Leisure activities and adolescent antisocial behavior: The role of structure and social context

Journal of Adolescence 2000, 23, 113±127 doi:10.1006/jado.2000.0302, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Leisure activities and adolescent antisocial behavior: The role of structure and social context JOSEPH L. MAHONEY AND HAÊKAN STATTIN The goal of this study was to understand better how the structure and social context of adolescent leisure activities relates to antisocial behavior. A representative sample of 703 14-year-olds and their parents were assessed concerning adolescent involvement in community-based leisure activities, peer and adult social relations, and antisocial behavior. Results showed that participation in highly structured leisure activities was linked to low levels of antisocial behavior, while participation in activities with low structure (i.e. a youth recreation center) was associated with high levels of antisocial behavior. Overall the results were similar for boys and girls; however, the combination of involvement in a low structured activity and the absence of any highly structured participation appeared especially problematic for boys' antisocial behavior. Participants of low structured activities were also characterized by deviant peer relations, poor parent±child relations, and they received low support from their activity leader compared to adolescents engaged in more structured community activities. Findings are discussed in terms of their implication for prevention research.

# 2000 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents

Introduction The majority of an adolescents' waking time is spent engaged in leisure activities (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993). There are many possible ways that leisure time is consumed, ranging from highly structured (e.g. competitive sports teams) to relatively unstructured pursuits (e.g. watching television). Available evidence indicates that some forms of adolescent leisure activities are correlated with antisocial behavior (i.e. criminality, aggressive behavior, alcohol/drug use, delinquency, school dropout). However, the literature is conflicting with regards to the direction of association. Adolescent leisure pursuits have been linked to short-term and long-term decreased (e.g. Mahoney, 2000), increased (e.g. McCord, 1978), and trivial relations (Hirshi, 1969) to antisocial behavior. The goal of the present study is to identify and evaluate characteristics of leisure activities that may be associated with increases or decreases in adolescent antisocial behavior.

Background A number of studies have shown that adolescent activity involvement may decrease antisocial behavior and related outcomes. Rationales for why participation may reduce antisocial behavior and related outcomes include: structuring the youth's time (Brown, 1988; Osgood et al., 1996), providing links to competent adults and peers (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993; Fletcher et al., 1997), building existing skills and interests (Jones and Offord, 1989; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Mahoney, 2000), and creating opportunities within the social system Reprint request and correspondence should be addressed to Joseph L Mahoney, PO Box 208205, New Haven, CT 06520, U.S.A. 0140-1971/00/020113+15 $35
00/0

# 2000 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents

114

J. L. Mahoney and H. Stattin

where students feel competent and accepted (Eder, 1985; Eder and Parker, 1987; Kinney, 1993). Longitudinal evaluation of adolescent leisure activity involvement and adjustment provides the most compelling evidence for an associated reduction in antisocial behavior. Jones and Offord (1986, 1989) conducted a preventive intervention for impoverished youth in Canada. A primary intervention component was opportunity to participate in various community activities directed by highly skilled adults. The findings revealed significantly lower rates of aggression and antisocial behavior among youth who participated. Mahoney (Mahoney, 2000; Mahoney and Cairns, 1997) showed that boys and girls with multiple adjustment problems who subsequently became involved in school extracurricular activities were significantly less likely to dropout of school as adolescents or become arrested for a criminal behavior as young adults. A prevention study conducted by Allen and colleagues (Allen et al., 1997) found that adolescents participating in voluntary community service showed significantly better long-term adjustment than non-participating youth. Evidence in the opposite direction is also available. Youth leisure activities have been conceived of in terms of ``attractive diversions'' from school and related academic pursuits (Marsh, 1992), as catalysts for socioeconomic-based exclusion (Hollingshead, 1949) and peer rejection in the school (Evans and Eder, 1993), and have been correlated with increased antisocial behavior (Greenberger and Steinberg, 1986; Osgood et al., 1996). For example, the longitudinal Cambridge-Somerville Study (McCord, 1978; 1992) included an intervention for high-risk youth that involved participation in summer camps and community clubs. Initial assessments showed somewhat higher alcohol problems, mental illness, and poorer physical health for treated youth. A long-term follow-up 30 years after initial treatment showed significantly worse outcomes for treated participants (i.e. crime, psychiatric disturbance and death). Likewise, Helmersson Belmark and Andersson, (1999; Andersson, 2000) found that frequency of involvement in government-sponsored youth centers was correlated with higher rates of alcohol problems and related maladjustment from adolescence to adulthood. Other studies investigating drug use and delinquency have found little evidence for positive benefits related to youth activity involvement (e.g. Hirschi, 1969; Greenberger and Steinberg, 1986; Schincke et al., 1991; Polakowski, 1994; Botvin, 1996).

