,Conduct Disorder, Aggression and Delinquency

DAVID P FARRINGTON

Within the limits of a short chapter, it is obvi­ these are the most important types of adoles­ ously impossible to provide an exhaustive cent antisocial behaviors studied in different review of all aspects of conduct disorder, fields: conduct disorder in clinical psychology aggression, and delinquency in adolescence. and child/adolescent psychiatry, aggression in There are many extensive reviews of these developmental psychology, and delinquency topics (Anderson & Huesmann, 2003; Coie in criminology and sociology. While there is & Dodge, 1998; Connor, 2002; Farrington & sometimes inadequate communication among Welsh, 2007; Hill & Maughan, 200 I; Rutter, different fields, it should be borne in mind Giller, & Hagel!, 1998). In this chapter, I will that these behaviors are logically and empiri­ be very selective in focusing on what seem to cally related, so that risk factors and successful me the most important findings obtained in the interventions that apply to one of these types highest quality studies. I will particularly focus of antisocial behavior are also likely to apply on risk factors discovered in prospective longi­ to the other two types. Other types of antisocial tudinal surveys and on successful interventions behavior, such as drug use, will not be reviewed demonstrated in randomized experiments. The here. Although there is nowadays a great deal major longitudinal surveys are detailed in of interest in promotive and protective factors Farrington and Welsh (2007, pp, 29-36) and (e.g., Loeber, Farrington, Stouthamer-Loeber, Thornberry and Krohn (2003), while major & White, 20(8), I do not have space to discuss experiments in criminology are reviewed by them here. Before reviewing risk factors and Fanington and Welsh (2006), successful interventions, I will briefly review My emphasis is mainly on young people the definition, measurement, and epidemiol­ aged 10-17 and on research carried out in North ogy of each type of antisocial behavior. America, Great Britain, and similar Western democracies. Most research has been carried out with males, but studies offemales are included CONDUCT DISORDER where applicable (Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Definition and Measurement Silva, 2001; Moretti, Odgers, & Jackson, Robins (1999) has traced the development of 2004; Pepler, Madsen, Webster, & Levine, conduct disorder (CD) definitions over time, 2(X)5; Zahn et aI., 2008). My focus is on sub­ According to the Diagnostic and Statistical stantive results rather than on methodological Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition or theoretical issues. (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, In general, all types of antisocial behav­ 1994, p. 85), the essential feature of CD is ior tend to coexist and are intercorrelated. I a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior have chosen to concentrate on conduct dis­ in which the basic rights of others or major order, aggression, and delinquency because age-appropriate societal norms are violated.

683 6X4 Conduct Disorder. Aggn:~siHn and J)clilHlucnc~

Also. the di~turbance of hehavior must cause DISC (Kasiu~. Ferdinand. \an den Berg. & clinically significant impairment in social. aca­ Verhulst. 1997 J. demic or occupational functioning. According to the DSM-IV diagno:-.tic criteria. 3 or more Prevalence out of 15 specified behavior,. including aggres­ t\ottelmann and Jensen (1995) have usefull) sion to people or animab. propel1y destruc­ summarized findings obtained in epidemio­ tion. stealing or lying. and violating rules (e.g" logical studies of conduct disorder. One prob­ truancy. running away). must be prescnt for lem in interpreting prevalence re~lllt~ concerns CD to be diagnosed. The prevalence of CD is the time period to which they refer. which may lower if evidence of impairment is reyuired be .3 Il](lnths. 6 months. 12 month..,. or cumu­ as well as specified behaviors (Romano. latively over a period of year~. Prc\[llence Tremblay. Vitaro. Zoccolillo. & Pagani. 20(1). rates are greater among male~ than female;. Freyuent. serious. persistent behaviors that arc and vary at dilTerent ages. Also. prevalence shown in several different setlings are most rate~ change a~ the DSM definitions change likely to be defined as symptoms of a disorder. (Lahey et al.. 19(0). In the Great Smoky Additions to the diagnostic protocol for CD Mountains Study of Youth. only 799i of con­ in DSM-V were considered by Moffitt et al. duct-disordered youths had functional impair­ (2001). including a childhood-limited subtype: ment (Costello et al.. 1996). There is not space callous-·unemotional traits; female-specific here to review mcasurement issue" or changes criteria; and biomarkers. Overall. Moffitt and in prevalence over time (e.g., Achenbach. colleagues concluded that the current CD pro­ Dumenci. & Rescorla. 20m; Collishaw. tocol wa~ adequate and that the existing evi­ Goodman. Pickles. & Maughan. 2(07). dence base was not sufficiently compelling to The instantaneou\ (as opposed to cumu­ justify alterations. lati ve) prevalence of CD is about (}<;*-16% CD can be diagnosed by a clinician in of adolescent boys and about 2°,i-91f( of a psychiatric interview with a child and the adolescent girls (Mandel. 1(97). For example. parents, or it can be assessed using a structured in the Ontario Child Health Study in Canada. interview administered by a nonclinician. the 6-month prevalcnce of CD at age 12-16 such as the Diagnostic Interview Schedule was 10'1( for boys and 49( for girls (Offord for Children (DISC; Shaffer et al., 1996) or et al.. 1(1)7). In the New "fork State longitudi­ Child and Adolcscent Psychiatric Assessment nal study. the 12-month prevalence of CD for (CAPA; Angold & Costello. 2000). Childhood boys was 16(7, at both ages 10-13 and 14-16 antisocial behavior can also be assessed using (Cohen et al.. 1993a). For girb. it was 4';i( at rating scales or behavior problem checklists age 10-13 and 99c at age 14-16. Zoccolillo such as the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). ( 1993) suggested that CD criteria may be typically completed by a parent. and its asso­ less applicable to the behavior of girls than ciated Teacher Report Form (TRF) and Youth \0 the behavior of boys. and hence that gen­ Self-Report (YSR: Achenbach. 1(93). The~e der-specific CD criteria should be developed. yield broadband scales such as "external­ Gender differences in CD have been discussed izing behavior" and more specific scales of by Lahey el al. (2006). aggression. delinquency. and hyperactivity. It is not entirely clear how the prevalcnce with impressive cross-cultural replicabil­ or CD varies over the adolescent age range. ity (Achenbach. Verhulst. Baron. & Althaus. and thi~ may depend on how CD i~ measured. 191)7). The aggression and delinljuency scales For example. in the Methodology for are highly correlated (Pakiz. ReinherL & Frost. Epidemiology of Mental Di"order~ in Children 1(92). The dclillljuency scale of the CBCL is and Adolescents (MECA) study. which wa;. closely related to the diagnosis of CD on the a cross~scctional ,mvel' of 1.21)5 adolescents Conduct Disorder 685 aged 9-17. the DISC was completed by parents median ages of onset for specific CD symp­ and by adolescents (Lahey et aI., 2000). The toms have been provided by various research­ prevalence of CD (in the previous 6 months) ers. but they depend on the age of the child at did not vary significantly over this age range measurement and the consequent cumulative according to parents. but it increased with age prevalence of the symptoms. Retrospectively in according to adolescent self-reports. According the Epidemiological Catchment Area project, to adolescents, the prevalence of CD increased Robins (1989) reported that the mean age of for boys from 1.3% at age 9-11 to 6% at age onset (before 15) for stealing was 10 for males 12-14 and 1 J% at age 15-17. For girls, preva­ and females, while for vandalism it was 11 for lence increased from 0.5% at age 9-11 to 3% male~ and females. However, ages of onset at age 12-14 and 4% at age 15-17. Hence, were generally later for girls than for boys. the male-to-female ratio for CO was greatest While exact onset ages varied, some CD at age 15-17. In a large-scale study of over symptoms consistently appeared before oth­ 10,000 British children aged 5-15, Maughan, ers. This observation led Loeber et a1. (1993) Rowe, Messer, Goodman, and Meltzer (2004) to postulate a model of three developmental found that the prevalence of CD increased pathways in disruptive childhood behavior. The with age for both boys and girls, and that the overt pathway began with minor aggression male preponderance in CD was most marked (e.g., bullying) and progressed to physical fight­ in childhood and early adolescence. The CO ing and eventually serious violence. The covert measure was derived from children, parents, pathway began with minor nonviolent behavior and teachers. (e.g., shoplifting) and progressed to vandal­ In the Great Smoky Mountains Study of ism and eventually serious property crime. The Youth, Maughan. Pickles, Rowe, Costello, and authority conflict pathway began with stubborn Angold (2000) investigated developmental behavior and progressed to defiance and even­ trajectories of aggressive and nonaggressive tually authority avoidance (e.g., running away). conduct problems. Between ages 9 and 16, they Typically, progression in the overt pathway found that there were three categories of ado­ was accompanied by simultaneous progres­ lescents, with stable high conduct problems, sion in the covert pathway. Tolan and Gorman­ stable low conduct problems, and decreasing Smith (1998) found that the hypothesized conduct problems. Boys were more likely to pathways were largely confirmed in the U.S. have stable high or decreasing conduct prob­ National Youth Survey and the Chicago Youth lems over time, whereas girls were more likely Development Study. The pathways model has to have stable low conduct problems over time. also been replicated in Denver and Rochester Similarly, Shaw, Lacourse, and Nagin (2005) (Loeber, Wei, Stouthamer-Loeber, Huizinga, & investigated trajectories of conduct problems Thornberry, 1999), with African American between ages 2 and 10, and van Lier, van der and Hispanic adolescents (Tolan, Gorman­ Ende, Koot, and Verhulst (2007) studied such Smith, & Loeber, 2(00), and with antisocial trajectories between ages 4 and 18. girls (Gorman-Smith & Loeber. 2005). There is considerable continuity or stability Onset and Continuity in CD, at least over a few years. In the Ontario DSM-IV classified CD into childhood-onset Child Health Study, 45% of children aged versus adolescent-onset types. Childhood-onset 4-12 who were CD in 1983 were still CD CD typically begins with the emergence 4 years later, compared with only 5% of those of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), who had no disorder in 1983 (Offord et aI., characterized by temper tantrums and defiant 1992). CD was more stable than attention­ irritable, argumentative. and annoying behav­ deficitlhyperactivity disorder (AOHD) or emo­ ior (Hinshaw, Lahey. & Hart, 1993). Mean or tional disorder. Also, stability was greater for

