Psychological and behavioral characteristics differentiating gang and non-gang girls in the UK

Abstract

Purpose

Research has demonstrated that girls are involved in gangs as members and affiliates. However, the psychological processes related to female gang membership has, to date, not been examined using a rigorous comparative design. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether female gang members exhibit distinct psychological and behavioral features when compared to female non-gang youth.

Design/methodology/approach

In total, 117 female students were recruited from all-girls’ secondary schools in London, UK. Gang members (n=22; identified using the Eurogang definition) were compared to non-gang youth (n=95) on self-report measures of criminal activity, sexual activity, self-esteem, anti-authority attitudes, their perceived importance of social status, and hypermasculinity, using a series of MANCOVAs.

Findings

The results found that gang members reported significantly more criminal activity, sexual activity, unwanted sexual contact, and held more anti-authority attitudes when compared to their non-gang counterparts.

Practical implications

These findings support Pyrooz et al.’s (2014) findings that gang membership contributes to the theoretical conceptualization of the victim-offender overlap. Practitioners need to take this into consideration when working with female gang members.

Originality/value

There is very little research that explicitly examines the characteristics of female gang members with suitable comparison groups. This study adds to the growing literature on female involvement in gangs and highlights the distinct psychological and behavioral characteristics of this group. In summary, these findings support the notion that female gang members are both at risk of being sexually exploited and engaging in criminal activities.

Citation

Alleyne, E. and Pritchard, E. (2016), "Psychological and behavioral characteristics differentiating gang and non-gang girls in the UK", Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 122-133. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-05-2015-0017