Antisocial behaviors in adolescents are present and prevalent around the world and have harmful consequences for individuals and societies. The research focused on antisocial behaviors in young people has been very fruitful, but studies are usually fragmented and focused on specific problem behaviors either in school or outside of school. Although victimoffender overlap was described in many studies, most projects focused either on victims or on offenders. This prospective longitudinal study was conducted to discover patterns of antisocial behavior from a comprehensive perspective, including different problem behaviors in and out of schools, focusing on both victimization and offending. A sample of 450 early adolescents was followed-up during one school year. Latent class and latent transition analyses were performed and identified four groups of students. These groups were: low antisocial, highly antisocial and victimized, high bullying victimization, and high offending outside of school. Transition analyses showed that the low antisocial and offenders outside of school groups were relatively stable over time. Students in the high bullying victimization group transitioned to different groups, and students in the highly antisocial and victimized group either remained in the highly antisocial group or transitioned to high offending outside of school. Findings suggest that single antisocial behaviors are not common and students who display one problem behavior usually display other problem behaviors. Early adolescents who are involved in antisocial behaviors in one time period frequently remain involved one year later. It is therefore possible that the antisocial potential of some adolescents is expressed in different contexts. This has important implications for research and practice that need to adopt a more holistic and comprehensive approach.

No abstract

No abstract

The Basic Empathy Scale is widely used to measure cognitive and affective empathy in different age groups. Although empathy is studied throughout the world, research on this important psychological construct in Eastern European populations needs to be increased. In order to accomplish this, validated instruments to measure empathy are needed in this geographic area. This study was conducted to analyze the psychometric properties of the Basic Empathy Scale in Poland. The sample included 1052 children and adolescents aged 9 to 16, enrolled in Primary and Middle schools. This was a cross-sectional study conducted with a survey that was filled in by the participants during their regular classroom hours. Confirmatory Factor Analyses were conducted, together with concurrent validity analyses and comparisons between younger and older participants, and between females and males were undertaken. A final 12-item version of the Basic Empathy Scale was obtained with affective empathy and cognitive empathy factors. The Polish version of the scale showed good psychometric properties. Females scored higher on affective, cognitive and total empathy than males. Younger male participants scored higher on affective, cognitive and total empathy than older male participants. This validated measure of empathy in Polish children and adolescents can be used to study the relation between empathy and both antisocial and prosocial behaviors. In addition, this measure will allow for Poland to be included in crosscountry comparisons of empathy and also used to evaluate programs focused on enhancing empathy in Poland.

This systematic review aims to answer the following research questions: (1) What are the family‐related risk and protective factors for radicalization? (2) What is the impact of radicalization on families? (3) To what extent are family‐based interventions against radicalization effective? The review will answer these research questions by systematically gathering and synthesizing published and unpublished scientific literature on family‐related risk and protective factors for radicalization, the impact of radicalization on family, and studies that evaluate the impact of family‐based interventions on radicalization. This review will also explore what components of family‐based interventions are most effective for countering radicalization. Thus, this systematic review will provide a global vision of scientific literature focused on family and radicalization including quantitative research.

Studies show that different types of antisocial behaviors share similar risk and protective factors related to particular social, emotional and moral competencies. Nevertheless, little is known about the longitudinal relation of social, emotional and moral competencies with patterns of antisocial behaviors in youth. The present study aimed to discover the longitudinal relations between social and emotional competencies, empathy, moral emotions, moral disengagement, and perceived moral disengagement induced by parents, and the patterns of antisocial behaviors and change in these patterns over time. A sample of 898 Spanish students aged between 9 and 17 was followed up for one year. Self-reported data were analyzed using latent transition analyses and multinomial regressions. Results showed that age, several mechanisms of moral disengagement, perceived parental moral disengagement induction, and several social and emotional competencies predicted offenders outside of school and highly antisocial and victimized patterns, including their stability over time. Moreover, males at early ages and perceived parental moral disengagement induction predicted the high bullying victimization pattern. Being a male, with high victim dehumanizing and blaming, predicted stability of the high bullying victimization pattern. Being a male, early ages, and low responsible decision-making predicted changes from the high bullying victimization pattern to the low antisocial pattern. Results are discussed emphasizing the need to conduct prevention and intervention programs from a comprehensive perspective promoting social, emotional and moral competencies. This study could have useful implications for prevention and intervention focused on decreasing risk and increasing protective factors.

Antisocial behavior is a worldwide problem that negatively affects individuals and societies, and it is influenced by contextual factors. The study of how antisocial behavior changes through time frames and among countries provides information of the extent to which the environment influences this problem, which could help to develop more accurate prevention programs. Cross-national studies require instruments with good psychometric properties, validated in different cultures and languages. Thus, the aim of this study was to validate the Spanish version of the Self-Reported Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire, and to analyze whether there are differences in reported antisocial behavior between pre-adolescents in Pittsburgh, North America (1988) and Cordoba, Spain (2017). The sample included 1,483 Cordoba students of whom 203 were comparable in age to 868 Pittsburgh boys. Results showed that the Spanish version of the Self-Reported Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire had excellent psychometric properties, and that there were some similarities and differences in antisocial behaviors reported by the samples from Pittsburgh and Cordoba. Results are discussed according to time frames and environmental influences of the samples. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.

Background Family‐related risk and protective factors are crucial for different antisocial behaviors, but their role in radicalization requires synthesis. Radicalization is likely to have a negative impact on families, and well‐designed and implemented family‐focused intervention programs have the potential to decrease radicalization. Objectives Research questions were: (1) What are the family‐related risk and protective factors for radicalization? (2) What is the impact of radicalization on families? (3) Are family‐based interventions against radicalization effective? Search Methods Searches included 25 databases and hand searches of gray literature from April to July 2021. Leading researchers in the field were asked to provide published and unpublished studies on the topic. Reference lists of the included studies and previously published systematic reviews on risk and protective factors for radicalization were scanned. Selection Criteria Published and unpublished quantitative studies on family‐related risk and protective factors for radicalization, the impact of radicalization on families, and family‐focused interventions were eligible with no restrictions regarding the study year, location, or any demographic characteristic. Studies were included if they measured the relation between a family‐related factor and radicalization or if they included a family‐focused intervention against radicalization. For family‐related risk and protective factors, radicalized individuals needed to be compared to general population. Studies were included if they defined radicalization as support or commission of violence to defend a cause, including support for radical groups. Data Collection and Analysis The systematic search identified 86,591 studies. After screening, 33 studies focused on family‐related risk and protective factors were included, with 89 primary effect sizes and 48 variables grouped in 14 factors. For the factors that included two or more studies, meta‐analyses with random effects were conducted. When possible, moderator analyses were performed together with sensitivity and publication bias analyses. No studies on the impact of radicalization on families or family‐focused interventions were included. Results The current systematic review based on studies with 148,081 adults and adolescents from diverse geographic locations showed that parental ethnic socialization (z = 0.27), having extremist family members (z = 0.26), and family conflict (z = 0.11) were related to more radicalization, whereas high family socioeconomic status (z = −0.03), bigger family size (z = −0.05), and high family commitment (z = −0.06) were related to less radicalization. Separate analyses described family‐factors for behavioral versus cognitive radicalization, and different radical ideologies including Islamist, right‐wing and left‐wing. It was not possible to distinguish risk and protective factors from correlates and the level of overall bias was mostly high. No results regarding the impact of radicalization on families or fam...