, ..,~."'.'.• 6!1(, Conduct Dis()!·dcr. Aggrc~sinn and IklinqucllQ

children aged X- 12 (CJ()',( pel's! ,ling) than Smith. Pepler. & Rigby. 20()'·1-), Its definition for children aged 4-7 (25'/{ persisting I. typically include ... phy;.,ical. verhaL or pSYcho­ However. the interprelutipll of results was iogical attack or intimidation that is intended complicated b\ comorhiCJily: 3YIr 01 [hose 10 call;,e fear. di;.,lre ....s. or harm 10 a victim: an with CD in 10X3 had ADHD 4 years later. and. imbalance of power. with the more powerful conversely. 34(i; of those \lith ADHD in 19H3 child oppressing the less powerful one: and had CD 4 year;., later. In a Dutch follow-up repcated incidents bel ween the ;.,ame children study uSll1g the CBeL Verhulsl and van del' over a prolonged time period. Ende (19Y5) found a significant correlation Aggre.ssion is measured in a variety of ways, (0.54) between externalizing scores over an H­ including sell-reports. parent reports. teaeher year period spanning adole;.,cence. rating~. peer ratings. and school records. Similar resulh have been reported by other Solherg and Olweus (2003) argued that self­ researchers. Jn their New York State study. reports were the best method of measuring Cohen. Cohen. and Brook (19lJ3b) found Ihal ,>chool bullying. Systematic observation is 43!1i of CD children aged 9--1 H were still CD also used (e.g.. Pepler & Craig. 1(95). It 2.5 year;., laler (compared wilh I()c;i of non­ i;, importalll to investigate the concordance of CD chi ldren). There were no significant age results obtained by these different methods, or gender differences in stability. but stabil­ but these types of measurement issues will not ity increased with the severity of CD. In the generally be diseussed in this chapter. Many Developmenlal Trends Study. Lahey et a!. aggressive acts t:ommitted by adolescents are (1995) reported that half of CD boys aged not witnessed by teachers. parent~, or peers. 7 --12 were still CD 3 years later. Persistence For example. in a Dublin study. O'Moore and was predicted by parental antisocial personal­ Hillery (1989) found that teachers identified ity di~order (APD) and by low verbal 1Q. but only 24o/r of self-reported bullies. In an obser­ nol by age, socioeconomic status (SES). or vational study in Canada, Craig, Pepler. and ethnicity. In the same study. CD in childhood Atlas (2000) discovered that the frequency of and adolescem:e predicted APD in adulthood bullying was twice as high in the playground (Lahey. Loeber, Burke. & Applegate. 2005). as in the classroom. However, Stephenson and Smith (19H9) in England reported that teacher and peer nominations about which children AGGRESSION were involved in bullying were highly corre­ Definition and Measurement lated (0.8). Aggression is detined a~ behavior that j" intended to. and actually does. harm another Prevalence person (Coil' & Dodge. 1l)98). Many different The prevalence of physical aggression (hitting) type~ of aggression have been distinguished, increases up to age 2 and then decreases including physical versus verbal aggre~sion. between ages 2 and 4. when verbal aggres­ reactive versus proactive aggression. and hos­ sion increases (Coie & Dodge. 1(98). Most tile versus instrull1entul aggres'ijon (Raine aggression al the preschool ages is directed el al.. 200(): Vuillancourt. Miller. Fagbemi. against siblings or peers. The incidence of Cote. & Tremblay. 2(07). There i" not space physical aggression continues to decrease in here to review special types of aggression the elementary school years (Tremblay. 2000) such a ... soccer hooliganism (Farringtoll. 2006: as language and ahstract thinking improve, Uise! & Bliescner. 200.h Instead. I will foclls children increa;.,ingly use words rather than on school bullying. which is one of the most aggressive actions to resolve con1licts. and clearly defined and 1110st resean.:hed types of internal inhibitions and the ability to delay ado\e,cenl aggres"ioll (Farrington. ILJ93b: gratification al;,() improve. Research on the Aggression 687

prevalence of physical aggression has been schools in Norway (Olweus. 19911: and 89t of :reviewed by Lee. Baillargeon, Vermunt, Wu, boys and 4% of girls were bullies in second­ jlJld Tremblay (2007). ary schools in Sheffield, England (Whitney & In a cross-sectional survey of a large Smith, 1991). The prevalence of bullying representative sample of Canadian children, decreases with age from elementary to second­ Tremblay et aL ( 1999) found that the prevalence ary schools, especially for girls. Cross-national of hitting. kicking, and biting (as reported by comparisons of the prevalence of bullying mothers) decreased steadily from age 2 to age have been published by Smith et al. (1999) and 11. Furthermore, in the Montreal longitudinal Due et al. (2005). study, the prevalence of teacher-rated physical Gender differences in aggression are not very aggression of boys decreased steadily from age great in infancy and toddlerhood (Loeber & 6 to age 15. Nagin and Tremblay (1999) iden­ Hay, 1997), but they increase from the pre­ tified four different trajectories of aggression school years onward. Boys use more physi­ in the Montreal Longitudinal Experimental cal and verbal aggression, both hostile and Study: consistently high, consistently low, instrumental. However, indirect or relational high/decreasing, and moderate/decreasing. aggression-spreading malicious rumors, not There have been many other studies of trajec­ talking to other children, excluding peers from . tories of physical aggression. Among the most group activities-is more characteristic of girls important are the nationwide longitudinal (Bjorkvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992; study of Canadian children (Cote. Vaillancourt, Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Gender differences LeBlanc, Nagin, & Tremblay, 2006) and the in aggression tend to increase in adolescence, analysis of data from six sites in three coun­ as female physical aggression decreases more tries by Broidy et al. (2003). than male physical aggression (Fontaine et aL, Interestingly, in a cross-sectional survey of 2008). a large sample of American children (Fitzpatrick, 1997), the prevalence of self­ Continuity reported physical fighting decreased from There is significant continuity in aggression grade 3 (age 8) to grade 12 (age 17). Also, over time. In a classic review, Olweus (] 979) in the Pittsburgh Youth Study, the prevalence found that the average stability coefficient of parent-rated physical aggression of boys (correlation) for male aggression was 0.68 decreased between ages 10 and 17 (Loeber & in 16 surveys covering time periods of up to Hay. 1997). Similarly, in the large-scale British 21 years. Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, and survey of Maughan et aL (2004), the only CD Walder (1984) in New York State reported symptom that decreased between ages 8 and 15 that peer-rated aggression at age 8 signifi­ was physical fighting. Of course, it is possible cantly predicted peer-rated aggression at age that the seriousness of aggression accord­ 18 and self-reported aggression at age 30. ing to injuries to participants) may increase Similarly, in Finland, Kokko and Pulkkinen between ages 10 and 17. Criminal violence (2005) found that aggression at ages 8 and will be discussed in the delinquency section. 14 predicted aggression at ages 36 and 42. The prevalence of bullying is often very Female aggression is also significantly stable high. For example, in the Dublin study of over time; stability coefficients were simi­ 0' Moore and Hillery (1989), 58% of boys and lar for males and females in the Carolina 38% of girls said that they had ever bullied Longitudinal Study (Cairns & Cairns, 1994, someone. The prevalence is lower when bul­ p. 63). However. Loeber and Stouthamer­ lying is restricted to "sometimes or more often Loeber (1998) pointed out that a high (relative) this term." With this definition, II % of boys stability of aggressiveness was not incompati­ and 2.59'( of girls were bullies in secondary ble with high rates of desistance from physical

i i 688 Conduct Disorder, Aggression and J)elinquellc~

aggression (ab,olute change) from childhood than the behavioral criteria preferred by social to adulthood. scientish. Also. legal definitions change over Olweus (1979) argued that aggression was time. However. their main advantage is that. a ;-.table personality trait. However. theories of becau;.e they have been adopted by most delin­ aggression place most emphasIs on cognitive quency researchers. their use makes it possible processes. For example. Huesmann and Eron to compare and summanze results obtained in ( 19159) put forward a cognitive script model. in different projects. which aggressi ve behavior depends on stored Delinquency is commonly measured using behavioral repertoires (cognitive scripts) that either official records of arresh or convictions have been learned during early development. or self-reports of offending. The advantages In response to environmental cues. possible and disadvantages of official records and cognitive scripts are retrieved and evaluated. self-reports are to some extent complemen­ The choice of aggressive scripts, which tary. In general. official records include the prescribe aggressive behavior. depends on the worst offenders and the worst offenses. while past history or rewards and punishments and self-reports include more of the normal range on the extent to which adolescents are influ­ of delinquent activity. In the Pittsburgh Youth enced by immediate gratification as opposed Study, Farrington, Jolliffe, Loeber. and Homish to long-term consequences. According to this (2007) found that there were 2.4 self-reported theory. the persisting trait of aggressiveness is offenders per official court offender, and 80 a collection of well-learned aggressive scripts self-reported offenses per officially recorded that are resistant to change. A similar social offense. The worst offenders may be missing information-processing theory was proposed from samples interviewed in ~elf-report stud­ by Dodge (199 1) and updated by Dodge ies