Structure and social context in adolescent leisure activities

Why the difference in findings between these two sets of studies? At least three aspects of adolescent leisure activities may contribute to the discrepancy: structure, social context and conventionality. In our view, each of these aspects can be considered as continuous dimensions. Youth leisure pursuits can range from having virtually no structure to being highly complex, solitary/non-cooperative pursuits to collaborative group engagement, and societal condemnation to public and financial support by the community or broader cultural unit of influence. Generally, youth leisure pursuits linked to decreased antisocial behavior have offered high structure, emphasized skill-building in the area pursued, and have brought together youth from a range of competencies (cf., Mahoney, 2000). Leisure pursuits associated with no benefit or with negative outcomes for the participants have tended to include, or focus exclusively upon, activities in the low end of one or all of these aspects. Several features characterize highly structured youth leisure activities. These features include: regular participation schedules, rule-guided engagement, direction by one or more adult activity leaders, an emphasis on skill development that is continually increasing in complexity and challenge, activity performance that requires sustained active attention, and

Leisure activities

115

clear feedback performance (e.g. Jones and Offord, 1986, 1989; Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Mahoney, 2000). As the participant becomes more skilled, the structured demands of the activity increase in parallel (e.g. greater competition; increasing challenges or requirements). School and community sponsored athletics, music organizations, and church groups are examples of highly structured activities. By contrast, a variety of youth leisure activities are relatively spontaneous, take place without formal rules or direction from adult leaders, and feature few goals related to skill development (e.g. watching television, hanging out with peers). All adolescents engage in these sorts of unstructured leisure to some degree. Accordingly, there may be little necessary connection between the unstructured activities and deviance. However, opportunities to engage in antisocial behavior are greater during unstructured leisure activities compared to ones that are highly structured (Osgood et al., 1996). In particular, if the social context of the activity features a high proportion of deviant peers, unstructured leisure pursuits may afford an ideal situation for initiating, maintaining, and accelerating antisocial behavior. The social context of leisure activities includes social agents present during the leisure activity and persons who influence participation. Although structure and social context are conceptually distinct, in practice there is often a relation between the two aspects. Structured leisure activities are often of higher social complexity and may involve peer cooperation, support from family members, and guidance from unrelated adults (e.g. coaches)*. Studies have emphasized the importance of social support from non-deviant peers (Eder, 1985; 1995; Kinney, 1993; Mahoney, in press), family members (Jones and Offord, 1986; Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993; Fletcher et al., 1997; Mahoney and Magnusson, 2000), and other adults as possible mechanisms by which structured activities may benefit participating youth. For instance, structured clubs and teams attract youth of varying social and academic competence. For adolescents with marginal or low competence, participating in the activity provides an opportunity to form relationships with more competent peers that may otherwise be unavailable. Structured activities also impose organization on adolescent leisure time (Osgood et al., 1996) that may facilitate parental monitoring practices and trust by increasing parental knowledge of where the adolescent is, what he/she is doing, and who he/she is with during leisure time. Parents and other adults may also be more apt to play an active and/or supportive role in their child's participation in structured leisure activities. By comparison, activities that are low in structure tend to lack conventional social relations, and some unstructured leisure activities appear over-represented by deviant adolescents (Osgood et al., 1996). To the extent that exposure to deviant youth augments behavior problems (Cairns et al., 1988, 1989; Urberg, 1992), unstructured leisure activity contexts may place youth at risk for antisocial behavior through social influence. Likewise, frequent involvement in unstructured leisure activities may hinder parental monitoring efforts, and diminish parental knowledge and trust of child leisure activities due to the irregularity of meetings and character of social affiliates involved in such activities. A final aspect is the conventionality of the youth leisure activity. Although structured youth leisure pursuits are generally supported by society this need not be true. Youth gangs, organized crime, drug sales and teen prostitution are examples of condemned activities that may be highly structured and maintain a complex social structure. However, as the present *There is no contradiction in writing that highly structured activities emphasize cooperation and competition. Competitive aspects occur as the individual challenges himself/herself to improve skills, or in direct competition with opposing teams. Cooperation among members within an activity is often necessary to maximize individual and group skill development. The aspects are complimentary rather than contradicting.

116

J. L. Mahoney and H. Stattin

study is concerned only with youth leisure activities of which society approves, these alternative pursuits will not be discussed further.

The present study

In this study adolescent antisocial behavior is evaluated for youth participating in two common types of youth leisure activities in Sweden. One type of activity includes structured, community-sponsored teams and organizations. The second type of activity is the youth recreation center (YRC).

The Swedish youth recreation center. The Swedish youth recreation centers (i.e. fritidsgaÊrden in Swedish) are nationally sponsored and most communities in Sweden are home to one or more such centers. Many of the centers were developed in the 1960s in response to a growing concern at the lack of available contexts for youth to spend their time free time during the evenings. An explicit aim of the youth centers was to reduce youth antisocial activities by keeping adolescents out of troubled settings during the evening. The YRCs are available to persons between the ages of 13 and 19. They are usually accessible every evening of the week, opening around dinner time and closing as late as 11:30 p.m. during the weekend and summer time. The characteristics of the YRC vary somewhat across communities, but the national guidelines ensure that commonalties exist in the centers' goals and activities. The philosophy for the YRC emphasizes that youth should be allowed to develop their own interests. Typical activities at the YRC include: pool, ping-pong, video games, darts, TV, music, and a coffee room. The centers may also sponsor various special events such as outdoor field trips, movie night, girl's night, or weekly basketball. The available activities could be described as generally low in organization. Individual skill-building is not generally part of the activity goal. One or more adults are present at the center, but do not direct or place demands on the youths' activity choices. The background and education of the adult supervisors may vary substantially. Accordingly, we view the YRC as a leisure activity context that is overall low in structure. There are three expectations for the present study. First, youth involved in highly structured community activities are anticipated to show lower levels of antisocial behavior than youth not involved in such activities, or those involved in the YRC. Second, antisocial behavior is expected to be highest among adolescents who attend the YRC and do not engage in structured community activities. Finally, the adult and peer relations connected to structured activities are expected to be more positive and less antisocial compared to those characterizing persons involved in the YRC.

