6): 75062. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214536064.
Alleyne, Emma, and Jane L. Wood. 2010. “Gang Involvement: Psychological and Behavioral
Characteristics of Gang Members, Peripheral Youth, and Nongang Youth.” Aggressive
Behavior 36 (6): 42336. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20360.
American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
5th ed. Washington, DC.
Ang, Rebecca P., Vivien S. Huan, Wei Teng Chan, Siew Ann Cheong, and Jia Ning Leaw. 2015.
“The Role of Delinquency, Proactive Aggression, Psychopathy and Behavioral School
Engagement in Reported Youth Gang Membership.” Journal of Adolescence 41: 14856.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.03.010.
Bandura, Albert, Claudio Barbaranelli, Gian Vittorio Caprara, and Concetta Pastorelli. 1996.
“Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 71 (2): 364.
Barnes, J.C., Brian B. Boutwell, and Kathleen A. Fox. 2012. “The Effect of Gang Membership
on Victimization: A Behavioral Genetic Explanation.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
10 (3): 22744. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204011429948.
Beaver, Kevin M., Matt DeLisi, Michael G. Vaughn, and J.C. Barnes. 2010. “Monoamine
Oxidase A Genotype Is Associated with Gang Membership and Weapon Use.”
Comprehensive Psychiatry 51 (2): 13034.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2009.03.010.
Beaver, Kevin M., and John Paul Wright. 2011. “The Association between County-Level IQ and
County-Level Crime Rates.” Intelligence 39 (1): 2226.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.12.002.
Beaver, Kevin M., John Paul Wright, Brian B. Boutwell, J.C. Barnes, Matt DeLisi, and Michael
G. Vaughn. 2013. “Exploring the Association between the 2-Repeat Allele of the MAOA
Gene Promoter Polymorphism and Psychopathic Personality Traits, Arrests, Incarceration,
and Lifetime Antisocial Behavior.” Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2): 16468.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.014.
Bergstrøm, Henriette, and David P. Farrington. 2021. “Stability of Psychopathy in a Prospective
Longitudinal Study: Results from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development.”
Behavioral Sciences and the Law 39 (5): 61123. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2543.
28
Black, Donald W. 2015. “The Natural History of Antisocial Personality Disorder.” Canadian
Journal of Psychiatry 60 (7): 30914. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371506000703.
Blascovich, Jim, and Joseph Tomaka. 1991. “Measures of Self-Esteem.” In Measures of
Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, 11560. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Boduszek, Daniel, Rachel Belsher, Katie Dhingra, and Maria Ioannou. 2014. “Psychosocial
Correlates of Recidivism in a Sample of Ex-Prisoners: The Role of Oppositional Defiant
Disorder and Conduct Disorder.” The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 25 (1):
6176. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2013.862293.
Burt, Callie Harbin. 2020. “Self-Control and Crime: Beyond Gottfredson & Hirschi’s Theory.”
Annual Review of Criminology 3 (1): 4373. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-
011419-041344.
Carson, Dena C., and James V. Ray. 2019. “Do Psychopathic Traits Distinguish Trajectories of
Gang Membership?” Criminal Justice and Behavior 46 (9): 133755.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819867388.
Cho, Sumi, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, and Leslie McCall. 2013. “Toward a Field of
Intersectionality Studies: Theory, Applications, and Praxis.” Signs: Journal of Women in
Culture and Society 38 (4): 785810.
Chu, Chi Meng, Michael Daffern, Stuart D.M. Thomas, Yaming Ang, and Mavis Long. 2014.
“Criminal Attitudes and Psychopathic Personality Attributes of Youth Gang Offenders in
Singapore.” Psychology, Crime and Law 20 (3): 284301.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.772182.
Clark, Kendra J., David C. Pyrooz, and Ryan Randa. 2018. “School of Hard Knocks: Gangs,
Schools, and Education in the United States.” In The Wiley Handbook on Violence in
Education: Forms, Fctors, and Preventions, edited by Harvey Shapiro. John Wiley & Sons
Inc.
Cleckley, Hervey Milton. 1941. The Mask of Sanity: An Attempt to Reinterpret the so-Called
Psychopathic Personality. St. Louis: Mosby Company.
Cohen, Albert K. 1955. Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang.
Coid, Jeremy W., Simone Ullrich, Robert Keers, Paul Bebbington, Bianca L. DeStavola,
Constantinos Kallis, Min Yang, David Reiss, Rachel Jenkins, and Peter Donnelly. 2013.
“Gang Membership, Violence, and Psychiatric Morbidity.” American Journal of Psychiatry,
98593. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.12091188.
Conley, James J. 1984. “The Hierarchy of Consistency: A Review and Model of Longitudinal
Findings on Adult Individual Differences in Intelligence, Personality and Self-Opinion.”
Personality and Individual Differences 5 (1): 1125.
Connolly, Eric J., and Kevin M. Beaver. 2015. “Guns, Gangs, and Genes: Evidence of an
29
Underlying Genetic Influence on Gang Involvement and Carrying a Handgun.” Youth
Violence and Juvenile Justice 13 (3): 22842. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204014539522.
Decker, Scott H., David C. Pyrooz, and James A. Densley. 2022. On Gangs. Temple University
Press.
Decker, Scott H., and Barrik Van Winkle. 1996. Life in the Gang: Family, Friends, and
Violence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Densley, James A. 2015. “Joining the Gang: A Process of Supply and Demand.” In The
Handbook of Gangs, edited by Scott H. Decker and David C. Pyrooz, 23556. Chichester,
West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Dmitrieva, Julia, Lauren Gibson, Laurence Steinberg, Alex R. Piquero, and Jeffrey Fagan. 2014.
