A popular explanation of school misbehavior revolves around the schools-as-communities perspective (Battistich et al., 1995; Bryk & Driscoll, 1988), stating that feelings of belonging to a school community foster less school misconduct in students (Battistich et al., 1995; Battistich & Hom, 1997; Bryk & Driscoll, 1988). From this perspective, scholars usually state that making students feel  attached to different actors at school impedes their school deviancy. Research in this tradition has mostly assumed that peer and teacher attachment impede school misconduct to a similar degree. This can be questioned. In stating that cohesive bonds to others prevent deviancy, the schools-as-communities perspective echoes insights from social control theory (Hirschi, 1969), a theoretical approach that, however,  has failed to cope with deviant peer influence (Erickson, Crosnoe, & Dornbusch, 2000). Research shows, namely, that peers can cause each other to break the school rules, especially when their friendship cohesion is strong (Espelage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003). Deviant peer influence has been explained by differential association theory (Sutherland & Cressey, 1978), which states that deviancy is learned from associating with others who favor misconduct as justifiable behavior. Learning occurs in social interaction, within intimate personal groups. As such, differential association theory is fundamentally different from early social control theory, but researchers from the schools-as-communities perspective have not yet come to incorporate the theory.

The few studies that have differentiated between teachers and peers as sources of support find higher teacher support to advance achievement and impede health-risk behaviors, and higher peer support to increase chances of smoking and engaging in other health-risk behavior (Karcher & Finn, 2005; Klem & Connell, 2004; McNeely & Falci, 2004). Given these findings, it is plausible that peer and teacher attachment also relate differently to students’ deviancy. In the proposed study, we focus on school misconduct, a minor form of deviancy, consisting of rule-breaking behavior such as cheating on tests, skipping lessons, and arriving late at school.

The study has three research questions. First, we want to test whether the effects of school cohesion are situated at the school level – and, hence, if intervention efforts to tackle school misconduct should strengthen the overall sense of community at school - or if the impediment of feelings of belongingness acts at the individual level – and hence, if intervention strategies should rather focus on individual students. Secondly, we test whether attachment to peers indeed holds a different relation to school misconduct than teacher support and general school belonging. Thirdly, we test whether these relations are affected by the social context of schools, as scholars expect levels of support to prevent school deviancy more effectively in disadvantaged schools (Battistich et al., 1995). As indicators of school disadvantage, we focus on the school SES and ethnic composition (Bankston & Caldas, 1996; Willms, 1992).

Bankston, C. & Caldas, S. J. (1996). Majority African American schools and social injustice: The influence of de facto segregation on academic achievement. Social Forces, 75, 535-555. Battistich, V. & Hom, A. (1997). The relationship between students' sense of their school as a community and their involvement in problem behaviors. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1997-2001. Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Kim, D. I., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1995). Schools As Communities, Poverty Levels of Student Populations, and Students Attitudes, Motives, and Performance - A Multilevel Analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 627-658. Bryk, R. & Driscoll, D. (1988). The high school as community: contextual influences and consequences for students and teachers. Madison: Center for Educational Research, University of Wisconsin. Erickson, K. G., Crosnoe, R., & Dornbusch, S. M. (2000). A social process model of adolescent deviance: Combining social control and differential association perspectives. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 395-425. Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer-group contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 205-220. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press. Karcher, M. J. & Finn, L. (2005). How connectedness contributes to experimental smoking among rural youth: developmental and ecological analyses. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 25-36. Klem, A. M. & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262-273. McNeely, C. & Falci, C. (2004). School connectedness and the transition into and out of health-risk behaviour among adolescents: A comparison of social belonging and teacher support. Journal of School Health, 74, 284-292. Sutherland, E. & Cressey, D. (1978). Criminology. Philadelphia: Lippincot. Willms, J. D. (1992). Monitoring school performance: a guide for educators. London: Falmer Press.