Method Participants

È rebro During the fall of 1997, all adolescents in grade 8 (age 14) from 6 communities in O County in central Sweden were invited to take part in a school-based survey concerning their leisure activities and social relations. There are approximately 120,000 persons living in È rebro. Given the population of Sweden (currently about 8?7 million), O È rebro is relatively O È rebro was dominated by a prominent footwear large by national standards. Historically, O industry, but has diversified over time into engineering plants, printing shops, and food and

Leisure activities

117

È rebro is home to a large hospital, a well-known psychiatric paper industry. Additionally, O clinic and a university. The subjects responded to the questionnaires as part of the regular school day, and were assured of the confidentiality of their answers. They were informed that their parents would be invited to complete similar questions. The administration of the questionnaires at the schools was made by research assistants in the absence of the classroom teachers. Sevenhundred-and-three adolescents (351 boys, 352 girls) completed the survey and represent approximately 92?5% of all eighth graders in the six communities. Parents of all eighth grade students were also invited to complete a survey concerning their adolescent's use of free time, peer relations, and their own relationship with their adolescent. Parents responded to a mailed questionnaire and were informed that their children responded to similar questions at school. Five-hundred-and-eighty parents (76% of the parent population) returned a completed survey. Parents who did, and who did not, complete the survey were compared with respect to their child's involvement in leisure activities and antisocial behavior. Participation in the YRC's was somewhat higher for youth whose parents did not complete the survey (47%) compared with parents who did (39%) (w2 (1,688)=3?895, p=0?046). There were no significant differences on structured activity involvement or antisocial behavior.

Adolescent reports Activity involvement. Participants were surveyed about their involvement in high and low structured community activity contexts, hereafter referred to as structured and unstructured activities. Structured activities were defined as: (1) occurring together with others in your own age-group; (2) having an adult leader; and (3) meeting at least once a week at a regular time. Given these criteria, participants were asked to indicate which of the following types of structured community activities they were participating in: Sports, Music, Theater and Fine Arts, Hobby, Church, Scouting, Politics, or Other. Structured activity participation was coded dichotomously (0 = no, 1 = yes), according to whether the participant indicated involvement in any type of structured activity. Participation in the YRC was considered a unstructured form of community activity involvement. Within these centers, regular participation schedules are not required, activity participation does not generally emphasize skill-building, and there is relatively modest adult direction or leadership concerning activity participation. Participants who indicated attending the YRC one or more times a week were designated as involved in an unstructured community activity. Unstructured activity participation was also coded dichotomously (0 = no, 1 = yes). Antisocial behavior. Participants reported the frequency in which they engaged in antisocial behaviors during the last year. Five response choices were possible for each behavior: never; one time; two or three times; four to ten times; or more than ten times. Questions assessing antisocial behavior included: ``Have you taken something from a store without paying for it?'' (M = 1?52, S.D. = 1?03), ``Have you drank so much beer, liquor, or wine that you have become drunk?'' (M = 1?90, S.D. = 1?28), ``Have you been caught by the police?'' (M = 1?10, S.D. = 0?36), ``Have you destroyed things (e.g. windows, motor vehicles, telephones booths, benches, yards, etc.)?'' (M = 1?19, S.D. = 0?61), ``Have you taken money from home that was not your own?'' (M = 1?33, S.D. = 0?81), ``Have you by yourself or with others ganged up on another student?'' (M = 1?26, S.D. = 1?62), ``Have you taken part in a

118

J. L. Mahoney and H. Stattin

fight?'' (M = 1?21, S.D. = 0?62), and ``Have you skipped school?'' (M = 1?60, S.D. = 1?15). Responses were standardized and averaged. The alpha reliability for the 8-item scale was 0?79.

Peer characteristics. Participants were asked to list names of up to eight peers that they typically spent time with after school. The participants then indicated how many of these peers: (1) were older than themself; (2) were not doing well in school; (3) were often out on the town at night; and (4) had been caught by the police. The participant's total number of peers was divided by the number of peers identified for each of the three items. This yielded the proportion of each participant's self-reported peer group characterized by the above items. Activity leader support. This was assessed for persons who reported involvement in structured and/or unstructured activities using the following three questions: (1) Do you know your activity leader well?; (2) Is there an activity leader that you can trust, that listens to you, and treats you as an important person?; and (3) Could you go to your activity leader if you had a personal problem and wanted to talk about it? Responses were coded dichotomously (0 = no, 1 = yes), and then summed, creating a 4-point indicator of perceived support. Parent Reports

