The double edge of protective and risk factors for delinquency: Interrelations and developmental patterns

Abstract

Protective and risk factors were examined in three samples, each of about 500 boys. Cross-sectional analyses examined a large number of independent variables for their potential protective and risk effects on different levels of seriousness of boys' delinquency. The results showed that protective and risk effects often co-occurred in the same variables, that few variables had risk effects only, and none had protective effects oniy. Protective effects were as likely to promote nondelinquency as to suppress serious delinquency, whereas risk effects were as likely to suppress nondelinquency as to promote serious delinquency. Certain variables were mostly associated with distinctions between nondelinquency and minor delinquency, other variables were related to the distinction between minor delinquency and serious delinquency, and a third group of variables was associated with both distinctions. Developmental analyses indicated that the magnitude of protective and risk effects increased with age. Implications of the findings for research and clinical practice are discussed.

Assessment of risk for juvenile compared with adult criminal onset implications for policy, prevention, and intervention.

“…Moreover, what longitudinal studies have shown is that risk factors rarely, if ever, operate in a social or psychological vacuum. Stouthamer-Loeber et al (1993) have explored the double edge of risk factors for delinquency, and recognize that risk factors have two directional effects. Their argument is that risk factors may not only promote delinquency but also suppress nondelinquency.…”

The Academic Achievement of African American Students During Early Adolescence: An Examination of Multiple Risk, Promotive, and Protective Factors

“…Although Rutter (1987) has argued that protective factors can only have meaning in the face of adversity, in most studies, protective factors have been defined as simply the positive pole of risk factors (Stouthhamer-Loeber et al, 1993). In this sense, Sameroff (1999) proposed that a better term for the positive end of the risk dimension would be promotive rather than protective factors.…”

Risk and promotive effects in the explanation of persistent serious delinquency in boys.

“…Others have emphasized that protective and risk factors are merely opposite ends of the same variable; whether a variable was called a protective or risk factor depended on which end of the continuum was emphasized (Kandel et al, 1988;White, Moffitt, & Silva, 1989). A refinement of this view is the recognition that the protective and risk ends of variables need not be just mirror images of each other but may differ in the magnitude of their relationship to an outcome, that is, the relationship may be nonlinear (Farrington, 1995;Stouthamer-Loeber et al, 1993). Finally, protective factors have been conceptualized as processes that interact with risk factors in reducing the probability of a negative outcome (Rutter, 1985(Rutter, , 1990Rutter, Giller, & Hagell, 1998).…”

“…To capture this, Stouthamer-Loeber et al (1993) proposed the trichotomization of a distribution that allows for the empirical testing of the relation of different parts of the distribution of an independent variable to the outcome. Participants with a negative score can be compared with those with a neutral score in the middle of the distribution; likewise, participants with a positive score can also be contrasted with those with a neutral score.…”