Iatrogenic Effects of Group Treatment for Antisocial Youths.

Abstract

It has been argued that group treatment of antisocial adolescents may increase rather than decrease conduct problems. One mechanism that has been suggested to underlie this effect is "deviancy training," wherein during group sessions deviant peers reinforce each other's antisocial actions and words. These 2 hypotheses have important implications and warrant close review at conceptual and empirical levels. In this article, the authors present such a review. Conceptually, deviancy training potential of treatment sessions appears less significant than the more extensive peer influences outside treatment. Empirical findings previously cited in support of iatrogenic effects appear on close examination to provide little support. Finally, 17 of 18 new meta-analytic tests produced results not supportive of iatrogenic or deviancy training effects.

The Elephant on the Couch: Side-Effects of Psychotherapy

“…Negative effects have been documented when interventions use 'resistance skills training' without normative education, with the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) prevention programme judged as increasing substance use [12]. In 'deviancy training', where deviant behaviour is modelled and reinforced within a peer group setting, negative 'iatrogenic' outcomes have been described [13,14].…”

Preventing Serious Conduct Problems in School-Age Youth: The Fast Track Program

“…Although the extent to which this may occur is still a subject of debate (cf. Weiss et al, 2005), there is evidence that the placement of high-risk adolescents in at least some peer-group interventions may actually result in increases in both conduct problem behavior and negative life outcomes (e.g., Dishion et al, 1999). The causal mechanism is thought to be "deviancy training," in which youth receive group attention for engaging in various problem behaviors (Dishion, Spracklen, Andrews, & Patterson, 1996;Gifford-Smith, Dodge, Dishion, & McCord, 2005).…”

Being targeted: Young women's experience of being identified for a teenage pregnancy prevention programme

“…For example, interventions that identify young people as 'at risk' may lead to negative self-perception or 'labelling' (e.g., naughty, problematic) and the associated stigma attributed to the label (Goffman, 1959(Goffman, , 1963. The approach may also inadvertently lower young people's expectations and engender poor behaviour and outcomes (Evans, Scourfield, & Murphy, 2014;Rorie, Gottfredson, Cross, Wilson & Connell, 2011;Wiggins et al, 2009;Bonell & Fletcher, 2008;Weiss et al, 2005;McCord, 2003;Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999). A qualitative exploration of a social and emotional learning intervention with students aged 12-14 in secondary schools in Wales identified four unintended effects related to targeting criteria and composition of the intervention groups: negative labelling, elevation of status among targeted (poorly behaved) students, marginalisation of unknown peers in mixed groups, and amplification of deviancy within friendship groups (Evans et al, 2014).…”