Parental monitoring involved an 8-item scale addressing the parents knowledge of child leisure time activities and school activities. The scale items included: (1) know what the child does during leisure time; (2) know which peers the child is with during leisure time, (3) know what homework the child has; (4) know what the child spends their money on; (5) know when the child has quizzes/exams at school; (6) know when the child has school presentations or special assignments; (7) know where the child is during the evening; and (8) know where the child goes and what the child does in the afternoon directly following school. Responses were on a 5-point scale ranging from 1Ðno, absolutely not, to 5Ðyes, always and completely. Responses were standardized and averaged. The alpha reliability for the 8-item scale was 0?89. Parental trust included six items surrounding the degree of trust in the child's choice of leisure activities. Items included: (1) confidence in the child to decide their own leisure activities; (2) trust the child to do their best in school; (3) trust the child not to do something foolish in their leisure time; (4) trust the child to avoid bad company; (5) trust the child to decide what he/she will do on Saturday evenings; and (6) trust the child to decide how he/she spends money. Responses were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1Ðno, absolutely not, to 5Ðyes, always and completely. Responses were standardized and averaged. The alpha reliability for the 6-item scale was 0?89. Parental activity support involved two items addressing the extent to which parents: (1) would like the child to participate in a community activity; and (2) encourage their child to be part of a community activity. Responses were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1Ð not at all, to 5Ðvery much. Responses were standardized and averaged. The alpha reliability for the 2-item scale was 0?72. Parental education was determined according to the highest level of education attained by each parent. Mother and father education was assessed separately using a 5-point scale ranging from 1Ðelementary school, to 5Ðuniversity/college. Maternal and paternal education was available for 570 parents, and was averaged to create a index of parent education. The parent education index included the complete scale range, with an

Leisure activities

average of 2?97 (Median=3?00; education.

S.D.=1?20)

119

corresponding to the completion of compulsory

Results Leisure activities and antisocial behavior

Initial comparisons examined whether boys and girls differed on involvement in leisure activities or antisocial behavior. Seventy-six percent of boys and 78% of girls reported involvement in 1 or more structured activities (w2(1,686)=0?59, p=0?44). Forty-two per cent of boys and 40% of girls reported participating in the unstructured YRC one or more times a week (w2(1,688)=0?54, p=0?54). The gender difference for antisocial behavior was also non-significant although the mean level was somewhat higher for males than for females (F(1,694)=1?72, p=0?19){. Antisocial behavior was compared for persons who were, and who were not, engaged in a leisure activity, regardless of its organizational level. The comparison was made separately for boys and girls. Standardized scores of antisocial behavior showed little difference for persons participating and not participating in a leisure activity (males: 0?05 vs. 70?10; females: 0?04 vs. 70?04). A 2 (activity involvement)62 (gender) analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed that the differences were non-significant (F(1,676)=0?21, p=0?65), and there were no significant main effects or interactions involving gender.

Structured and unstructured activities compared. Activity involvement was divided into four categories based on whether or not an individual was engaged in an activity, and whether or not the activity was structured or unstructured. Fourteen per cent of the sample were not involved in any activity, 9% were involved in an unstructured activity only, 45% participated in structured activities only, and 32% engaged in both unstructured and structured activities. The proportion of boys and girls in the four categories was not significantly different (w2(3,674)=2?03, p=0?57). Figure 1 shows the relation between the four patterns of activity involvement and antisocial behavior. A 2 (structured activity)62 (unstructured activity)62 (gender) ANOVA was performed. There were significant main effects for structured activity participation (F(1,661)=20?09, p50?001), unstructured activity participation (F(1,661)=100?42, p50?001), and a 3-way interaction (F(1,661)=4?46, p=0?035). For both boys and girls participation in structured activities was linked to low antisocial behavior while involvement in an unstructured activity showed the opposite pattern. The combination of involvement in an unstructured activity and no structured participation showed a stronger association with high antisocial behavior for boys. To account for the possible influence of family education on patterns of leisure activity involvement and antisocial behavior, the above ANOVA was completed a second time, but with parent educational attainment included as a covariate. Results revealed that parent education was not a significant covariate (F(1,501)=0?273, p=0?601), and did not impact the pattern of findings or statistical significance reported above. { One reason that antisocial behavior did not differ for boys and girls is that the items comprising the antisocial behavior scale included norm-breaking behaviors in addition to those indicative of delinquency. Consequently, girls showed similar or higher levels of violating behavior on some items (e.g. stealing money from home, drinking alcohol). Other items (e.g. physical fighting, ganging up on another student) were clearly higher for males.

120

J. L. Mahoney and H. Stattin

Figure 1. Antisocial behavior as a function of structured and unstructured leisure activity involvement. (&), males; ( ), females.

Social support, activity involvement, and antisocial behavior Parent behavior. Three aspects of parent behavior were evaluated: (1) monitoring; (2) trust; and (3) support for structured activity involvement. The parenting aspects were assessed across the four leisure activity conditions previously described and comparisons were made separately for boys and girls. Results are shown in Table 1. Analyses involved a 2 (structured activity)62 (unstructured activity)62 (gender) ANOVA. Table 1 Parenting behavior (standardized scores) as a function of leisure activity participation and gender Leisure activity participation Parenting aspect

