Child and adolescent risk factors that differentially predict violent versus nonviolent crime

Abstract

While most research on the development of antisocial and criminal behavior has considered nonviolent and violent crime together, some evidence points to differential risk factors for these separate types of crime. The present study explored differential risk for nonviolent and violent crime by investigating the longitudinal associations between three key child risk factors (aggression, emotion dysregulation, and social isolation) and two key adolescent risk factors (parent detachment and deviant peer affiliation) predicting violent and nonviolent crime outcomes in early adulthood. Data on 754 participants (46% African American, 50% European American, 4% other; 58% male) oversampled for aggressive-disruptive behavior were collected across three time points. Parents and teachers rated aggression, emotion dysregulation, and social isolation in fifth grade (middle childhood, age 10–11); parents and youth rated parent detachment and deviant peer affiliation in seventh and eighth grade (early adolescence, age 12–14) and arrest data was collected when participants were 22–23 years old (early adulthood). Different pathways to violent and nonviolent crime emerged. The severity of child dysfunction in late childhood, including aggression, emotion dysregulation, and social isolation, was a powerful and direct predictor of violent crime. Although child dysfunction also predicted nonviolent crime, the direct pathway accounted for half as much variance as the direct pathway to violent crime. Significant indirect pathways through adolescent socialization experiences (peer deviancy) emerged for nonviolent crime, but not for violent crime, suggesting adolescent socialization plays a more distinctive role in predicting nonviolent than violent crime. The clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

Exploring Similarities and Differences of Non-European Migrants among Forensic Patients with Schizophrenia

“…However, our analysis neither found distinct group differences in the psychiatric history nor in the PANSS at admission or discharge. Additionally, previous research has shown that poverty and social isolation in childhood are risk factors for criminal offenses, which are not limited to individuals with psychosis [48][49][50][51][52]. We therefore assume that in the development of criminal behavior, psychosis is not a relevant moderator or mediator variable with regard to the two childhood factors we have identified to be good predictors of subgroup allocation.…”

“…These group differences may be attributable to the origin of migrants from countries with poor economies, but with collectivist cultures and closer family structures, since the majority of migrant patients came from Africa and the Middle East. More importantly, however, previous research suggests that childhood poverty is associated with an increased risk for delinquency that extends into adulthood [48][49][50] and that social isolation in childhood and early adolescence constitutes a risk factor for juvenile violence [51,52]. Therefore, the pronounced group differences in the two childhood/ adolescence variables may be relevant in a criminological context and it would be desirable to understand the pathways to criminal behavior associated with these two factors, as this could prove useful in developing risk prevention strategies tailored to subgroups of offenders with SSD.…”

“…With regard to risk prevention, our analysis highlights two known predictor variables ("patient suffering from poverty in childhood/adolescence" and "social isolation in childhood/adolescence") [48][49][50][51][52] that may be largely or entirely independent of psychosis, thus supporting studies suggesting that offences in schizophrenia do not necessarily have to be associated with psychosis [53][54][55]. In light of this, the present study emphasizes that the prevention of criminal behavior among people with SSD should not focus solely on reducing psychotic symptoms, but rather requires multimodal prevention strategies that also target risk factors for crimes beyond psychosis.…”

Positive and negative social influences and crime acceleration during the transition from childhood to adolescence: The interplay of risk and protective factors

“…This does not necessarily mean that peer relationships supplant parental controls and socialisation in early adolescence. There is evidence that parenting may serve as a context for subsequent criminal behaviour (Brown & Bakken, ), but without the protection provided by inductive parenting (Choe, Olson, & Sameroff, ) and parental knowledge (Stattin & Kerr, ), peers can have a powerful impact on a child's thinking, possibly making delinquency seem more socially acceptable (Pardini, Loeber, & Stouthamer‐Loeber, ) and becoming perhaps the leading cause of substance misuse and non‐violent criminality (Kalvin & Bierman, in press; Pesola et al, ). Further, it has been shown that inductive parenting can disrupt negative peer influences (Walters, ), whereas parental knowledge inhibits delinquency in children by limiting the child's involvement in unsupervised routine activities with peers (Walters, in press‐a).…”

Comportamentos de risco, uso de substâncias psicoativas, bullying e problemas relacionados em adolescentes escolares

“…Além dos vários conflitos associados, inerentes a essa fase, os adolescentes passam por um período de reorientação social, estabelecendo distanciamento proposital dos pais e maior engajamento entre os pares, onde as opiniões de colegas se tornam mais importantes em relação aos membros da família (KALVIN; BIERMAN, 2017). Assim, o desejo de ser aceito pelos pares e evitar a rejeição social é particularmente essencial na adolescência, podendo compor a justificativa de inserção dos jovens nesses comportamentos (BLAKEMORE; MILLS, 2014).…”