“Predictors and Consequences of Gang Membership: Comparing Gang Members, Gang
Leaders, and Non-Gang-Affiliated Adjudicated Youth.” Journal of Research on
Adolescence 24 (2): 22034. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12111.
Dukes, Richard L., Ruben O. Martinez, and Judith A. Stein. 1997. “Precursors and
Consequences of Membership in Youth Gangs.” Youth & Society 29 (2): 13965.
Dupéré, Véronique, Éric Lacourse, J. Douglas Willms, Frank Vitaro, and Richard E. Tremblay.
2007. “Affiliation to Youth Gangs during Adolescence: The Interaction between Childhood
Psychopathic Tendencies and Neighborhood Disadvantage.” Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology 35 (6): 103545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9153-0.
Egan, Vincent, and Matthew Beadman. 2011. “Personality and Gang Embeddedness.”
Personality and Individual Differences 51 (6): 74853.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.021.
Férriz-Romeral, Laura, Maria Patricia Navas-Sánchez, Jose Antonio Gómez-Fraguela, and Jorge
Sobral-Fernández. 2019. “Moral Disengagement and Serious Juvenile Crime: A Meta-
Analysis about Its Relationship.” Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología 51 (3): 16270.
Fowlera, James H., Jaime E. Settle, and Nicholas A. Christakis. 2011. “Correlated Genotypes in
Friendship Networks.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 108 (5): 199397. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011687108.
Fox, Bryanna H., and Matt DeLisi. 2019. “Psychopathic Killers: A Meta-Analytic Review of the
Psychopathy-Homicide Nexus.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 44: 6779.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.11.005.
Fox, Kathleen A., Jeffrey T. Ward, and Jodi Lane. 2013. “Selection for Some, Facilitation for
Others? Self-Control Theory and the Gang-Violence Relationship.” Deviant Behavior 34
(12): 9961019. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2013.800433.
Frick, Paul J., and Bryan R. Loney. 1999. “Outcomes of Children and Adolescents with
Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder.” In Handbook of Disruptive Behavior
30
Disorders, edited by Herbert C. Quay and Anne E. Hogan, 50724. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Frick, Paul J., and Joel T. Nigg. 2012. “Current Issues in the Diagnosis of Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and Conduct Disorder.” Annual
Review of Clinical Psychology 8: 77107. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-
143150.
Frisby-Osman, Sarah, and Jane L. Wood. 2020. “Rethinking How We View Gang Members: An
Examination into Affective, Behavioral, and Mental Health Predictors of UK Gang-
Involved Youth.” Youth Justice 20 (12): 93112.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225419893779.
García-Sancho, E., J. M. Salguero, and P. Fernández-Berrocal. 2016. “Angry Rumination as a
Mediator of the Relationship between Ability Emotional Intelligence and Various Types of
Aggression.” Personality and Individual Differences 89: 14347.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.007.
Gayon, Jean. 2016. “From Mendel to Epigenetics: History of Genetics.” Comptes Rendus -
Biologies 339: 22530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2016.05.009.
Geerlings, Yoni, Jessica J. Asscher, Geert Jan J.M. Stams, and Mark Assink. 2020. “The
Association between Psychopathy and Delinquency in Juveniles: A Three-Level Meta-
Analysis.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.101342.
Gomez Auyong, Zenta E., Sven Smith, and Christopher J. Ferguson. 2018. “Girls in Gangs:
Exploring Risk in a British Youth Context.” Crime and Delinquency 64 (13): 16981717.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128718763130.
Gottfredson, Michael R., and Travis Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford
University Press.
Hare, Robert D. 1983. “Diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder in Two Prison
Populations.” The American Journal of Psychiatry 140 (7): 88790.
———. 1996. “Psychopathy: A Clinical Construct Whose Time Has Come.” Criminal Justice
and Behavior 23 (1): 2554.
———. 1999. Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths among Us.
Guilford Press.
———. 2003. “The Hare PCL-R.” Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems.
Harris, Toi, Sara Elkins, Ashley Butler, Matthew Shelton, Barbara Robles, Stephanie Kwok,
Sherri Simpson, et al. 2013. “Youth Gang Members: Psychiatric Disorders and Substance
Use.” Laws 2 (4): 392400. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws2040392.
Harter, S. 1998. “The Development of Self-Representations.” In Handbook of Child Psychology:
31
Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, edited by W. Damon and N. Eisenberg,
553617. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hashimi, Sadaf, Sara Wakefield, and Robert J. Apel. 2021. “Sibling Transmission of Gang
Involvement.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 138.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427820986592.
Hawes, Samuel W., Amy L. Byrd, Raul Gonzalez, Caitlin Cavanagh, Jordan Bechtold, Donald
R. Lynam, and Dustin A. Pardini. 2018. “The Developmental Course of Psychopathic
Features: Investigating Stability, Change, and Long-Term Outcomes.” Journal of Research
in Personality 77: 8389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.09.009.
Hemphälä, Malin, David S. Kosson, Johan Westerman, and Sheilagh Hodgins. 2015. “Stability
and Predictors of Psychopathic Traits from Mid-Adolescence through Early Adulthood.”
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 56 (6): 64958. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12257.
Higginson, Angela, Kathryn Benier, Yulia Shenderovich, Laura Bedford, Lorraine Mazerolle,
and Joseph Murray. 2018. “Factors Associated with Youth Gang Membership in Low‐ and
Middle‐income Countries: A Systematic Review.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 14 (1): 1
128. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2018.11.
Hill, Karl G., James C. Howell, J. David Hawkins, and Sara R. Battin-Pearson. 1999. “Childhood
Risk Factors for Adolescent Gang Membership: Results from the Seattle Social
Development Project.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36 (3): 300322.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427899036003003.
Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hope, Trina L. 2003. “Do Families Matter? The Relative Effects of Family Characteristics, Self-
Control, and Delinquency on Gang Membership.” In Readings in Juvenile Delinquency and
Juvenile Justice, 16885.
Hope, Trina L., and Kelly R. Damphousse. 2002. “Applying Self-Control Theory to Gang
Membership in a Non-Urban Setting.” Journal of Gang Research 9 (2): 4161.
Hopwood, Christopher J., Leslie C. Morey, M. Brent Donnellan, Douglas B. Samuel, Carlos M.
Grilo, Thomas H. Mcglashan, M. Tracie Shea, Mary C. Zanarini, John G. Gunderson, and
Andrew E. Skodol. 2013. “Ten-Year Rank-Order Stability of Personality Traits and
Disorders in a Clinical Sample.” Journal of Personality 81 (3): 33544.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00801.x.
Jolliffe, Darrick, and David P. Farrington. 2004. “Empathy and Offending: A Systematic Review
and Meta-Analysis.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 9 (5): 44176.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.03.001.
Joseph, Justin J. 2022. “Exploring Sex Differences between Dimensions of Psychopathy,
Executive Functioning and Youth Gang Membership.” Psychology, Crime and Law, 126.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2131785.
32
Joseph, Justin J., and David A. Rembert. 2021. “Exploring Psychopathy’s Relationship with
Youth Gang Membership in Males and Females.” Women and Criminal Justice 0 (0): 119.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2020.1871161.
Kendler, Kenneth S., Kristen C. Jacobson, Charles O. Gardner, Nathan Gillespie, Steven A.
Aggen, and Carol A. Prescott. 2007. “Creating a Social World: A Developmental Twin
Study of Peer-Group Deviance.” Archives of General Psychiatry 64 (8): 958.
https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.64.8.958.
Kerig, Patricia K., Cecilia Wainryb, Michelle Sinayobye Twali, and Shannon D. Chaplo. 2013.
“America’s Child Soldiers: Toward a Research Agenda for Studying Gang-Involved Youth
in the United States.” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma 22 (7): 77395.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2013.813883.
Kissner, Jason, and David C. Pyrooz. 2009. “Self-Control, Differential Association, and Gang
Membership: A Theoretical and Empirical Extension of the Literature.” Journal of Criminal
Justice 37 (5): 47887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.07.008.
Klein, Malcolm W. 1995. The American Street Gang: Its Nature, Prevalence and Control. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Klein, Malcolm W., and Cheryl L. Maxson. 2006. Street Gang Patterns and Policies. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Knafo, Ariel, and Robert Plomin. 2006. “Prosocial Behavior from Early to Middle Childhood:
Genetic and Environmental Influences on Stability and Change.” Developmental
Psychology 42 (5): 77186. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.771.
Lahey, Benjamin B., Rachel A. Gordon, Rolf Loeber, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, and David P.
Farrington. 1999. “Boys Who Join Gangs: A Prospective Study of Predictors of First Gang
Entry.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 27 (4): 26176.
Langbehn, Douglas R., Remi J. Cadoret, William R. Yates, Edward P. Troughton, and Mark A.
Stewart. 1998. “Distinct Contributions of Conduct and Oppositional Defiant Symptoms to
Adult Antisocial Behavior.” Archives of General Psychiatry 55 (9): 82129.
Larsen, Lars, Peter Hartmann, and Helmuth Nyborg. 2008. “The Stability of General Intelligence
from Early Adulthood to Middle-Age.” Intelligence 36 (1): 2934.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.01.001.
Lavigne, John V., Colleen Cicchetti, Robert D. Gibbons, Helen J. Binns, Lene Larsen, and
Crystal Devito. 2001. “Oppositional Defiant Disorder with Onset in Preschool Years:
Longitudinal Stability and Pathways to Other Disorders.” Journal of the American Academy
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 40 (12): 13931400. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-
200112000-00009.
Leary, Mark R., Lisa S. Schreindorfer, and Alison L. Haupt. 1995. “The Role of Low Self-
Esteem in Emotional and Behavioral Problems: Why Is Low Self-Esteem Dysfunctional?”
33
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 14 (3): 297314.
Lenzi, Michela, Jill D. Sharkey, Allie Wroblewski, Michael J. Furlong, and Massimo Santinello.
2019. “Protecting Youth from Gang Membership: Individual and School-Level Emotional
Competence.” Journal of Community Psychology 47 (3): 56378.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22138.
Lenzi, Michela, Jill Sharkey, Alessio Vieno, Ashley Mayworm, Danielle Dougherty, and Karen
Nylund-Gibson. 2015. “Adolescent Gang Involvement: The Role of Individual, Family,
Peer, and School Factors in a Multilevel Perspective.” Aggressive Behavior 41 (4): 38697.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21562.
Lombroso, Cesare. 2006. Criminal Man. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Lynam, Donald R., Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, Rolf Loeber, and Magda Stouthamer-
Loeber. 2007. “Longitudinal Evidence That Psychology Scores in Early Adolescence
Predict Adult Psychopathy.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 116 (1): 15565.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.116.1.155.
Lynskey, Dana Peterson, L. Thomas Winfree, Finn-Aage Esbensen, and Dennis L. Clason. 2000.
“Linking Gender, Minority Group Status, and Family Matters to Self-Control Theory: A
Multivariate Analysis of Key Self-Control Concepts in a Youth-Gang Context.” Juvenile
And Family Court Journal 51 (3): 119.
Mallion, Jaimee S., and Jane L. Wood. 2018. “Emotional Processes and Gang Membership: A
Narrative Review.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 43: 5663.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.10.001.
———. 2021. “Comparison of Emotional Dispositions between Street Gang and Non-Gang
Prisoners.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36 (910): 401838.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518789147.
Marzo, Lea. 2020. “Set Trippin’: An Intersectional Examination of Gang Members.” Humanity
& Society 44 (4): 42248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160597620951951.
McCuish, Evan C., Martin Bouchard, and Eric Beauregard. 2021. “A Network-Based
Examination of the Longitudinal Association between Psychopathy and Offending
Versatility.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 37 (3): 693714.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-020-09462-w.
McCuish, Evan C., and Patrick Lussier. 2018. “A Developmental Perspective on the Stability
and Change of Psychopathic Personality Traits across the AdolescenceAdulthood
Transition.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 45 (5): 66692.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818761992.
McGloin, Jean Marie, and Megan E. Collins. 2015. “Micro-Level Processes of the Gang.” In The
Handbook of Gangs, edited by Scott H. Decker and David C. Pyrooz, 27693. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118726822.ch15.
34
Megreya, Ahmed M. 2015. “Emotional Intelligence and Criminal Behavior.” Journal of
Forensic Sciences 60 (1): 8488. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12625.
Melde, Chris, and Finn-Aage Esbensen. 2011. “Gang Membership as a Turning Point in the Life
Course.” Criminology 49 (2): 51352.
Mier, Carrie, and Roshni T. Ladny. 2018. “Does Self-Esteem Negatively Impact Crime and
Delinquency? A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Evidence.” Deviant Behavior 39 (8):
100622.
Moore, Celia. 2015. “Moral Disengagement.” Current Opinion in Psychology 6: 199204.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.018.
Mordre, Marianne, Berit Groholt, Ellen Kjelsberg, Berit Sandstad, and Anne Margrethe Myhre.
2011. “The Impact of ADHD and Conduct Disorder in Childhood on Adult Delinquency: A
30 Years Follow-up Study Using Official Crime Records.” BMC Psychiatry 11 (1): 110.
Nagin, Daniel S., and Ray Paternoster. 2000. “Population Heterogeneity and State Dependence:
Future Research.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 16 (2): 11744.
Nagin, Daniel S., and Raymond Paternoster. 1993. “Enduring Individual Differences and
Rational Choice Theories of Crime.” Law & Society Review 27 (3): 46796.
O’Brien, Kate, Michael Daffern, Chi Meng Chu, and Stuart D.M. Thomas. 2013. “Youth Gang
Affiliation, Violence, and Criminal Activities: A Review of Motivational, Risk, and
Protective Factors.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 18 (4): 41725.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2013.05.001.
Oh, Jeewon, William J. Chopik, Sara Konrath, and Kevin J. Grimm. 2020. “Longitudinal
Changes in Empathy Across the Life Span in Six Samples of Human Development.” Social
Psychological and Personality Science 11 (2): 24453.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619849429.
Olate, René, Christopher P. Salas-Wright, Michael G. Vaughn, and Mansoo Yu. 2015.
“Preventing Violence among Gang-Involved and High-Risk Youth in El Salvador: The Role
of School Motivation and Self-Control.” Deviant Behavior 36 (4): 25975.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.924364.
Olate, René, Christopher Salas-Wright, and Michael G. Vaughn. 2012. “Predictors of Violence
and Delinquency among High Risk Youth and Youth Gang Members in San Salvador, El
Salvador.” International Social Work 55 (3): 383401.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872812437227.
Ozer, Mustafa M., and Halil Akbas. 2020. “The Predictability of IQ on Delinquency: A
Structural Equation Model (SQM).” International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences 15
(2): 28397. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4738960.
Parker, James D.A., Donald H. Saklofske, Laura M. Wood, Jennifer M. Eastabrook, and Robyn
35
N. Taylor. 2005. “Stability and Change in Emotional Intelligence: Exploring the Transition
to Young Adulthood.” Journal of Individual Differences 26 (2): 100106.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.26.2.100.
Peterson, Dana, and Kirstin A. Morgan. 2014. “Sex Differences and the Overlap in Youths’ Risk
Factors for Onset of Violence and Gang Involvement.” Journal of Crime and Justice 37 (1):
12954. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2013.830393.
Pinel, Philippe. 1806. A Treatise on Insanity. Trans. Sheffield: Cadell and Davies.
Plattner, Belinda, Hans Steiner, Steve S. L. The, Helena C. Kraemer, Susanne M. Bauer, Jochen
Kindler, Max H. Friedrich, Siegfried Kasper, and Martha Feucht. 2009. “Sex-Specific
Predictors of Criminal Recidivism in a Representative Sample of Incarcerated Youth.”
Comprehensive Psychiatry 50 (5): 400407.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2008.09.014.
Prichard, James Cowles. 1842. On the Different Forms of Insanity in Relation to Jurisprudence.
London: Bailliere.
Pyrooz, David C., and James A. Densley. 2016. “Selection into Street Gangs: Signaling Theory,
Gang Membership, and Criminal Offending.” Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 53 (4): 44781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427815619462.
Pyrooz, David C., Chris Melde, Donna L. Coffman, and Ryan C. Meldrum. 2021. “Selection,
Stability, and Spuriousness: Testing Gottfredson and Hirschi’s Propositions to Reinterpret
Street Gangs in Self-Control Perspective.” Criminology 59 (2): 22453.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12268.
Pyrooz, David C., and Meghan M. Mitchell. 2015. “Little Gang Research, Big Gang Research.”
In The Handbook of Gangs, edited by Scott H. Decker and David C. Pyrooz, 2858. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Pyrooz, David C., and Gary Sweeten. 2015. “Gang Membership between Ages 5 and 17 Years in
the United States.” Journal of Adolescent Health, 16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.11.018.
Pyrooz, David C., Jillian J. Turanovic, Scott H. Decker, and Jun Wu. 2016. “Taking Stock of the
Relationship between Gang Membership and Offending: A Meta-Analysis.” Criminal
Justice and Behavior 43 (3): 36597. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815605528.
Quetelet, Adolphe. 1984. Research on the Propensity for Crime at Different Ages. Cincinnati:
Anderson.
Raby, Carlotta, and Fergal Jones. 2016. “Identifying Risks for Male Street Gang Affiliation: A
Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.” Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and
Psychology 27 (5): 60144. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2016.1195005.
Reichborn-Kjennerud, T., N. Czajkowski, E. Ystrom, R. Orstavik, S. H. Aggen, K. Tambs, S.
36
Torgersen, et al. 2015. “A Longitudinal Twin Study of Borderline and Antisocial
Personality Disorder Traits in Early to Middle Adulthood.” Psychological Medicine 45 (14):
312131. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291715001117.
Richardson, Ken. 2002. “What IQ Tests Test.” Theory & Psychology 12 (3): 283314.
Robins, Lee N. 1966. Deviant Children Grown up: A Sociological and Psychiatric Study of
Sociopathic Personality. The Williams & Wilkins Company.
Rosenberg, Morris. 1965. “Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE).” Acceptance and Commitment
Therapy. Measures Package 61 (52): 18.
———. 1979. Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books.
Salas-Wright, Christopher P., René Olate, and Michael G. Vaughn. 2013. “Assessing Empathy in
Salvadoran High-Risk and Gang-Involved Adolescents and Young Adults: A Spanish
Validation of the Basic Empathy Scale.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology 57 (11): 13931416.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12455170.
Sanchez-Jankowski, Martin. 1991. Islands in the Street: Gangs and American Urban Society.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sanchez, Jose Antonio, Scott H. Decker, and David C. Pyrooz. 2022. “Gang Homicide: The
Road so Far and a Map for the Future.” Homicide Studies 26 (1): 6890.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10887679211043804.
Seals, Richard Alan, and Liliana V. Stern. 2013. “Cognitive Ability and the Division of Labor in
Urban Ghettos: Evidence from Gang Activity in U.S. Data.” Journal of Socio-Economics
44: 14049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2012.11.003.
Shepherd, Stephane M, Rachel E Campbell, and James R P Ogloff. 2018. “Psychopathy,
Antisocial Personality Disorder, and Reconviction in an Australian Sample of Forensic
Patients.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62 (3):
60928. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16653193.
Short Jr., James F. 1998. “The Level of Explanation Problem Revisited-The American Society of
Criminology 1997 Presidential Address.” Criminology 36 (1): 336.
Short Jr., James F., and Fred L. Strodtbeck. 1965. Group Process and Gang Delinquency.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press Chicago.
Smith, Sven, Zenta E. Gomez Auyong, and Chris Ferguson. 2019. “Social Learning, Social
Disorganization, and Psychological Risk Factors for Criminal Gangs in a British Youth
Context.” Deviant Behavior 40 (6): 72231.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1438059.
Spergel, Irving A. 1995. The Youth Gang Problem: A Community Approach. New York, NY:
37
Oxford University Press.
Swaner, Rachel. 2022. “‘We Can’t Get No Nine-to-Five’: New York City Gang Membership as
a Response to the Structural Violence of Everyday Life.” Critical Criminology 30 (1): 95
111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-022-09610-7.
Tewksbury, Richard. 2009. “Qualitative versus Quantitative Methods: Understanding Why
Qualitative Methods Are Superior for Criminology and Criminal Justice.” Journal of
Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology 1 (1).
Thornberry, Terence P., Marvin D. Krohn, Alan J. Lizotte, and Deborah Chard-Wierschem.
1993. “The Role of Juvenile Gangs in Facilitating Delinquent Behavior.” Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency 30 (1): 5587.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030001005.
Thornberry, Terence P., Marvin D. Krohn, Alan J. Lizotte, Kimberly Tobin, and Carolyn A.
Smith. 2003. Gangs and Delinquency in Developmental Perspective. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Thornton, Laura C., Paul J. Frick, Elizabeth P. Shulman, James V. Ray, Laurence Steinberg, and
Elizabeth Cauffman. 2015. “Callous-Unemotional Traits and Adolescents’ Role in Group
Crime.” Law and Human Behavior 39 (4): 36877. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000124.
Tostlebe, Jennifer J., and David C. Pyrooz. 2022. “Are Gang Members Psychopaths?” In
Psychopathy and Criminal Behavior: Current Trends and Challenges, edited by Paulo
Barbosa Marques, Mauro Paulino, and Laura Alho, 1st ed., 31132. Elsevier.
Trzesniewski, Kali H., M. Brent Donnellan, and Richard W. Robins. 2003. “Stability of Self-
Esteem across the Life Span.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (1).
Valdez, Avelardo, Charles D. Kaplan, and Edward Codina. 2000. “Psychopathy among Mexican
American Gang Members: A Comparative Study.” International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44 (1): 4658.
Vaughn, Michael G., John F. Edens, Matthew O. Howard, and Shannon Toney Smith. 2009. “An
Investigation of Primary and Secondary Psychopathy in a Statewide Sample of Incarcerated
Youth.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 7 (3): 17288.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204009333792.
Vazsonyi, Alexander T., Jakub Mikuška, and Erin L. Kelley. 2017. “It’s Time: A Meta-Analysis
on the Self-Control-Deviance Link.” Journal of Criminal Justice 48: 4863.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.10.001.
Vigil, James Diego. 1988. Barrio Gangs: Street Life and Identity in Southern California. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Wang, Alvin Y. 1994. “Pride and Prejudice in High School Gang Members.” Adolescence 29
(114): 279.
38
Watkins, Adam M., and Chris Melde. 2016. “Bad Medicine: The Relationship between Gang
Membership, Depression, Self-Esteem, and Suicidal Behavior.” Criminal Justice and
Behavior 43 (8): 110726. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816631797.
Weide, Robert D. 2022. “Structural Disorganization: Can Prison Gangs Mitigate Serious
Violence in Carceral Institutions?” Critical Criminology 30 (1): 11332.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-022-09611-6.
Wikström, Per Olof H., and Kyle Treiber. 2007. “The Role of Self-Control in Crime Causation:
Beyond Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime.” European Journal of
Criminology 4 (2): 23764. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370807074858.
Wojciechowski, Thomas W. 2020. “The Salience of Antisocial Personality Disorder for
Predicting Substance Use and Violent Behavior: The Moderating Role of Deviant Peers.”
Journal of Drug Issues 50 (1): 3550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042619877935.
Wolfgang, Marvin E., Robert M. Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin. 1972. Delinquency in a Birth
Cohort. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wood, Jane L., and Sophie Dennard. 2017. “Gang Membership: Links to Violence Exposure,
Paranoia, PTSD, Anxiety, and Forced Control of Behavior in Prison.” Psychiatry 80 (1):
3041. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.2016.1199185.
Wood, Jane L., Constantinos Kallis, and Jeremy W. Coid. 2017. “Differentiating Gang Members,
Gang Affiliates, and Violent Men on Their Psychiatric Morbidity and Traumatic
Experiences.” Psychiatry 80 (3): 22135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.2016.1256144.
Wright, John, Kevin M. Beaver, Matt Delisi, and Michael Vaughn. 2008. “Evidence of
Negligible Parenting Influences on Self-Control, Delinquent Peers, and Delinquency in a
Sample of Twins.” Justice Quarterly 25 (3): 54469.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820701864599.
Wu, Jun, and David C. Pyrooz. 2016. “Uncovering the Pathways between Gang Membership and
Violent Victimization.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 32 (4): 53159.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-015-9266-5.
Yablonsky, Lewis. 1962. The Violent Gang. New York, NY: Macmillan.
39
Table 1. Summary of Studies on the Gang Membership/Individual Differences Links
PSYCHOPATHY
STUDY
SAMPLE
STUDY DESIGN
Ang et al. (2015)
Singapore
Student sample
1,027 adolescents
5% gang
Cross-sectional
Carson & Ray (2019)
Philadelphia and Phoenix,
USA
Offender sample
1,264 adolescents
17% gang
Prospective longitudinal
Chu et al. (2014)
Singapore
Offender sample
168 adolescent males
64% gang
Cross-sectional
Dmitrieva et al. (2014)
Philadelphia and Phoenix,
USA
Offender sample
1,170 adolescents
26% gang; 11% gang
leadership over the last 7
pooled-period years
Prospective longitudinal
Dupéré et al. (2007)
Canada (nationally
representative sample)
Community sample
3,522 adolescents
6% gang
Prospective longitudinal
Joseph (2022)
Philadephia and Phoenix,
USA
Offender sample
1,085 adolescents
22% gang
Cross-sectional
(continued)
40
Joseph & Rembert (2021)
Philadelphia and Phoenix,
USA
Offender sample
948 adolescents
24% gang
Cross-sectional
Mallion & Wood (2021)
United Kingdom (Category C
public sector training prison)
Offender sample
73 male adults
60% gang
Cross-sectional within-
participants design
Thornton et al. (2015)
Jefferson Parish, LA; Orange
County, CA; Philadelphia, PA
Offender sample
1,216 adolescent boys
5% gang during the past 6-
months; 5% gang during life
Cross-sectional
Valdez et al. (2000)
Texas, USA
Community sample
75 adolescent boys
67% gang
Cross-sectional
Vaughn et al. (2009)
Missouri, USA
Offender sample
267 adolescents
46% gang
Cross-sectional
LOW SELF-CONTROL
STUDY
SAMPLE
STUDY DESIGN
Fox et al. (2013)
Florida, USA
Offender sample
2,008 adults
15% gang
Cross-sectional
Hope (2003)
Hope & Damphousse (2002)
Fayetteville, AR
Student sample
1,139 adolescents
Cross-sectional
(continued)
41
Kissner & Pyrooz (2009)
California, USA
Offender sample
200 adults
17% current and 14% former
gang
Cross-sectional
Lynskey et al. (2000)
Eleven cities in the USA
Student sample
5,935 adolescents
12% gang
Cross-sectional
Olate et al. (2015)
San Salvador, El Salvador
Community sample
184 adolescents and adults
65% gang
Cross-sectional
Pyrooz et al. (2021)
Seven cities in the USA
Student sample
3,820 adolescents
13% gang over the five
pooled years
Prospective longitudinal
Wu & Pyrooz (2016)
Arizona, Massachusetts, New
Mexico, and South Carolina,
USA
Student sample
1,185 adolescents
26% gang
Prospective longitudinal
ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER
STUDY
SAMPLE
STUDY DESIGN
Coid et al. (2013)
United Kingdom
(representative sample of
young men)
Community sample
4,664 adult males
2% gang
Cross-sectional
Egan and Beadman (2011)
United Kingdom (Category B
prison)
Offender sample
152 adult males
38% former; 9% current;
10% intend to join
Cross-sectional
(continued)
42
Mallion & Wood (2021)
United Kingdom (Category C
public sector training prison)
Offender sample
73 adult males
60% gang
Cross-sectional within-
participants design
Wood et al. (2017)
United Kingdom
(representative sample of
young men)
Community sample
1,539 adult males
15% gang (7% gang
members, 8% gang
affiliates)
Cross-sectional
BEHAVIOR DISORDERS: CONDUCT DISORDER AND OPPOSITIONAL DEFIANT DISORDER
STUDY
SAMPLE
STUDY DESIGN
Lahey et al. (1999)
Pittsburgh, USA
Student sample
185 adolescent African
American males
14% gang
Prospective longitudinal
Harris et al. (2013)
Texas, USA
Offender sample
7,615 adolescents
11% gang
Retrospective cross-
sectional design with an
official-report clinical
interview
Gomez Auyong et al. (2018)
Avon, United Kingdom
Community sample
7,219 adolescent females
1% gang
Prospective longitudinal
Smith et al. (2019)
Avon, United Kingdom
Community sample
15,445 adolescents
5% gang
Prospective longitudinal
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND EMPATHY
STUDY
SAMPLE
STUDY DESIGN
Mallion & Wood (2021)
United Kingdom (Category C
public sector training prison)
Offender sample
73 adults
60% gang
Cross-sectional
(continued)
43
Lenzi et al. (2015)
California, USA
Student sample
26,232 adolescents
8% gang
Cross-sectional
Lenzi et al. (2019)
California, USA
Student sample
11,753 adolescents
6% gang
Cross-sectional
Olate et al. (2012)
San Salvador, El Salvador
Community sample
174 adolescents
67% gang
Cross-sectional
Wu & Pyrooz (2016)
Arizona, Massachusetts, New
Mexico, and South Carolina,
USA
Student sample
1,185 adolescents
26% gang
Prospective longitudinal
GENETICS
STUDY
SAMPLE
STUDY DESIGN
Barnes et al. (2012)
USA (nationally
representative sample)
Student sample
4,534 adolescents (used
sibling/cousin pairs)
17% “ever” gang
Prospective longitudinal
design and behavioral
genetic modeling
Beaver et al. (2010)
USA (nationally
representative sample)
Student sample
2,196 adolescents
4% gang
Prospective longitudinal
Connolly & Beaver (2015)
USA (nationally
representative sample)
Community sample
1,304 sibling pairs
11% “ever” gang
Prospective longitudinal
(continued)
44
LOW SELF-ESTEEM
STUDY
SAMPLE
STUDY DESIGN
Dukes et al. (1997)
Colorado, USA
Student sample
11,023 adolescents
3.9% wannabes; 4.7%
former; 5.4% current gang
Cross-sectional
Wang (1994)
Florida, USA
Student sample
155 adolescents
32% gang
Cross-sectional
Watkins & Melde (2016)
USA (nationally
representative sample)
Student sample
11,153 adolescents
5% gang
Prospective longitudinal
MORAL DISENGAGEMENT
STUDY
SAMPLE
STUDY DESIGN
Alleyne & Wood (2010)
United Kingdom
Student sample
798 adolescents
9% peripheral
7% gang
Cross-sectional
Frisby-Osman & Wood
(2020)
United Kingdom
Student sample
91 adolescents
35% gang
Cross-sectional between-
participants design
INTELLIGENCE
STUDY
SAMPLE(S)
STUDY DESIGN
Seals & Stern (2013)
USA (nationally
representative sample)
Chicago (city
representative sample)
Community sample
6,491 adolescents
14.4% gang
Community sample
4,937 adolescents
8% gang
Prospective longitudinal
Note. Psychopathy section revised from Tostlebe and Pyrooz (2022).
... In addition, gang members could be more callous emotionally. A small body of literature has investigated the gang membership-psychopathy link, which along with analogous time-stable traits, could suggest that gang disengagement would not impact mental health outcomes (see Tostlebe & Sanchez, 2024, for a review). ...
Article
Full-text available
During the last decade, health criminology-the study of health outcomes for justice-involved individuals and their families-has gained traction in the field. We extend health criminology to the study of street gangs by drawing on the stress process perspective. Gang membership is conceptualized as a primary stressor that leads to secondary stressors with direct and indirect adverse effects on mental health. Leaving a gang, we hypothesize, offers relief by shrinking the stress universe to improve mental health. We test the gang disengagement-mental health link using panel data from a sample of 510 active gang members in the Northwestern Juvenile Project, longitudinal entropy balancing models, and mental health outcomes related to both clinical diagnosis and functional impairment. The results indicate that gang disengagement leads to improvements in mental health and functioning. Compared with those who stayed in gangs, those who left experienced improvements in global functioning, overall mental health diagnosis, behavior toward others functioning, substance abuse functioning, and alcohol-related diagnoses. Secondary stressors partially, but not fully, mediated this association. Our findings extend This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Article
Full-text available
This article draws on 287 in-depth interviews with young New York City gang members to understand the roles gangs serve in their lives, the impact of labeling the gang as criminal, and what a more critical perspective on gangs reveals about violence. Findings show that these youth find themselves in double-binds. While their gang membership is largely a reaction to the inequities and marginality they face from the police, unemployment, and poverty, efforts they undertake to survive—joining gangs, selling drugs, carrying weapons—only deepen their vulnerability to discrimination, involvement in the criminal legal system, and interpersonal violence. Violence prevention programs that eschew structural violence as a root cause of crime and community violence cannot succeed in achieving long-term safety for such communities. Prevention efforts must address the realities of what gangs provide for their members, building safe space and supportive community to bridge participants to the supports they need.