Structured only

None

Structured and unstructured

Unstructured only

Monitoring Boys Girls

0?33 0?01

70?20 0?10

0?01 70?17

70?01 70?32

Trust Boys Girls

0?21 0?36

70?02 70?10

70?28 70?11

70?45 70?18

Activity support Boys Girls

0?21 0?06

70?66 70?57

0?21 0?23

70?33 70?96

Leisure activities

121

The analysis of parental monitoring showed significant main effects for unstructured activity involvement (F(1,513)=33?37, p=0?001). Parental monitoring was low for participants in an unstructured activity compared to those not participating in an unstructured activity. The gender difference was not significant. For parental trust, there were significant main effects for structured activity involvement (F(1,514)=11?85, p=0?001), unstructured activity involvement (F(1,514)=43?77, p5 0?001), and gender (F(1,514)=5?11, p=0?024). Parents reported high levels of trust for children engaged in structured activities, and low trust for children engaged in unstructured activities. Parental trust was somewhat higher for girls as compared to boys. Parent support for activity involvement yielded a main effect for structured activity involvement (F(1,506)=103?36, p5 0?001), gender (F(1,506)=7?90, p=0?005), and a significant 3-way interaction (F(1,506)=9?83, p=0?002). Boys and girls not involved in structured activities had parents who reported low support for activity involvement. Girls who engaged only in unstructured activities had particularly low support for community activity involvement from their parents.

Peers. The number of after-school peers reported was assessed across the four categories of leisure activity involvement for boys and girls (see Table 2). A 2 (structured activity)62 (unstructured activity)62 (gender) ANOVA revealed main effects for unstructured activity involvement (F(1,664)=33?07, p5 0?001), gender (F(1,664)=11?09, p=0?001), and 2-way interaction between structured activity involvement and gender (F(1,664)=6?48, p=0?011). Boys, and participants in an unstructured leisure activity reported the greatest number of after-school peers. Boys who were not in a structured activity reported the fewest number of after-school peers. The proportion of each participants after-school peer group was assessed on four characteristics: (1) older than the participant; (2) doing poorly in school; (3) often out on the town at night; and (4) caught by the police. The results are shown in Table 2. A 2 Table 2

Peer characteristics as a function of leisure activity participation and gender Leisure activity participation

Peer characteristics

Structured only None Structured and unstructured Unstructured only

Mean number of peers Boys Girls

4?27 4?77

3?71 5?43

5?56 5?64

4?71 5?50

Proportion of older peers Boys Girls

0?33 0?31

0?24 0?46

0?42 0?35

0?50 0?53

0?35 0?35

0?42 0?29

0?48 0?40

Proportion of peers out on the town at night Boys 0?28 0?40 Girls 0?36 0?56

0?57 0?56

0?64 0?61

Proportion of peers caught by police Boys 0?08 Girls 0?04

0?21 0?16

0?32 0?23

Proportion of peers doing poorly in school Boys 0?35 Girls 0?24

0?14 0?13

122

J. L. Mahoney and H. Stattin

(structured activity)62 (unstructured activity)62 (gender) ANOVA was used to determine whether the differences were reliable. The proportion of peers reported to be older than the participant was higher for adolescents in an unstructured activity compared to adolescents not participating in an unstructured activity (F(1,664)=6?80, p=0?009). A 2-way structured activity involvement by gender interaction (F(1,664)=5?73, p=0?017) indicated that involvement in structured leisure activities was related to a low proportion of older peers for girls in particular. An evaluation of the proportion of peers doing poorly in school revealed three main effects for unstructured activity participants (F(1,591)=6?87, p=0?009), structured activity participants (F(1,591)=6?09, p=0?014), and gender (F(1,591)=15?78, p50?000). Poor school performance characterized a greater proportion of peers who participated in an unstructured activity, or who did not participate in a structured activity. A higher proportion of boys' peers were doing poorly in school compared to the girls' peers. There were no significant interactions. A higher proportion of peers were identified as often staying out on the town at night for participants in an unstructured activity (F(1,591)=86?21, p50?001), and a lower proportion was identified for participants of structured activities (F(1,591)=19?89, p50?001). The 2-way interaction between structured and unstructured activities was also significant (F(1,591)=5?02, p=0?025). The combination of participating in structured activities and not participating in an unstructured activity was, in particular, linked to a low proportion of peers out on the town at night. There were no significant main effects or interactions involving gender. Finally, an evaluation of the proportion of peers reported to have been caught by the police showed three main effects for unstructured activity involvement (F(1,594)=48?43, p5 0?001), structured activity involvement (F(1,594)=13?63, p5 0?001), and gender (F(1,594)=5?67, p=0?018). A higher proportion of peers were apprehended by police among participants of an unstructured activity, and a lower proportion were apprehended among the structured activity participants. A higher proportion of the boys' after-school peers were caught by police than was true of the girls' peers. There were no significant interactions.

Activity leaders. A final analysis involved the support received from the leader(s) of the youth activities. The 4-point activity leader support scale was assessed using a 2 (activity structure)62 (gender) ANOVA. The mean level of support from the activity leader was higher for persons in structured activities (M=2?00) than those in unstructured activities (M=0?70)(F(1,528)=29?65, p50?001). Support was somewhat higher for the boys (M=2?10) than the girls (M=1?81)(F(1,528)=10?36, p=0?001). The interaction was not significant.