- Delinquency 689 between parental supervision and delinquency. 4.7 for index violence and 2.1 for index prop­ it is likely that supervision is related to delin­ erty offenses (FBI. 2007, Table 33). The peak quent behavior (rather than to any biases in age for male index property and index violence measurement). Generally, the worst offenders offenses was about 17-18 (FBI. 2007. Table according to self-reports (taking account of 39). The peak age for female index property frequency and seriousness) tend also to be the offenses was about 16-17, while female index worst offenders according to official records violence peaked later, at about age J8-21 (FBI, (Huizinga & Elliott, 1986). In the Cambridge 2007, Table 40). Study. the predictors and correlates of official The prevalence of delinquency accord­ and self-reported delinquency were very simi­ ing to self-reports is higher than in official lar (Farrington, 1992c). records. In the large-scale Denver. Rochester. and Pittsburgh longitudinal studies, the annual Prevalence prevalence of "street crimes" (burglary, seri­ Even when measured by convictions, the cumu­ ous theft, robbery. aggravated assault, etc.) lative prevalence of delinquency is substantial. increased from less than 15% at age II to In the Cambridge Study, 200/1' of males were almost 50% at age 17 (Huizinga, Loeber, & convicted before age 17. The annual prevalence Thornberry, 1993 J. Similarly, in the U.s. of convictions increased to a peak at age 17 and National Youth Survey. the annual prevalence then declined (Farrington, 1992a). It was 1.5 t/(l of self-reported violence increased to a peak of at age ]0, 5% at age 13, II % at age 17, 6% at 28% of males at age 17 and 12% of females at age 22, and 3% at age 30, According to national ages 15-17 (Elliott, 1994), Annual prevalence figures for England and Wales (Prime, White, rates for specific acts have been provided by Liriano, & Patel, 2001), about 15% of males and Loeber, Farrington, Stouthamer-Loeber. & van 3% of females born in 1953-1963 were con­ Kammen (1998. p. 94). For example, shoplift­ victed up to age J 7 for a "standard list" offense ing increased from 10% of boys at age 10 to (i.e., a more serious offense, excluding traffic 19% at age 13. Carrying a weapon increased infractions and drunkenness, for example). from 120/c of boys at age 10 to 23% at age 13. Cumulative prevalence is also substantial In both official records and self-reports, the in the United States. In a longitudinal study age-crime curve--obtained cross-sectionally­ of over 27 ,000 persons born in Philadelphia usually increases to a peak in the late teenage in 1958, Tracy, Wolfgang, and Figlio (1985) years and then decreases (Kirk, 2006). In the found that 33% of males and J4% of females Pittsburgh Youth Study, Loeber et al. (2008) pre­ were arrested before age 18 for nontraffic sented age-crime curves obtained longitudinally offenses. The male-to-female ratio was greater rather than cross-sectionally, Whether based on for more serious (crime index) offenses: J 8% of official records or on reports by boys, mothers, males versus 4% of females. Cumulative prev­ and teachers, the curves usually peaked in the alence is surprisingly high even for the most mid to late teenage years. The oldest cohort of serious offense of homicide. In the Pittsburgh boys (born about 1974) had a higher prevalence Youth Study, 33 of the 1,500 males were con­ and frequency of offending than the youngest victed of homicide up to age 26 (Farrington, cohort (born about 1980). probably because Loeber. Stallings, & Homish, 2008; Loeber the teenage years of the oldest boys coincided et a!., 2005). Weighting back to the population with a big increase in the violent crime rate (in of Pittsburgh public schools. 2.7% of African Pittsburgh and in the United States) to a peak in American males were convicted of homicide. 1993-1994 (Fabio et aL 2006). compared with 0.5°1(' of Caucasian males. There have been many studies of trajectories National U.S. figures show that. in 2006, the of offending at different ages, reviewed by male-to-female ratio for arrests under 18 was Piquero (2008). While many offenders follow 6911 Condlltt [)isorder, Aggression and Delinqllen('~ the traditional age-crime cu]"\'e. with offend­ burglary and motor \ehlc!c theft in adoles­ r ing peaking in late adoJe~cence and then cenu: (average onset, 14~ 15). and sex offenses i declining. most studies also find groups of and drug traffIcking in the later teenage years f offenders with other developmental trajec­ (average onset. 17-IY), I! tories, For example. in the Cambridge Stud) In the Seattle Social Development Project. there were a group of low-rate chronic offend­ delinquency career features were compared ers whose offending did not peak until the in official court records and self-reports mid-20' (Piquero. Farrington. & Blumstein. (Farrington et al, 20(3). The resulls showed 20(7). In the Pittsburgh youth study, there wa~ that there was a sharp increase in the preva­ a group whose otrending declined steadily lence of court referrals between ages 12 and from age 13 to age 24 (Loeber el aL. 200S). 13. probably reflecting the reluctance of the Trajectories bu-.ed on self-reports are some­ U.S. juvenile justice system to deal with times ditlerent from trajectories based on offi­ very young offenders (Loeber & Farrington. cial records (Wiesner. Capaldi. & Kim. 2(07), 200 I ), An early age of onset predicted a high Attempb have been made to investigate risk rate of offending in court referrals but not in factors for different trajectory groups (e.g .. self-reports. possibly because the very young Barker et aL 2007: Fergusson & Horwood. offender;. who were referred to court were an 2002: Haraehi et al., 2006). but this topic will extreme group. not be reviewed here, [n the Cambridge Study, the males first The age distributions of CD. aggression. convicted at the earliest ages (10-13) tended and delinquency seem somewhat inconsistent. to become the most persistent offenders. While the prevalence of physical aggression committing an average of Y offenses leading to (hitting and kicking) and bullying decrease conviction" in an average criminal career lasting from age 10 to age 17, the prevalence of CD 13 years (FatTington et aI., 20(6). Similarly, and violent and property offenses generally Farrington and Wikstrom (1994), using offi­ increase over this age range. It may be that most cial records in Stockholm, and LeBlanc and children "grow out'· of minor types of antisocial Frechette ( J989) in Montreal. using both self­ behavior. perhaps because ofincreasing internal reports and official records, showed that the inhibitions inculcated hy parents, but that more duration of criminal careers decreased with serious types increase during adolescence, per­ increasing age of onset, It is generally true that haps because of the increasing importance of an early age of onset of antisocial behavior peer intluence (Farrington, I 986a). predicts a long and serious antisocial career (Loeber & LeBlanc, 1990). Onset and Continuity Moffitt (1993a) distinguished between Criminal career research using official records "Iife-course-persistent" offenders. who had of delinquency generally shows a peak age of an early onset and a long criminal career. on~et between 13 and 16, In the Cambridge and "adolescence-limited" offenders. who Study. the peak age of onset was at 14: 57t started later and had a sh0l1 criminal career. of the males were first convicted at that age Her analyses in the Dunedin (New Zealand) (Farrington, 1992a), The onset curves up to study generally confirmed the features of her age 25 of working-class males in LondoJl and postulated model (Moffitt, Caspi. Dickson, Stockholm were quite similar (Farrington & Silva. & Stanton. 1(96). Childhood- and ado­ Wikstriim. 1(94). Sequences of OJlsets were lescent-onset cases differed in temperament as studied for Montreal delinquents by LeBlanc early as age 3, (For recent reviews of research and rrechette (19St}), They dis(;()vered that on this theory. see Molfit!. 2003: Piquero & shoplifting and vandalism tended to o(;cur Moffitt. 2005,) Lifc-course-persi stellt and before adolescence (average age of onset. II ). adole~cence-lilllited offenders were identified Comorbidity and Versatility 691 using conviction records in the Cambridge also significant continuity in court referrals study (Nagin, Farrington, & Moffitt, 1995). and self-reports (Farrington et aL 2003a). However, according to self-reports, the appar­ Other studies show similar continuity in ent reformation of the adolescence-limited delinquency. For example. in Sweden. Stattin offenderf> was less than complete, At age 32, and Magnusson ( 1991 ) reported that nearly 70% they continued to drink heavily, use drugs, get of males registered (by police, social, or child into fights. and commit criminal acts. welfare authorities) for committing a crime Several researchers have in vestigated factors before age 15 were registered again between that predict early versus late onset offending ages 15 and 20, and nearly 60% were regis­ (Carroll et a!., 2006). In the Cambridge Study, tered between ages 21 and 29. Also. the num­ the strongest predictors were rarely spending ber ofjuvenile offenses is an effective predictor leisure time with the father, troublesome school of the number of adult offenses (Wolfgang, behavior, authoritarian parents and psychomo­ Thornberry. & Figlio, 1987). There was consid­ tor impulsivity (Farrington & Hawkins, 1991). erable continuity in offending between the ages In contrast. late onset offenders tended to be of 10 and 25 in both London and Stockholm nervous-withdrawn and anxiou~, suggesting (Farrington & Wikstrom, 1994). that these factors may have protected chil­ dren from offending at an early age (Zara & Farrington, 2007). In the Pittsburgh Youth COMORBIDITY AND Study, the strongest correlates of early onset VERSATILITY were physical aggression, ODD, ADHD, In general, CD adolescents tend also to be truancy, peer delinquency, and poor paren­ aggressive and del inquent. There is controversy tal supervision (Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, about whether aggressive symptoms should van Kammen, & Farrington, 1991). There is be considered part of ODD or CD (Loeber, a great deal of criminological research on other Burke, Lahey, Winters, & Zera, 2000). In the criminal career features such as desistance, Christchurch Study in New Zealand, Fergusson duration of careers, escalation and deescala­ and Horwood (1995) reported that 90% of tion (Farrington, I997a), but there is not space children with three or more CD symptoms at to review this here. age 15 were self-reported frequent offenders Generally, there is significant continuity at age 16 (compared with only 17% of children between delinquency in one age range and with no CD symptoms). Fergusson, Horwood, delinquency in another. In the Cambridge Study, and Ridder (2005) later showed that conduct nearly three-quarters (73%) of those convicted problems at ages 7-9 predicted offending at as juveniles at age 10-16 were reconvicted at ages 21-25. Similarly, in the Great Smoky age 17-24, in comparison with only 16% of Mountains Study, Copeland. Miller-Johnson, those not convicted as juveniles (Farrington, Keeler. Angold, and Costello (2007) found 1992a). Nearly half (45%) of those convicted that CD under age 16 predicted serious and as juveniles were reconvicted at age 25-32, violent crimes between ages 16 and 21. In the in comparison with only 8% of those not con­ Denver Youth Survey, Huizinga and lakob­ victed as juveniles. Furthermore, this continu­ Chien (1998) found that about half of male ity over time did not merely renect continuity and female self-reported violent offenders in police reaction to delinquency. For 10 speci­ had a large number of externalizing symp­ fied offenses, the significant continuity between toms on the CBCL. In Cyprus, Kokkinos offending in one age range and offending in a and Panayiotou (2004) reported that CD later age range held for self-reports as well as adolescents were likely to be bullies. official convictions (Farrington, 1989b). In the Numerous studies show that aggression Seattle Social Development Project, there was in childhood and adolescence predicts , 692 Conduct Disorder. Aggression and Delinquent·y

later delinquency and crime. For example. Thc delinquent;., ,vcre morc likely to have Hamalainen and Pulkkinen ( LJ9S. 1996) in taken prohibited drugs such as marijuana or Finland followed up nearly .+00 c:hildren LSD. although lew of them had comiuions between age;, Hand 32 and found that early for drug offen"e.", Also. they were morc likely aggre;,~i()n and wnduet problem, predicted to have had "exual Interc:ourse. espec:ially with later criminal offense;,. [n the Cambridge Study. a variety of diffcrent girl;,. and especially begin­ teacher ratings of aggression at age I 14 (dis­ ning at an early age. but they were les'> likely to obedient. diffJc:ult to disc:ipJine. unduly rough. use comrac:eptives. The delinquents were more quarrebome and aggressive. (lvercompetitive) likely to go out in the evenings. and were espe­ ~ignificant]y predicted self-reponed violence at c:ially likely to spend time hanging about 011 age 16-1 g (physical righting) and c:onvictions the street. They tended to go around in groups for violence up to age 32 (Farrington. 19<1 I J. of four or more. and were more likely to be Generally. delinquents are versatile rather involved in group violence or vandalism, They than specialized in their offending. In the were much more likely to have been involved Cambridge Study. !56 Ly,. of violent offenders in physic:al fights. to have stm1ed fights. to also had convictions for nonviolent offenses have carried weapons. and to have used weap­ (Farrington, 1(,)91 J. Violent and nonviolent but ons in fighb. They were also more likely to equally frequent otfenders were very similar express aggressive and anti-establishment in their childhood and adolesc:ent features in attitudes on a questionnaire (negati ve to polic:e, the Oregon Youth Study (Capaldi & Patterson. school. rich people. and civil servants). 1(96) and in the Philadelphia Collaborative Bec:ause CD. aggression, and delinquency Perinatal Project (Piquero. 2000). Studies of are overlapping problems. they tend to have transition matrices summarizing the probahility the same risk factors. and interventions that of one type of offense following another show are effective in redudng one of these types of that there is a small degree of spe<.:ificity antisocial behavior tend also to be effective superimposed on a great deal of generality in in reducing the other two types. I will focus juvenile delinquency (Farrington. Snyder. & especially on risk factors for delinquency (for Finnegan. 1988 J. a review of risk factors for CD, see Burke. The Cambridge Study shows that Loeber. & Birmaher. 2002). Less is known delinquency is associated with many other about early risk factors for aggression types of antisocial behavior. The boys who (Tremblay. 200R). Risk factors that are essen­ were convkted before age 18 (most commonly tially measuring the same underlying constructs for otlenses of dishonesty. such as burglary as CD. aggression. and delinquency anger: and theft) were significantly more antisocial Colder & Stice. 1998) are not reviewed here. than the nondelinquents on almost every fac:tor that was investigated at that age (West & RISK FACTORS Farrington, J 977). The <.:onvicted delinquents Longitudinal data are required to establish drank more bcer. got drunk more often. and the time ordering of risk factors and antiso­ were more likely to say that drinking made cial behavior. As mentioned. in this review them violent. They smoked more c:igarettes. I focus especially on result" obtained in major had started smoking at an earlier age. and were prospective longitudinal studies. It is extremely more likely to be heavy gamhlers. They difficult in c:orrelational or IT(),~,,-sccti()nal were more likely 10 have been wmicted for studies to draw valid conclusions about ouse minor motoring offenses. to have driven aftcr and elTeet. Similarly, because of the diffic:ulty drinking at least 10 units of alcohol 5 of establishing c:allsal effeC:h of fa<.:ton; that pints of been. and to have heen injured in road vary only hetween individuab (e.g.. gender and accidents. ethnic-it)'). and hec:all.~e slich factors have no Risk Factors 693 practical implications for intervention (e.g., it is respond in certain ways, and temperament not practicable to change male~ into females). is basically the childhood equivalent of unchanging variables will not be reviewed personality. Temperament is clearly in£1u­ here. In any case. their effects on offending are enced by biological factors but is not itself a usually explained by reference to other, modifi­ biological variable like heart rate. The mod­ able, factors. For example, gender differences em study of child temperament began with in offending have been explained on the basis of the New York longitudinal study of Chess and different socialization methods used by parents Thomas (1984). Children in their first 5 years with boys and girls, or different opportunities of life were rated on temperamental dimen­ for offending of males and females, According sions by their parents, and these dimensions to Rowe, Vazsonyi, and Flannery (1995), risk were combined into three broad categories of factors for delinquency are similar for boys and easy, difficult and "slow to warm up" tempera­ girls. but boys are generally exposed to more ment. Having a difficult temperament at age risk factors or higher levels of risk factors. 3-4 (frequent irritability. low amenability and Risk factors will be discussed one by one; adaptability, irregular habits) predicted poor additive, interactive, independent. or sequential psychiatric adjustment at age 17-24. effects will not beexhaustively reviewed, although Unfortunately, it was not very clear exactly these are important issues (Waschbusch & what a "difficult" temperament meant in prac­ Willoughby, 2008). Because of limitations of tice, and there was the danger of tautological space, and because of their limited relevance conclusions (e.g., because the criteria for diffi­ for psychosocial interventions, biological fac­ cult temperament and ODD were overlapping). tors are not reviewed. For example, one of the Later researchers have used more specific most replicable findings in the literature is that dimensions of temperament. For example, antisocial and violent adolescents tend to have Kagan (1989) in Boston classified children as low resting heart rates (Raine, 1993, p, 167). In inhibited (shy or fearful) or uninhibited al age the Cambridge Study, resting heart rate at age 21 months, and found that they remained sig­ 18 was significantly related to convictions for nificantly stable on this classification up to age violence and to self-reported violence, indepen­ 7 years. Furthermore, the children who were dently of all other variables (Farrington, 1997b). uninhibited at age 21 months were more likely There is also little space to review theories of to be identified as aggressive at age 13 years, the causal mechanisms by which risk factors according to self- and parent reports (Schwartz. might have their effects on antisocial behavior. Snidman, & Kagan, 1996). It is plausible to suggest that risk factors Important results on the link between influence the potential for aggression and anti­ childhood temperament and later offending social behavior, and that whether this potential have been obtained in the Dunedin longitu­ becomes the actuality in any situation depends dinal study in New Zealand (Caspi, 2000). on immediate situational factors such as oppor­ Temperament at age 3 years was rated by tunities and victims. In other words, antisocial observing the child's behavior during a testing acts depend on the interaction between the session. The most important dimension of tem­ individual and the environment (Farrington, perament was being undercontrolled (restless. 1998). However. there is not space here to impulsive. with poor attention), and this pre­ review immediate situational influences or sit­ dicted aggression, self-reported delinquency uational crime prevention (Clarke, ] 995), and convictions at age 18-21. Studies using classic personality inventories Temperament and Personality such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Personality traits such as sociability or impul­ Inventory (MMPI) and the California Psychol­ siveness describe broad predispositions to ogical Inventory (CPt Wilson & Herrnstein, , (,94 Conduct r>isorder. Aggression and Delinquency

I ~!S5. pp. I!S6~ I ~!S I ollen seem to produce out a mew-anulysi" of re,earch on ADHD and essentially tautological results. such as that delinyuency. and concluded that they were deJinyuenh are lOlA on ,ociallzation. The strongly associated. Similar conclusions about Eysenck personality questionnaire has yielded impUlsiveness were drawn by Jolliffe and more promising re;-,ults (Eysenck. JYY6). In the FalTington (in press). Cambridge Study. those high on both extraver­ Many studies show that Ilyperactivity sion and neuroticism tended to be juvenile seJf­ or ADHD predicts later offending. In the reported delinyuents. adult official offenders. Copenhagen Perinatal project. hyperactivity and adult self-reported offenders. but not juve­ (restlessness and poor concentration I at age nile official delinquents (Farrington. Biron, & II ~ 13 significantly predicted arrests for LeBlanc. 1(132). Furthermore. these relation­ violence lip to age 22. especially among boys ships held independently of other variable~ such experiencing delivery complications (Brennan. as low family income. low intelligence. and Mednick. & Mednick. I ~93). Similarly. in the poor parental child-rearing behavior. However, Orebro longitudinal study in Sweden. hyperac­ when individual items of the personality ques­ tivity at age 13 predicted police-recorded vio­ tionnaire were studied. il was clear that the sig­ lence up to age 26. The highest rate of violence nificant relationships were caused by the items was among males with both motor restlessness measuring impulsiveness (e.g .. doing things and concentration difficulties ( 1ylt}). compared yuickly without stopping to think). to 3% of the remainder (Klinteberg. Andersson. Since 1990. the most widely accepted per­ Magnusson. & Stattin. 19(3). In the Seattle sonality system has been the "Big Five" or five­ Social Development Project. hyperactivity and factor model (McCrae & Costa. 2003). This risk taking in adolescence predicted violence suggests that there are five key dimensions of in young adulthood tHerrenkohl et aL 2000). personality: neuroticism (1\), extraversion (E). In the Cambridge Study, boys nominated openness (0). agreeableness (A). and conscien­ by teachers as restless or lacking in concen­ tiousness (e). Openness means originality and tration: those nominated by parents. peers. openness to new ideas, agreeableness includes or teachers as the most daring or taking most nurturance and altruism. and conscientious­ risks: and those who were the most impulsive ness includes planning and the will to achieve. on psychomotor tests at age 8~ I 0 all tended It is commonly found that low levels of agree­ to become offenders later in life. Daring. poor ableness and conscientiousness are related to concentration. and restlessness all predicted offending (Heaven. 1996; John. Caspi, Robins, both official convictions and self-reported Moffitt. & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1(94). delinquency, and daring was consistently one of the best independent predictor" (Farrington Impulsiveness 1992c). Interestingly. Farrington. Loeber. and I mpulsi veness is the most crucial personality van Kammen ( 19(0) found that hyperactivity dimension that predicts antisocial behavior predicted juvenile offending independently of (Lipsey & Derwn. 199!S). Unfortunately. conduct problems. Lynam (1996) proposed there are a bewildering number of constructs that boys with both hyperactivity and CD were referring to a poor ability to control behavior. most at risk of chronic offending and psychop­ These include impUlsiveness, hyperactivity. athy. and Lynam ( 1998) presented evidence in restlessne~s. clumsiness, not considering con­ favor of this hypothesis from the Pittsburgh seyuences before acting. a poor ability to plan Youth Study. ahead. short time horizons. low self-control. The most extensive research on different sensation-seeking. risk-taking. and a poor measures of impulsiveness wa:-. carried out ability 10 delay gratification. Pratt. Cullen. in the Pittsburgh Youth Study by White el al. Blevins. Daigle. and Unnever (2002) carried (1994). The measures that were mosl strongly Risk Factors 695 related to self-reported delinquency at ages violence up to age 22. In Project Metropolitan 10 and 13 were teacher-rated impulsiveness in Copenhagen, low IQ at age 12 significantly (e.g., acts without thinking), self-reported predicted police-recorded violence between impulsiveness, self-reported undercontrol ages 15 and 22. The link between low IQ and (e.g., unable to delay gratificatioG), motor violence was strongest among lower class boys restlessnes~ (from videotaped observations), (Hogh & Wolf. 1983). and psychomotor impulsiveness (on the Trail Low lQ measured in the first few years of Making Test). Generally. the verbal behavior life predicts later delinquency. In a prospective rating tests produced stronger relationships longitudinal survey of about 120 Stockholm with offending than the psychomotor perfor­ males, low IQ measured at age 3 significantly mance tests, suggesting that cognitive impul­ predicted officially recorded offending up to siveness was more relevant than behavioral age 30 (Stattin & Klackenberg-Larsson, 1993). impulsiveness. Future time perception and Frequent offenders (with 4 or more offenses) delay-of-gratification test~ were only weakly had an average IQ of 88 at age 3, whereas related to self-reported delinquency. In the nonoffenders had an average IQ of 101. All of Developmental Trends Study, Burke, Loeber. these results held up after controlling for social Lahey, and Rathouz (2005) found that ADHD class. Similarly, low IQ at age 4 predicted predicted ODD, which in turn predicted CD. arrests up to age 27 in the Perry Preschool Project (Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikart, Low IQ and Low Educational 1993) and court delinquency up to age 17 in Achievement the Collaborative Perinatal Project (Lipsitt, Low IQ and low school achievement are Buka, & Lipsitt, 1990). important predictors of CD, delinquency, In the Cambridge Study, twice as many of and adolescent antisocial behavior (Moffitt, the boys scoring 90 or less on a nonverbal IQ I993b). In an English epidemiological study test (Raven's Progressive Matrices) at age 8-10 of 13-year-old twins, low IQ of the child pre­ were convicted as juveniles as of those scoring dicted conduct problems independently of above 90 (West & Fanington, 1973). However, social class and of the IQ of parents (Goodman, it was difficult to disentangle low IQ from low Simonoff, & Stevenson, 1995). Low school school achievement, because they were highly achievement was a strong correlate of CD intercorrelated and both predicted delinquency. in the Pittsburgh Youth Study (Loeber et a!., Low nonverbal IQ predicted juvenile self­ 1998). In both the Ontario Child Health Study reported delinquency to almost exact! y the same (Offord, Boyle, & Racine, 1989) and the New degree as juvenile convictions (Farrington, York State longitudinal study (Velez, Johnson, 1992c), suggesting that the link between low & Cohen, 1989), failing a grade predicted CD. IQ and delinquency was not caused by the Underachievement, defined according to a dis­ less intelligent boys having a greater prob­ crepancy between IQ and school achievement, ability of being caught. Also, low IQ and low is also characteristic of CD children. as Frick school achievement predicted offending inde­ et a!. (] 991) reported in the Developmental pendently of other variables such as low fam­ Trends Study. ily income and large family size (Farrington, Low IQ and low school achievement also 1990), and were important predictors of bully­ predict youth violence. In the Philadelphia ing (Farrington. 1993b). Biosocial project (Denno, 1990), low verbal Low IQ may lead to delinquency through and peri'ormance IQ at ages 4 and 7 and low the intervening factor of school failure. The scores on the California Achievement test at association between school failure and delin­ age 13-14 (vocabulary, comprehension. maths, quency has been demonstrated repeatedly language, spelling) all predicted arrests for in longitudinal surveys (Maguin & Loeber, 69(, Conduct Disorder, Aggression and Delinquency

1<)<)6). In the Pittsburgh Youth Study, Lynam, a measure of family ad,er"ity (based on paren­ MoffitL and Stouthamer-Loeber (1993) <':011­ tal age at first birth. parental edu<.:alion level. duded that low verbal IQ led to s<.:hool failure broken family, and Inv-. SES) In the Pittsburgh and "ubseqllently to self-reported delinquency. Youth Study, the life-couf;,e-persistent offend­ but only for Afriull1 Ameri<.:an boys. An alter­ ers had marked neuro<.:ognitive impairmenh native theory i~ that the link between low lQ (Rai ne et aL 20(5) and delinquency j" mediated by disinhibition (il1lpuisi veness. ADHD, low guilt lOlA empathy), Other Individual Factors and this wa" abo tested in the Pittsburgh Youth Numerou" other individual factOI';' have been Study (Koolhof. Loeber. Wei, Pardini, & related to CD, aggression. and delinquency. d·E,,<.:llry. 2007 l. including low ;,elf-estecm (Kokkinos & A plausible explanatory factor underly­ Panayiotou, 2(04), depression

was negatively correlated with aggression that poor parental supervision. harsh discipline, (both measured by peer ratings). In Spain. and a rejecting attitude all predict delinquency. Luengo, Otero, Carrillo-de-la Pena, and Miron In the Seattle Social Development Project. (1994) carried out the first project that related poor family management (poor supervision, cognitive and emotional empathy separately to inconsistent rules. and harsh discipline) in (self-reported) offending, and found that both adolescence predicted violence in young adult­ were negati vel y correlated. hood (Herrenkohl et al.. 2000). Similar results Jolliffe and Farrington (2006a) developed were obtained in the Cambridge StUdy. Harsh a new measure of empathy called the Basic or erratic parental discipline; cruel, passive, or Empathy Scale. An example of a cognitive neglecting parental attitudes; and poor parental item is "It is hard for me to understand when supervision, all measured at age 8, predicted my friends are sad," and an example of an emo­ later juvenile convictions and self-reported tional item is "] usually feel calm when other delinquency (West & Farrington, 1973). people are scared." In a study of 720 British Generally, the presence of any of these adverse adolescents aged about IS, they found that low family background features doubled the risk of emotional empathy was related to self-reported a later juvenile conviction. offending and violence for both males and Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, and females, and to an official record for offend­ Darling (1992) distinguished an authoritarian ing by females (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2007). style of parenting (punitively emphasizing obe­ Similar, they found that low emotional empathy dience) from an authoritative style (granting (but not low cognitive empathy) was related to autonomy with good supervision). In the bullying (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006b). Cambridge Study (Farrington, 1994), having authoritarian parents was the second most Child Rearing important predictor of convictions for violence In the Pittsburgh Youth Study, poor paren­ (after hyperactivity/poor concentration). tal supervision was an important risk factor Interestingly, having authoritarian parents was for CD (Loeber et al., 1998). Poor maternal the most important childhood risk factor that supervision and low persistence in discipline discriminated between violent offenders and predicted CD in the Developmental Trends frequently convicted nonviolent offenders Study (Frick et aI., 1992), but not independently (Farrington, 1991). An authoritarian, punitive of parental APD. Rothbaum and Weisz (1994) parenting style is also related to bullying carried out a meta-analysis and concluded (Baldry & Farrington. 1998). that parental reinforcement, parental reason­ ing. parental punishments, and parental Child Abuse responsiveness to the child were all related There seems to be significant intergenerational to antisocial child behavior. There could be transmission of aggressive and violent reciprocal relationships between parenting and behavior from parents to children. as Widom child behavior, as Sheehan and Watson (2008) (1989) found in a longitudinal survey of concluded for aggression. abused children in Indianapolis. Children who Of all Child-rearing factors, poor parental were physically abused up to age II were sig­ supervision is the strongest and most replica­ nificantly likely to become violent offenders in ble predictor of delinquency (Smith & Stern, the next 15 years (Maxfield & Widom, 1996). 1997), and harsh or punitive discipline (involv­ Similarly, in the Rochester Youth Development ing physical punishment) is also an important Study, Smith and Thornberry (] 995) showed predictor (Haapasalo & Pokela, 1999). The that recorded child maltreatment under age 12 classic longitudinal studies by McCord ( 1979) predicted self-reported violence between ages in Boston and Robins (1979) in St. Louis show 14 and 18, independently of gender, ethnicity. 6911 Conduct Disorder. Aggression and [)c1inquenc~

SES. and family structure:. Ke:iley. Howe. In the Christchurch Stud~ in !\ev. Zealand. Dodge. Bate,. and Pettit (:?OO I) reported that children who witnessed \'jolence between maltreatment under age :'i wa, more damaging their parents were more likely to eommit than maltreatment between ages 6 and 9. The both violent and property offenses according extensive re\ iew by Malino,ky-Rummell and to their self-repuns (Fergusson & Horwood. Han,en (1993) confirm~ that being physically 199R J. Witnessing father-initiated violence was abused a, a chi Id predicts later violent and still predictive (11"ter controlling for other risk nonviolent offending. factors such as parental cnminality. parel1lal Possible causal mechanisms linking chi Idhood substance ahuse. parental physical punishment. victimization and adolescent antisocial behaviors a young mother. and low family income. have been reviewed by Widom ( 19(4): Parental separation and single parenthood predict CD in children. In the Christchurch I. Childhood victimization may have imme­ Study. separations from parents in the first five diate but long-lasting consequences (e.g .. years of a child's life (especially) predicted shaking may cause brain injury J. CD at age 15 (Fergusson. Horwood, & 2. Childhood victimization may cause bodily Lynskey. 1994). In the New York State lon­ changes (e.g .. desensitization to pain) that gitudinal study. CD wa;-. predicted by paren­ encourage later aggression. tal divorce, but far more strongly by having 3. Child abuse may lead to impulsi ve or a never-married lone mother (Velez et al.. dissociative coping styles that, in turn. 19R9 J. In the Ontario Child Health Study, lead to poor problem-solving skills or coming from a single-parent family predicted poor school performance. CD. but this was highly related to poverty and 4. Victimization may cause changes in self­ dependence on welfare henefits (Blum. Boyle, esteem or in social information-processing & Offord, J988). Also. children from single­ patterns that encourage later aggression. parent female-headed households are two to S. Child abuse may lead to changed family three times as likely to be rated aggressive by environment:. (e.g .. being placed in foster teachers compared to other children (Pearson. care) that have deleterious effects. lalongo, Hunter. & Kellam. 1994). 6. Juvenile justice practices may label In the Dunedin Study in New Zealand. boys victims. isolate them from prosocial peers, from single-parent rami lies disproportionally and encourage them to associate with tended to he convicted; 28

,& Risk Factors 699

1991). In the Newcastle (England) Explanations of the relationship between dis­ lJ'housand-Family Study, Kolvin, Miller, rupted families and delinquency fall into three

.""","UUF" and Kolvin (1988) reported that mari­ major classes. Trauma theories suggest that the loss of a parent has a damaging effect on a 5 years predicted his later convictions up child, most commonly because of the effect on age 32. Similarly, in the Dunedin study in attachment to the parent. Life-course theories ,New Zealand, Henry, Moffitt, Robins, Earls, focus on separation as a sequence of stress­ and Silva (1993) found that children who were ful experiences, and on the effects of multiple :el:oo:sed to parental discord and many changes stressors such as parental conflict, parental 'Of the primary caretaker tended to become loss, reduced economic circumstances, changes .c"ljlLl"'J"'''~' and delinquent. in parent figures, and poor child-rearing meth­ Most studies of broken homes have focused ods. Selection theories argue that disrupted on the loss of the father rather than the mother, families produce delinquent children because Jlimply because the loss of a father is much of preexisting differences from other families more common. McCord (1982) in Boston car­ in risk factors such as parental conflict crimi­ .ried out an interesting study of the relationship nal or antisocial parents, low family income, between homes broken by loss of the natural or poor child-rearing methods, and later serious offending of the chil­ Hypotheses derived from the three theories . She found that the prevalence of offend­ were tested in the Cambridge Study (Juby & ing was high for boys reared in broken homes Farrington, 2001). While boys from broken without affectionate mothers (62 %) and for those homes (permanently disrupted families) were reared in united homes characterized by parental more delinquent than boys from intact homes, conflict (52%), irrespective of whether they had they were not more delinquent than boys from affectionate mothers. The prevalence of offend­ intact high-conflict families. Interestingly, ing was low for those reared in united homes this result was replicated in Switzerland without conflict (26%) and-importantly­ (Haas, Farrington, Killias, & Sattar. 2004). equally low for boys from broken homes with Overall, the most important factor was the affectionate mothers (22 %). These results sug­ postdisruption trajectory. Boys who remained gest that it is not so much the broken home that with their mother after the separation had the is criminogenic as the parental conflict that same delinquency rate as boys from intact low­ often causes it, and that a loving mother might conflict families. Boys who remained with in some sense be able to compensate for the their father, with relatives, or with others (e.g., )f loss of a father. foster parents) had high delinquency rates, It & In the Cambridge Study, both permanent was concluded that the results favored life­ 'IS and temporary separations from a biological course theories rather than trauma or selection Id parent before age J0 (usually from the father) theories. III predicted convictions and self-reported delin­ nt quency, providing that they were not caused by Antisocial Parents Iy death or hospitalization (Farrington. I 992c ) c It is clear that antisocial parents tend to have in However, homes broken at an early age (under antisocial children (Lipsey & Derzon, 1998). Iy age 5) were not unusually criminogenic (West & In the Developmental Trends Study, parental th Farrington, 1973). Separation before age 10 APD was the best predictor of childhood CD ~d predicted both juvenile and adult convictions (Frick et al., 1992) and parental substance & (Farrington, 1992b) and predicted convictions use was an important predictor of the onset of up to age 32 independently of all other factors CD (Loeber, Green, Keenan, & Lahey, 1995)c or such as low family income or poor school Similarly, in the New York State longitudinal & attainment (Farrington. I993a). study, parental APD was a strong predictor 700 Conduct Disorder. Aggre~siHn llnd /)elimluenc~

of anti~()cial child behavim (Cohen. Brook. further increased the risk of later amisocial and Cohen. Velez & Garcia. 19YO). However. delinquent outcomes in the Cambridge Study children of antisocial parent:> were almost a~ (Murray & Farrington. 20(5). Interestingly. likely to develop internalizing disorders. as the effect of parental imprisonment in Sweden they were to develop externalizing disorders (in Project Metropolitan) disappeared after (Johnson. Cohen. Kasen. & Brook. 2(06). controlling for parental criminality (Murray, In the Pittshurgh Youth Study. parent~ with Janson. & Farrington. 20(7). This cross­ behavior problems and substance use problems national difference may have been the result of tended to have CD boy" (Loeber et al.. 19(8). shorter prison sentences in Sweden. more fam­ In their classic longitudinal studies. McCord ily-friendly prison policies. a welfare-oriented ( 1(77) and Robins. West. and He~ianic ( I (75) juvenile justice system. an extended social showed that criminal parents tended to have welfare system. Of more ;..ympathetic public delinquent sons. In the Cambridge Study. the attitudes toward prisoners. concentration of otlending in

Nottingham study, the Newsons also concluded tended to come from low-income families. that large family size was one of the most with unemployed parents, living in subsidized important predictors of delinquency (Newson, housing and dependent on welfare benefits Newson, & Adams. 1993). Large family size (Offord, Alder, & Boyle, 1986). In the New also predicts adolescent self-reported violence York State longitudinal study, low SES, low (Farrington. 2000). family income and low parental education In the Cambridge Study, a boy's having four predicted CD children (Velez et al., 1989). or more siblings by his 10th birthday doubled In the Developmental Trends Study, low SES his risk of being convicted as ajuvenile (West & predicted the onset of CD (Loeber et aI., 1995); Farrington, 1973). Large family size predicted and, in the Pittsburgh Youth Study, family self-reported delinquency as welJ as convic­ dependence on welfare benefits was character­ tions (Farrington, 1979), and adult as well istic of CD boys (Loeber et aI., 1998). as juvenile convictions (Farrington, I 992b). In general, coming from a low SES family Also, large family size was the most important predicts adolescent violence. For example, in independent predictor of convictions up to age the U.S. National Youth Survey, the preva­ 32 in a logistic regression analysis (Farrington. lence of self-reported assault and robbery were 1993a). Large family size was similarly impor­ about twice as high among lower-class youth as tant in the Cambridge and Pittsburgh studies, among middle-class ones (Elliott, Huizinga, & even though families were on average smaller Menard, 1989). In Project Metropolitan in in Pittsburgh in the 1990s than in London in Stockholm (Wikstrom, 1985) and in the the 19605 (Farrington & Loeber, 1999). Dunedin study in New Zealand (Henry et aI., Brownfield and Sorenson (1994) reviewed 1996). the SES of a boy's family-based on the several possible explanations for the link father's occupation-predicted his later violent between large families and delinquency, crimes. Several researchers have suggested that including those focusing on features of the par­ the link between a low SES family and adoles­ ents (e.g., criminal parents, teenage parents), cent antisocial behavior is mediated by family those focusing on parenting (e.g., poor super­ socialization practices. For example, Dodge, vision, disrupted families) and those focusing Pettit, and Bates (1994) found that about half on socioeconomic deprivation or family stress. of the effect of SES on peer-rated aggression Another interesting theory suggested that and teacher-rated externalizing problems was the key factor was birth order: large families accounted for by family socialization. include more later born children, who tend to The relationship between low SES and be more delinquent. Based on an analysis of delinquency varies according to whether SES self-reported delinquency in a Seattle survey, is measured by income and housing or by occu­ they concluded that the most plausible inter­ pational prestige. Numerous indicators of SES vening causal mechanism was exposure to were measured in the Cambridge Study, both for delinquent siblings. In the Cambridge Study, the boy's family of origin and for the boy him­ co-offending by brothers was surprisingly self as an adult, including occupational prestige, common; about 20% of boys who had broth­ family income, housing, and employment insta­ ers close to them in age were convicted of a bility. Most of the measures of occupational pres­ crime committed with their brother (Reiss & tige were not significantly related to offending. Farrington, 1991, p. 386). However, low SES of the family when the boy was aged 8-10 significantly predicted his later Socioeconomic Factors self-reported but not his official delinquency. More It is clear that antisocial children dispropor­ consistently. low family income and poor housing tionally come from low SES families. In the predicted official and self-reported. juvenile and Ontario Child Health Study, CD children adult, offending (Farrington, 1992b. I 992c). 7112 Conduct Di~()rder, Aggressiun lind DclinquenC)

It wa~ interesting that the peal-. age of offend- entirely mediated by parent managemem skills. at 17- J~, coincided with the peak age of In other word~, 10\\ SES predicted delinquency affluence for many convicted males. In the because low SES familie, used poor child­ Cambridge Study. convicted male~ tended to rearing practices. In the Christchurch Health come from low-income famihe~ at age g and later and Development Study. Fergusson, Swain­ tended to have low income" themselves at age Campbell. and Horwood (2004) reponed that 32 (West & Farrington. 1977. p. (2). However. living in a low SES family between birth and at age I g. they were relatively well paid in com~ age 6 predicted self-reported and official delin­ parison with nondelinquents. Whereas convicted quency between ages 15 and '11. However. this delinquents might be working as unskilled association disappeared after controlling for laborer" on building site ..., and getting the full family factors (phy.,ical punishment. maternal adult wage for this job, nondelinquents might be care. and parental changes). conduct problems, in pooriy paiel job" with pro~peCls, such as hank truancy. and deviant peers. suggesting that derks. 01' might still be students. These resulh these may have been mediating factor". show that the link between income and offend­ ing i~ quite complex. Peer Influences Socioeconomic depri valion of parents is The reviews by Zimring (1981) and Reiss usually compared to offending by children. (19i1ln show that delinquent acts tend to be However, when the children grow up, their committed in small groups (of two or three own socioeconomic deprivation can be related people. usually) rather than alone. Large gangs to their own offending. In the Cambridge are comparatively unusual. In the Cambridge Study, official and self-reported delinquents Study. the probability of committing offenses tended to have unskilled manual jobs and an with others decreased steadily with age (Reiss & unstable job record at age 18. Just as an erratic Farrington. 1991). Whereas the average crime work record of his father predicted the later before age J 7 was committed with others, the offending of the study boy. an unstable job average crime after age 17 was committed record of the boy at age 18 was one of the best alone. Boys tended to commit their crimes with independent predictors of his convictions other boys similar in age and living close by. between ages 21 and 25 (Farrington, I 986b). The major problem of interpretation is Between ages 15 and 18, the Study boys were whether young people are more likely to convicted at a higher rate when they were commit offenses while they are in groups unemployed than when they were employed than while they are alone, or whether the high (Farrington. Gallagher, Morley, SI. Ledger, & prevalence of co-offending merely reflects West. 1986), suggesting that unemployment in the fact that whenever young people go OUl. some way causes crime, and conversely that they tend to go out in groups. Do peers tend to employment may lead to desistance from offend- encourage and facilitate offending, or is it just Since crimes involving material gain (e.g., that most kinds of activities outside the home theft, burglary, robbery) especially increased (both delinquent and nondelinquent) tend to during periods of unemployment. it seems likely be committed in groups') Another possibility that financial need is an important link in the is that the commission of offenses encourages causal chain between unemployment and crime. association with other delinquents. perhaps Several researchers have suggested that the because "birds of a feather flock together" link between low SES families and antisocial or because of the stigmatizing and isolat­ behavior is mediated by family socialization ing effects of court appearances and instilU~ practice~. Forexample. Larzelere and Patterson lionalization. Thornberry. Limite, Krohn. (19901 in the Oregon Youth Study concluded Farnworth, & Jang (1994) in the Rochester that the effect of SES on delinquency was Youth Development Study and Elliott and Risk F'actors 703

Menard (1996) in the National Youth Survey There is no doubt that highly aggressive chil­ concluded that there were reciprocal effects. dren tend to be rejected by most of their peers with delinquent peer bonding causing delin­ (Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990; Dodge quency and delinquency causing association et al., 2003). In the Oregon Youth Study, Nelson with delinquent peers. and Dishion (2004) found that peer rejection at In the Pittsburgh Youth Study, risk fac­ age 9-10 significantly predicted adult antisocial tors for delinquency were compared both behavior. However, it is unclear to what extent between individuals and within individuals peer rejection causes later aggression. Low (Farrington, Loeber,Yin. & Anderson, 2002). popUlarity was only a marginal predictor of Peer delinquency was the strongest correlate of adolescent aggression and teenage violence in delinquency in between-individual correlations the Cambridge Study (Farrington. 1989a). Coie but did not predict delinquency within indi­ and Miller-Johnson (2001) found that it was the viduals. In contrast, poor parental supervision, boys who were both aggressive and rejected by low parental reinforcement, and low involve­ their classmates who became the self-reported ment of the boy in family activities predicted and official delinquents. However, while delinquency both between and within individ­ aggressive children are rejected by conventional uals. It was concluded that these three family peers, they can be popular with other aggressive variables were the most likely to be causes, children (Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Gest, & whereas having delinquent peers was most Gariepy, 1988). likely to be a correlate of the boy's offending. It is clear that young people increase their School Influences offending after joining a gang. In the Seattle It is also well established that delinquents dis­ Social Development Project. Battin, Hill, proportionately attend high delinquency rate Abbott, Catalano, and Hawkins (1998) found schools, which have high levels of distrust this. and also showed that gang membership between teachers and students, low commit­ predicted delinquency above and beyond hav­ ment to the school by students. and unclear and ing delinquent friends. In the Pittsburgh Youth inconsistently enforced rules (Graham, 1988). Study. Gordon et al. (2004) reported not only In the Cambridge Study, attending a high­ a substantial increase in drug selling, drug delinquency-rate school at age 11 significantly use, violence, and property crime after a boy predicted a boy's own delinquency (Farrington, joined a gang. but also that the frequency of I 992c). However, what is less clear is to what offending decreased to pregang levels after a extent the schools themselves influence anti­ boy left a gang. Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, social behavior, by their organization, climate Smith, & Tobin (2003) in the Rochester Youth and practices, or to what extent the concentra­ Development Study and Gatti, Tremblay, tion of offenders in certain schools is mainly Vitraro, and McDuff (2005) in the Montreal a function of their intakes. In the Cambridge longitudinal experimental study also found Study, most of the variation between schools that young people offended more after join­ in their delinquency rates could be explained ing a gang. Several of these studies constrasted by differences in their intakes of troublesome the "selection" and "facilitation" hypotheses boys at age II (Farrington. ] 972). However, and concluded that future gang members were reviews ofAmerican research show that schools more delinquent to start with but became with clear, fair, and consistently enforced rules even more delinquent after joining a gang. tend to have low rates of student misbehavior Gang membership in adolescence is a risk fac­ (Gottfredwn, 2001; HerrenkohI, Hawkins, tor for later violence (Herrenkohl et aI., 2000), Chung, HilL & Battin-Pearson, 2001). but this may be because both are measuring In the New York State Longitudinal Study, the same underlying construct. Kasen, Johnson, and Cohen(1990) investigated 7(14 Cunduct Disorder, Aggression and Delinqllcllc~

the eflect~ of different dllllen~ion~ of ~chool project. Samp,on. MorenofL and Raudenbush climate on change, in children', conduct prob­ (2005) concluded thai most of the difference lem~ over time. They found that high ~chool belween African Americans and Caucasian, connict (hetween studenb and teacher~. or in violen(;e could be explained racial dif­ bet ween student~ and other students) predicted krence, in exposure 10 risk factor" especially increase, in conduct problems. [n contrast. a Jiving in had neighborhoods. Similar conclu­ high academic locus in schools !e.g.. empha­ sion\ were drawn by Farrington. Loeber. and sizing homework. academic classes. and task Stouthamer-Loeber (2003b) in the Pittsburgh orientation) predicted decreases in conduct Youth Study. problems and hence might be regarded as a It is dear that offender~ di~prorortiollutely prote(;tive 1a(;tor. live in inner-city urea" characterized by physi­ cal deterioration. neighborhood disorganiza­ Community Influences tion. and high residential mobility (Shaw & Many ,tudie" show that boy~ Jiving in urban !V1cKay. I()6()). However. again. it i\ difficult to areas are more violent than those living in rural determine to what extent the area" themselves ones. In thc u.S. ]\iational Youth Survey. rhe inlluencc anti\()cial behavior and to what extent prevalence of self-rCpot1ed assault and robbery it i" merely the case that antisocial people tend was considerably higher among urban youth to Jive in clepri ved area" because of their (Elliott. Huizinga. & Menurd. 191.:9). Within poverty or public housing allocation policies 1. urban areas, boys living in 11igh-crime neigh­ Interestingly. both neighborhood re"earchers borhoods are more violent than those living such a~ Gottfredson. McNeil. and Gottfredson in low-crime neighborhoods. In the Rochester (1991 i and developmental researchers such as Youth Development Study. living in a high­ Rutter ( 19x I) have argued that neighborhoods crime neighborhood signifi(;antly predicted have only indirect effects on antisocial behav­ self-reponed violence (Thornberry, Huizinga, & ior through their effects on individuals and Loeber, 1995), Similarly. in the Pittsburgh Youth families. In the Chicago Youth Development StUdy. living in a bad neighborhood (either as Study. Tolan, Gorman-Smith, and Henry rated by the mother or ba'ied on census measures (2003) concluded that the relationship between of pove11y. unemployment, and female-headed community structural characteristics (concen­ households) significantly predicted official and trated poverty, racial heterogeneity. economic reponed violence (Farrington. 1991.:). resources. violent crime rate) and individual Sampson. Raudenbush. and Earls (] 997) violence was mediated by parenting practices. studied community influences on violence gang membership, and peer violence. in the Project on Human Development in In the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Wikstrom and Chicago ]\ieighborhoods. The most important Loeber (2000) found an interesting interaction community predictors were concentrated between types of people and types of areas, economi(; disa(l\antage (as indexed by poverty. Six individual. falllily. peer. and school vari­ the proportion of female-headed familie:-. able~ were trichotomi/ume other risks were not high. In the ~al11e study, Successful Interventions 705

Lynam et al. (2000) reported that impulsivity (in the context of home visiting and parent predicted delinquency most strongly in poor education plus daycare services) and parent neighborhoods. management training-were effective in pre­ Clearly, there is an interaction between indi­ venting delinquency. Both types of programs viduals and the communities in which they live. also produce a wide range of other important Some aspect of an inner-city neighborhood may benefits for families-improved school readi­ be conducive to offending, perhaps because the ness and school performance on the part of inner city leads to a breakdown of commu­ children. greater employment and educational nity ties or neighborhood patterns of mutual opportunities for parents. and greater family support, or perhaps because the high popula­ stability in general. There is some evidence that tion density produces tension, frustration, or home visiting programs can pay back program anonymity. There may be many inter-related costs and produce substantial monetary ben­ factors. As Reiss (1986) argued. high-crime­ efits for the government and taxpayers. Little rate areas often have a high concentration of is known about the economic efficiency of day single-parent female-headed households with care and parent management training programs. low incomes, living in low-cost. poor housing. The weakened parental control in these fami­ Early Home Visiting lies-partly caused by the fact that the mother In New York State, Olds, Henderson, had to work and left her children largely unsu­ Chamberlain, and Tatelbaum (1986) randomly pervised-meant that the children tended to allocated 400 mothers either to receive home congregate on the streets. In consequence, visits from nurses during pregnancy. or to they were influenced by a peer subculture that receive visits both during pregnancy and dur­ often encouraged and reinforced offending. ing the first 2 years of life, or to a control group This interaction of individual, family, peer, and who received no visits. The home visitors gave neighborhood factors may be the rule rather advice about prenatal and postnatal care of the than the exception. child, about infant development. and about the importance of proper nutrition and avoid­ SUCCESSFUL INTERVENTIONS ing smoking and drinking during pregnancy. As mentioned earlier, I will focus here espe­ The results of this experiment showed that cially on results obtained in randomized experi­ the postnatal home visits caused a decrease ments with reasonably large samples, since the in recorded child physical abuse and neglect effect of any intervention on antisocial behav­ during the first 2 years of life, especially ior can be demonstrated most convincingly in by poor unmarried teenage mothers; 4% of such experiments (Farrington, 1983; Farrington visited versus 19% of nonvisited mothers & Welsh, 2005). For more extensive reviews of this type were gUilty of child abuse or of the effects of interventions, see Wasserman neglect. This last result is important because and Miller (1998), Catalano, Arthur, Hawkins, (as mentioned above) children who are physi­ Berglund, and Olson (1998), and Farrington cally abused or neglected tend to become and Welsh (2007). Most interventions tar­ violent offenders later in life. In a IS-year get risk factors and aim to prevent antisocial follow-up, the main focus was on lower class behavior. However, it is equally important unmarried mothers. Among these high-risk to strengthen protective factors and promote mothers, those who received prenatal and post­ healthy adolescent development (Catalano, natal home visits had fewer arrests than those Hawkins. Berglund, Pollard. & Arthur, 2002). who received prenatal visits or no visits (OIds A meta-analysis by Farrington and Welsh et aI., 1997). Also, children of these mothers (2003) concluded that two main types of fam­ who received prenatal and/or postnatal home ily-based programs-general parent education visits had less than half as many arrests as 706 Conduct Disorder, Aggression lind Delinquency

children of mother~ who received no visits The most recent follow-up of thi" program (Olds el aL 1(98). According to Aos. Phipps. at age 40 found that it continued to make an Barnoski. and Lieb (200Ia). the benefit-lo­ important difference in the Ii \es of the partici­ cost ratio for high risk mothers was 3.J. based panl~ (Schweinhart et al.. ~0051. Compared to on savings to crime victims and criminal JUs­ the control group. those who received the pro­ lice. (For a recenl revie\\ of home visiting pro­ gram had significantly fewer lifetime arresh for grams. see Olds. Sadler. & Kitzman. 2007.) violent crimes (32 c;I, vs. 4Wk). property crimes (30t;'r v". 5Mir'J, and drug crime'. (149i vs. Preschool Programs :~4<;(,), and they were significantly less likely to One of the most successful early prevention be arrested five or more times (36'X vs. 55'J, ). programs has been the Perry preschool proj­ Improvements were abo recorded in many other ect carried out in Michigan by Schweinhart important life-course outcomes. For example. and Weikart (1980). This was essentially a significantly higher levels of schooling (779( "Head Start" program targeted on disadvan­ vs. 60'i{ graduating from high school). beller taged African American children. The experi­ records of employment (7(l% vs. 62'Y(). and mental children attended a daily preschool higher annual incomes were reported by the program. backed up by weekly home VIS­ program group compared to the controls. its, usually lasting two years (covering ages Several economic analyses show that the 3-4). The aim of the "plan-do-review" pro­ financial benefits of thi~ program outweighed gram was to provide intellectual stimulation. ilS costs. The Perry project's own calculation to increase thinking and reasoning abilities, (Barnett 19(3) included crime and noncrime and to increase later school achievement. benefits, intangible costs to victims. and even As demonstrated in several other Head included projected benefits beyond age 27. Start projects. the experimental group showed This generated the famow; benefit-to-cost ratio gains in intelligence that were rather short­ of 7 to I. Most of the benefits (65 %) were lived. However. the experimental children derived from savings to crime victims. The were significantly better in elementary school most recent cost-benefit analysis at age 40 motivation. school achievement at age 14, found that the program produced $J 7 in ben­ teacher ratings of classroom behavior at ages efits per $1 of cost. 6-9, self-reports of classroom behavior at Like the Perry project. the Child age 15, and self-reports of offending at age Parent Center (CPC) in Chicago provided 15. A later follow-up of the Perry sample disadvantaged children with a high-quality. (Berrueta-Clement Schweinhart. Barnett. active learning preschool supplemented with Epstein, & Weikart. 1984) showed that, at age family support (Reynolds, Temple, Robertson. 19, the experimental group was more likely & Mann, 2001). However. unlike Perry. to be employed, more likely to have gradu­ CPC continued to provide the children with ated from high school. more likely to have the educational enrichment component into received college or vocational training. and elementary schooL up to age 9. Focussing on less likely to have been arrested. By age 27, the effect of the preschool intervention. it was the experimental group had accumulated only found that. compared to a control group. those half as many arrests on average as the controls who received the program were less likely to iSchweinhart et al.. I (93). Also. they had sig­ be arresled for both nonviolent and violent nificantly higher earnings and were more likely offenses by the time they were 18. The CPC to be homeowners. Hence. this preschool intel­ program also produced other benefit~ for those lectual enrichment program led to decreases in in the experimental compared to the control school failure, to decreases in delinquency. and group, such as a higher rate of high school to decrease" in other undesirable outcomes. completion. Successful Interventions 707

by randomly allocating 426 children aged 4 training is also an effective method of (most with single mothers on welfare) either evt'llU'''b delinquency (Piquero, Farrington, to an experimental group that received parent Tremblay, & Jennings, 2008). Many training or to a control group that did not. The types of parent training have been experimental mothers met in groups every (Kazdin. 1997). but the behavioral par­ week for 8 or 9 weeki>, watched videotapes management trammg developed by demonstrating parenting skills, and then took (1982) in Oregon is one of the most part in focused group discussions. The topics approaches. His careful observations included how to play with your child, helping parent--chlld interaction showed that par­ your child learn. using praise and encourage­ of antisocial children were deficient in ment to bring out the best in your child, effec­ methods of child rearing. These parents tive setting of limits, handling misbehavior, to tell their children how they were how to teach your child to solve problems, and to behave, failed to monitor their how to give and get support. The program was to ensure that it was desirable, successful. Observations in the home showed failed to enforce rules promptly and that the experimental children behaved better

C!Ul,,,U..., ..,,,,y with appropriate rewards and than the control children (see also Webster­ The parents of antisocial children Stratton, 2000). more punishment (such as scolding, Sanders, Markie-Dadds, Tully, and Bor or threatening), but failed to make it (2000), in Brisbane, Australia, developed the . on the child's behavior. Triple-P Parenting program. This can either be method involved linking delivered to the whole community in primary prevention using the mass media or can it be used in secondary prevention with high-risk methods, namely noticing what or clinic samples. The success of Triple-P was evaluated with high-risk children aged 3 by randomly assigning them either to receive Triple-P or to a control group. The Triple-P and negotiating disagreements so program involves teaching parents 17 child ts and crises did not escalate. His management strategies, including talking was shown to be effective in reduc­ with children, giving physical affection, prais­ ild stealing and antisocial behavior over ing, giving attention, setting a good example, periods in small-scale studies (Dishion, setting rules, giving clear instructions, and & Kavanagh, 1992; Patterson, using appropriate penalties for misbehavior ,_,.u"'. ,,,,,,u, & Reid, 1982; Patterson, Reid. ("time-out," or sending the child to his or her Dishion, 1992). However, the treatment room). The evaluation showed that the Triple-P best with children aged 3-10 and program was successful in reducing children's well with adolescents. Also, there were antisocial behavior. of achieving cooperation from the Another parenting intervention, Functional experiencing the worst problems. In Family Therapy, was evaluated in Utah by single mothers on welfare were Alexander and Parsons (1973). This aimed

"',"",",J'l1l;; so many different stresses that to modify patterns of family interaction by found it difficult to use consistent and modeling, prompting, and reinforcement; to child-rearing methods. encourage clear communication of requests One of the most famous parent training and solutions between family members; and

'

tu ,et clear rule~ about pri\iJeges and respon~ behavior on other people. especially their vic~ sibilities. and to u:-.e tec:hnigue~ of reciproc:al tims. It included social skills training. lateral reinforcement with each other. This technique thinking (to teach creative problem ~olving). halved the recidivism rate of minor delinquents critical thinking (to teach logical reasoning). in comparison with other approaches (cliem~ values education (to teach values and concern centered or psychodynamic therapy). Its effec~ for others). asserti veness trai ni ng (to teach tiveness with more '-.crious delinquents was nonaggressive. socially appropriate ways to confirmed in a replication study using malc:hed obtain desired outcomes). negotiation 'ikills groups (Gordon. 1<)95: see also Sexton & training. interpersonal cognitive problem solv­ Alexander. 2(00). ing (to teach thinking skills for solving inter~ The multidimensional treatment foster personal problems). social perspective training care (MTFC) program. evaluated in Oregon (to teach how to recognize and understand by Chamberlain and Reid (19<)8). also pro~ other people's feelings). role playing and mod~ duced desirable results. In treatment foster eling (demonstration and practice of effective care. families in the community were recruited and acceptable interpersonal behavior). This and trained to provide a placement for delin~ program led to a large decrease in reoffending quem youths. The MTFC youths were closely by a small sample of delinLjuents. supervised at home. in the community. and in Tong and Fan'ington (2008) completed the school, and their contacts with delinquent a systematic review of the effectiveness of peers were minimized. The foster parents pro­ "Reasoning and Rehabilitation" in reducing vided a structured daily living environment offending. They located 32 comparisons of with clear rules and limits. consistent discipline experimental and control groups in four coun­ for rule violations and one-to-one monitoring. tries. Their meta-analysis showed that. over~ The youths were encouraged to develop aca~ alL there was a significant 14% decrease in demic skills and desirable work habits. In the offending for program participants compared evaluation. 79 chronic male delinquents were with controls. randomly assigned to treatment foster care or Jones and Offord (I 9S9) implemented to regular group homes where they lived with a skills training program in an experimen­ other delinquents. A I-year follow-up showed tal public housing complex in Ottawa and that the MTFC boys had fewer criminal refer­ compared it with a control complex. The rals and lower self-reported delinquency. program centered on nonschool ski lis. both Hence. this program seemed to be an effeetive athletic (e.g .. swimming and hockey) and non­ treatment for delinquency. athletic (e.g., guitar and ballet). The aim of developing skills was to increase self-esteem. Skills Training to encourage children to use lime construc~ The set of techniques variously termed cog­ tively and to provide desirable role models. nitive beharioral interpersonal social skills Participation rates were high; about three­ Iminillg have proved to be successful (Lipsey quarters of age-eligible children in the experi~ & Wilson. I 99S J. For example, the "Reasoning mental complex took at least one course in the and Rehabilitation" program developed by first year. The program was successful: delin~ Ross and Ross (I <)95) in Ottawa. Canada. guency rates decreased significantly in the aimed to modify the impUlsive. egocentric experimental complex compared to the control thinking of delinguents, to teach them to stop complex. The benefit -to-cost ratio. based on and think before acting. to consider the con­ savings to taxpayers. was 2.5. sequences of their behavior. to conceptual­ Uisel and Seelman (2006) completed a ize alternative ways of solving interpersonal systematic review of the effectiveness of skills problems. and to consider the impact of their training with children and adolescent.s. They Successful Interventions 709 located 89 comparisons of experimental and tutoring, mentoring, after-school activities and control groups. