Citation

Thomas KJ, McGloin JM, Sullivan CJ. J. Quant. Criminol. 2019; 35(4): 631-662.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s10940-018-9385-x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

OBJECTIVECriminologists have long questioned how fragile our statistical inferences are to unobserved bias when testing criminological theories. This study demonstrates that sensitivity analyses offer a statistical approach to help assess such concerns with two empirical examples--delinquent peer influence and school commitment.

METHODSData from the Gang Resistance Education and Training are used with models that: (1) account for theoretically-relevant controls; (2) incorporate lagged dependent variables and; (3) account for fixed-effects. We use generalized sensitivity analysis (Harada in ISA: Stata module to perform Imbens' (2003) sensitivity analysis, 2012; Imbens in Am Econ Rev 93(2):126-132, 2003) to estimate the size of unobserved heterogeneity necessary to render delinquent peer influence and school commitment statistically non-significant and substantively weak and compare these estimates to covariates in order to gauge the likely existence of such bias.

RESULTSUnobserved bias would need to be unreasonably large to render the peer effect statistically non-significant for violence and substance use, though less so to reduce it to a weak effect. The observed effect of school commitment on delinquency is much more fragile to unobserved heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONQuestions over the sensitivity of inferences plague criminology. This paper demonstrates the utility of sensitivity analysis for criminological theory testing in determining the robustness of estimated effects.

Language: en

Keywords

False positives; Sensitivity analysis; Theory testing; Unobserved bias