Discussion The main aim of this study was to understand better the conditions under which leisure activities are, and are not, linked to antisocial behavior in adolescence. It was presumed that the level of structure and related social context of the activity would play an important role in this regard. Results confirmed that structured activity participation is linked to low antisocial behavior, while involvement in a relatively low structured youth recreation center was associated with high antisocial behavior. These findings were overall similar for boys and

Leisure activities

123

girls. An exception was the combination of unstructured involvement and no structured participation that appeared especially problematic for boys' antisocial behavior. When leisure activity participation was defined as involvement in either a structured or unstructured activity there was no association with antisocial behavior. In effect, the aggregation of qualitatively different forms of leisure activities masked the association with antisocial behavior. This finding may help to explain conflicting reports in the literature on leisure activities and antisocial behavior. A second point of clarification was that a lack of participation in community activities was not linked to high rates antisocial behavior. Thus, the issue not whether an individual is engaged in an activityÐthe issue appears to be what the individual is engaged in, and with whom. In terms of antisocial behavior, it may be better to be uninvolved than to participate in an unstructured activity, particularly if it features a high number of deviant youth. A related aim was to assess some possible mechanisms by which different leisure activities may influence antisocial behavior. A variety of social agents were linked to participation in leisure activities. Most generally, participation in a leisure activity (as opposed to no participation) was related to a greater number of after-school peers. Non-participating boys reported the fewest after-school peers. This is consistent with research indicating that leisure activities are effective contexts for generating relationships (Karweit, 1983; Mahoney, 1995), and that shared activity interests may be a particularly important factor in boys' relationships (Erwin, 1985). Adolescents involved in structured activities reported significantly fewer deviant peers, while those engaged in the low structured YRC reported more older friends who also tended to stay out late in the evening, perform poorly in school, and had been caught by the police. Taken together, this suggests that the peer support associated with leisure contexts can work for good or for ill. The aggregation of deviant youth into unstructured, marginally supervised, and/or non-skill oriented settings may promote antisocial affiliations and behavior. This situation characterizes several studies demonstrating increased deviance for adolescent leisure activity participants (e.g. McCord, 1978; Greenberger and Steinberg, 1986; Osgood et al., 1996; Andersson, 2000; Helmerson Bergmark and Andersson, 1999). Relations to adults also differentiated patterns of leisure activity involvement. This included support from the activity leaders and parent monitoring and trust. We hypothesized that involvement in structured activities should facilitate positive parent±child relations and parental monitoring. The evidence from this study is consistent with that interpretation. However, the reverse interpretation is also possible; namely, that more effective parents guide their child's choice of leisure activities towards structured pursuits. It may be most likely that both processes are at work and we return to this issue below. The finding that perceived social support was higher from leaders of structured activities compared with the low structured YRCs is less easily explained by a selection bias interpretation.

Methodological considerations

Some of the findings demonstrating a relation between antisocial behavior and involvement in leisure activities may be accounted for by selection effects. Students chose the types of leisure activities in which they wished to participate. Factors that influence an individual to select one leisure activity over another may also impact the individual's adjustment. Accordingly, a more general process could underlie the development of antisocial behavior that includes a preference for involvement in leisure settings with low structure such as the YRC (e.g. Farrington, 1990). The YRC represents an alternative leisure pursuit that may be

124

J. L. Mahoney and H. Stattin

sought out by persons who are not interested in a structured leisure experience, who desire affiliation with youth involved in antisocial activities, or both. Parents who show low monitoring or trust of the individual's leisure time may be an additional feature in this process. Socialization influences impact behavioral adjustment, and are also likely to account for part of the association between leisure activity participation and antisocial behavior. Indeed, selection and socialization influences tend to work cooperatively rather than in competition (Cairns and Cairns, 1994; Urberg et al., 1997). For structured activities, the presence of supportive adults, non-deviant agemates, and clear activity goals present the opportunity to improve individual, social, and/or physical competencies and promote positive adjustment. This environment may be particularly effective for improving the adjustment of high risk boys and girls (Jones and Offord, 1986; Kinney, 1993; Mahoney and Cairns, 1997). By contrast, unstructured activities such as the YRC provide frequent opportunities to engage in antisocial behavior, and present a social climate involving deviant and older peers that may capitalize on those opportunities (Osgood et al., 1996). Parents may in turn find it more difficult to monitor the behavior of youth who frequently engage in unstructured leisure activities because of the spontaneous nature of such pursuits. Accordingly, participation in unstructured leisure activities may maintain or accelerate the established antisocial behavior of at-risk youth, and could lead to an initiation of antisocial actions on the part of non-risk youth. Urberg and colleagues (Urberg et al., 1997) have suggested strategies by which selection and socialization issues can be sorted out using a longitudinal research design. In this case, the most compelling method may be tracking the individual's entrance into leisure activity participation. Homogeneous sub-sets of persons who are alike on relevant social, academic, and family characteristics can be identified prior to involvement in a structured or unstructured leisure activities. The rates of subsequent participation into the two contexts could then be evaluated for the different sub-sets of persons (i.e. selection assessment). To establish whether the activity structure and social context moderate adjustment, the antisocial behavior of persons within a particular homogeneous sub-set who do, and who do not, become involved in a structured/unstructured activity can be assessed (i.e. socialization assessment){. It should also be noted that the measurement procedures emphasized the use of selfreported information. This was true for measures of antisocial behavior, activity involvement, and peer characteristics. There is evidence that self-reported information does not always correspond well with reports from others (e.g. Kenrick and Stringfield, 1980; Taylor and Brown, 1988; Sedikides, 1993; Xie et al., 1999). In particular, persons perceive their friends and relatives to be similar to themselves on a variety of characteristics, but the actual similarity of such individuals is typically lower than the perceived similarity (Fisher and Baumen, 1988; Urberg et al., 1991; Berndt and Keefe, 1995). Thus, the relation between individual and perceived peer antisocial behavior for the YRC participants may have been inflated. However, self-reported bias is often most marked in accounts of private, and nonsalient aspects of the self. Because the present research involved relatively public behaviors (antisocial actions, leisure activity involvement) the chance of self-distortion may be reduced. Moreover, parent-reported information in this study yielded a pattern of results consistent with adolescent reports. The use of external sources of information (e.g. juvenile crime records; activity participation rosters; peer-reports; teacher-ratings) would help to clarify this issue. {