Article
Full-text available
To further understand psychopathy within a Developmental and Life-Course Criminology perspective, the current article investigates the stability and change in psychopathy from childhood to middle age. The Cambridge Study in delinquent development is a prospective longitudinal study of 411 males, where psychopathy was coded based on contemporanously collected data from young people and in adulthood. Psychopathy in middle age was assessed in a medical interview. The findings indicate a high degree of stability of psychopathy across the life-course. To explain stability and change, childhood factors that might predict this were investigated. Few factors were related to stability and change across the life-course. Poor supervision, poor housing, a large family, and having a convicted father were associated with any change. A depressed mother was associated with a later decrease in psychopathy. This investigation has implications not only for the downward extension of psychopathy to childhood, but also for the understanding of the development of criminal and antisocial behavior.
Chapter
Full-text available
Gang membership is a well-established correlate of criminal offending and violence. This has led scholars to examine the degree to which a variety of risk factors and domains are linked to gang membership, as well as explain the association between gang membership and offending. One such risk factor may be psychopathy. The issue of psychopathology among gang populations is a controversial one, with classic gang scholarship pointing to psychopathic traits as characteristic of gang members, while others outright reject this notion. This relationship takes on added complexity as the factors that produce a psychopath, in general, remain obscure. While research has established that psychopathy maintains genetic origins, a handful of recent empirical works suggest that social factors, such as antisocial peers, are risk factors for the development of psychopathic traits, including impulsivity and callousness. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the relationship between gang membership and psychopathy. We begin by describing psychopathy in criminology, tracing its origins and the theoretical basis for the concept. Second, we apply the concept of psychopathy to gang membership. Here, we review the evidence of psychopathy among gang members. Third, using a modified version of Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, and Chard-Wierschem’s (1993) tripartite theoretical model—selection, facilitation, and enhancement—we more fully specify the theoretical basis for a gang membership/psychopathy link. While psychopathy has been studied for over 50 years, social and environmental factors, such as gang membership, remain in the background of explanations for its development.
Article
Full-text available
Gang research has spanned nearly a century. In that time, we have learned that gang membership increases the chances of involvement in homicide as a victim or offender. The violence that embroils gang life, both instrumental and symbolic, often has consequences. In this paper we review the gang homicide literature covering topics such as definitional issues, available data, correlates and characteristics, and theoretical explanations. The review examines individual, group, and structural contexts for gang homicide. We conclude with a discussion of future needs in theory, data, and methods, to improve our understanding of gang homicide.
Article
Full-text available
Overlooked in the extensive literature on self-control theory are propositions with respect to street gangs. In Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) perspective, gangs are loose confederations of youth with low self-control and their criminological relevance is attributable to “politics and romance” rather than to rigorous empirical research. Prior research is limited by the use of cross-sectional data, which takes on added importance in light of recent findings on self-control instability. Using six waves of panel data from a large sample of youth, we test three propositions: gang membership is endogenous to self-control (selection), self-control is unrelated to gang membership (stability), and self-control confounds the well-established link between gang membership and delinquency (spuriousness). The main findings from stabilized inverse propensity-weighted multilevel structural equation models are that 1) self-control is one, but not the only, source of selection into gangs; 2) levels of self-control worsen during active periods of gang membership; and 3) gang membership maintains a direct association with delinquency, as well as an indirect association operating through self-control. The empirical evidence does not support reinterpreting gangs in self-control perspective, instead pointing to the continued relevance of the group context to criminology.
Book
A systematic and comparative analysis of youth gangs and the youth gang problem in the United States, this book deals with hands-on issues of policy and programs, describing the strategies and techniques for dealing with gangs employed by criminal justice organizations, social agencies, schools, employment programs, and grass-roots organizations. Spergel combines empirical research, first-hand experience, and a solid theoretical base to expose the causes of the gang problem. He recommends strategies that deal with gangs at a community level, using both local and national interests and resources to provide gang members with structured social and economic opportunities.
Article
Recent investigations show that adolescent female criminality and gang membership is increasing nationwide. Although empirical investigation into the relationship between psychopathy and gang membership is burgeoning, all of the studies are male focused. The present study investigates juvenile psychopathy’s relationship with youth gang membership across males and females in order to better comprehend the etiology of gang membership across sex using the baseline sample of the Pathways to Desistance Study. The findings suggest that juvenile psychopathy predicts gang membership equally for both boys and girls. The study highlights the importance of investigating juvenile psychopathy in youth gang membership across sex and the implementation of intensive multilevel treatment programs tailored to the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral needs of gang members.
Article
Objectives The processes driving gang entry and disengagement are central to classic and contemporary criminological research on gang involvement. Yet, the role of delinquent peer friendship networks in contouring gang membership has driven much of criminological research, with little empirical research devoted to understanding sibling influences on the gang career. Method The study uses the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 to examine the transmission of gang membership among similar-aged siblings. These data offer the opportunity to use siblings’ self-report of gang involvement as a determinant of focal youths’ self-report of gang involvement while treating gang entry, persistence, and exit (and reentry) as unique transitions with potentially asymmetric determinants. Results Results from the event history models indicate that gang involved siblings increase the hazard of entry and re-entry into the gang but have little influence on exit decisions. Sibling configurations with respect to sex and age-order further conditions these relations, with brothers and older siblings most influential. Conclusion Ties to siblings serve as a salient and intimate type of social tie with siblings serving multiplex roles in each other’s lives. Findings lend additional insight on crime concentration in family networks and advance our understanding of continuity and change in gang involvement