Cairns and Rodkin (1998) provide a conceptual overview of this longitudinal research strategy.

Leisure activities

125

Implications

While this study involved Swedish adolescents, we believe the findings have more general implications for the role of adolescent leisure activities in preventive intervention research. To the extent that youth leisure activities in other cultures can be characterized with regards to structure and aspects of the social context outlined in our introductory remarks, similar relations to youth adjustment may be expected. It is less clear whether a close parallel to the Swedish youth recreation center exists in other Western nations. Some American community centers, YMCAs and Boys and Girls Clubs, for example, maintain ``free'' structures and should be investigated scientifically. One implication is to increase adolescent involvement in structured leisure activities. Such activities should be organized such that they are aimed toward skill building, ruleguided, led by a competent adult, and follow a regular participation schedule. The strategy to increase participation should be chosen judiciously. Although it is possible to assign (at random) adolescents to participate in structured school or community activities, this may be unwarranted. Findings from this and other studies showing benefits for leisure activity participants have emphasized the importance of voluntary involvement (Jones and Offord, 1986; 1989; Allen et al., 1997; Mahoney and Cairns, 1997). Forced participation may undermine a key component to the success of structured leisure activities which is the individual's intrinsic motivation and enjoyment for participation (Lepper and Cordova, 1992; Cordova and Lepper, 1996). Accordingly, prevention strategies should focus on increasing knowledge and interest in structured activities and removing the known barriers to participation (e.g. Hultsman, 1992). A second suggestion is to reduce adolescent involvement in activity contexts low in structure and over-represented by deviant youth. Given the present findings related to involvement in the Swedish YRCs, it is tempting to suggest such centers be abandoned. However, there is no empirical basis for this suggestion. Closing the YRCs may diffuse antisocial youth into the community and potentially spread and increase delinquency and related problems. An alternative would be to focus prevention efforts at the YRC context itself. YRCs represent a single setting where high risk, antisocial youth voluntarily choose to spend their free time in the evenings. Accordingly, gradually increasing the level of structure in these centers according to the above suggestions may constitute an effective intervention component. Finally, it should be recalled that a number of interactions were noted between structured and unstructured involvement. One interaction showed that the combination of unstructured involvement and no structured activity participation was linked to high antisocial behavior for boys. A second interaction indicated that structured participation and avoidance of unstructured activities was linked to a low proportion of deviant peer relations. Thus, successful prevention efforts based on youth activity involvement must consider involvement in structured and unstructured activities simultaneously, as participation in one type of activity may substantively change the risk/protection associated with the other type of activity.

Acknowledgement Joseph L. Mahoney's research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant F32 MH11850. HaÊkan Stattin was supported by grants from the Swedish Institute for Public Health (FolkhaÈlso Institutet) and by the Axel and Margaret Ax:son Johnsons Foundation.

126

J. L. Mahoney and H. Stattin

References Allen, J. P., Philliber, S., Herrling, S. and Gabriel, K. P. (1997). Preventing teen pregnancy and academic failure: Experimental evaluation of a developmentally based approach. Child Development, 64, 729±742. Andersson, T. (2000). Developmental patterns and the dynamics of alcohol problems in adolescence and young adulthood. In Bergman, L. R., Cairns, R. B., Nilsson, L. -G. and Nystedt, L. (Eds), Developmental Science and the holistic approach. Makwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 377±391. Berndt, T. J. and Keefe, K. (1995). Friend's influence on adolescents' adjustment to school. Child Development, 66, 1312±1329. Botvin, G. J. (1996). Substance abuse prevention through life skills training. In R. D. Peters and R. J. McMahon (Eds), Preventing childhood disorders, substance abuse and delinquency. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications, pp. 215± 240. Brown, B. B. (1988). The vital agenda for research on extracurricular influences: a reply to Holland and Andre. Review of Educational Research, 58, 107±111. Cairns, R. B. and Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and Risks: Pathways of Youth in our Time. Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press. Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Fergusson, L. L. and GarieÂpy, J.-L. (1989). Growth and aggression I: Childhood to adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 25, 320±330. Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D. and GarieÂpy, J.-L. (1988). Social networks and aggressive behavior: Peer support or peer rejection?. Developmental Psychology, 24, 815±823. Cairns, R. B. and Rodkin, P. H. (1998). Phenomenon regained: from configurations to pathways. In R. B. Cairns, L. R. Bergman and J. Kagan (Eds), Methods and Models for Studying the Individual. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 245±263. Cordova, D. I. and Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 715±730. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper & Row. Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Csikszentmihalyi, L. S. (Eds) (1988). Optimal Experience: Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K. and Whalen, S. (1993). Talented Teenagers: The Roots of Success & Failure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eder, D. (1985). The cycles of popularity: Interpersonal relations among female adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58, 154±165. Eder, D. (1995). School Talk: Gender and Adolescent Culture. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Eder, D. and Parker, S. (1987). The cultural production and reproduction of gender: the effect of extracurricular activities on peer-group culture. Sociology of Education, 60, 200±214. Erwin, P. (1985). Similarity of attitudes and constructs in children's friendships. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 40, 470±485. Evans, C. and Eder, D. (1993). ``No exit'': processes of social isolation in the middle school. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22, 139±170. Farington, D. P. (1990). Implications of criminal career research for the prevention of offending. Journal of Adolescence, 13, 93±113. Fisher, L. A. and Bauman, K. E. (1988). Influence and selection in the friend adolescent relationship: Findings from studies of adolescent smoking and drinking. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 289±314. Fletcher, A. C., Elder, G. H., Jr and Mekos, D. (1996, April). Family influences on adolescent involvement in community activities. In G. H. Elder, Jr (Chair), Adolescent involvement in community activities: antecedents, correlates, and outcomes. Symposium conducted at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. Washington, D.C. Greenberger, E. and Steinberg, L.(1986). When teenagers work: the psychological and social costs of adolescent employment. New York: Basic Books. Helmerson Bergmark, K. and Andersson, T. (1999). The development of advanced drinking habits in adolescenceÐa longitudinal study. Substance Use & Misuse, 34, 171±194. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Leisure activities

127

Hollingshead, A. B. (1949). Elmstown's Youth: The Impact of Social Classes on Adolescents. New York: Wiley. Hultsman, W. Z. (1992). Constraints to activity participation in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 12, 280±292. Jones, M. B. and Offord, D. R. (1986). Participation and sibship size in a skill-development program: A Research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 27, 109±116. Jones, M. B. and Offord, D. R. (1989). Reduction of antisocial behavior in poor children by nonschool skill-development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30, 737±750. Karweit, N. (1983). Extracurricular activities and friendship selection. In J. L. Epstein and N. Karweit (Eds). Friends in School: Patterns of Selection of Influence in Seconday Schools. New York: Academic Press. Kernrick, D. T. and Stringfield, D. O. (1980). Personality traits and the eye of the beholder: Crossing some traditional philosophical boundaries in the search for consistency in all people. Psychological Review, 87, 88±104. Kinney, D. A. (1993). From nerds to normals: The recovery of identity among adolescents from middle school to high school. Sociology of Education, 66, 21±40. Lepper, M. R. and Cordova, D. I. (1992). A desire to be taught: Instructional consequences of intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 187±208. Mahoney, J. L. (1995). Configurations and characteristics of adolescent extracurricular activity participants. In D. Mekos and G. H. Elder, Jr (Chairs), Developmental Perspectives and Adolescent Extracurricular Activity Involvement. Symposium conducted at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN, May 1995. Mahoney, J. L. (2000). School extracurricular activity participation as a moderator in the development of antisocial patterns. Child Development, 71, 502±516. Mahoney J. L. and Cairns, R. B. (1997). Do extracurricular activities protect against early school dropout? Developmental Psychology, 33, 241±253. Mahoney, J. L. and Magnusson, D. (2000). Parent participation in community activities and the persistence of criminality. Development and Psychopathology, in press. Marsh, H. W. (1992). Extracurricular activities: Beneficial extension of the traditional curriculum or subversion of academic goals? Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 553±562. McCord, J. (1978). A 30-year follow-up of treatment effects. American Psychologit, 33, 284±289. McCord, J. (1992). Understanding motivations: Considering altruism and aggression. In J. McCord (Ed.), Facts, Frameworks, and Forecasts: Advances in Criminological Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G. and Johnston, L. D. (1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61, 635±655. Polakowski, M. (1994). Linking self- and social control with deviance: illuminating the structure underlying general theory of crime and its relation to deviant activity. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 41±78. Schinke, S. P., Botvin, G. J. and Orlandi, M. A. (1991). Substance Abuse in Children and Adolescents: Evaluation and Intervention. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Sedikides, C. (1993). Assessment, enhancement, and verification determinants of the self-evaluation process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 317±338. Taylor, S. E. and Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193±210. Urberg, K. A. (1992). Locus of peer influence: Social crowd and best friend. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 439±450. Urberg, K. A., Cheng, C. H. and Shyu, S. J. (1991). Grade changes in peer influence on adolescent cigarette smoking: A comparison of two measures. Addictive Behaviors, 16, 21±28. Urberg, K. A., Degirmencioglu, S. M. and Pilgrim, C. (1997). Close friend and group influence on adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Developmental Psychology, 33, 834±844. Xie, H., Mahoney, J. L. and Cairns, R. B. (1999). Self- and teacher ratings of academic competence across development: A looking glass self or a hall or mirrors. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 163±183.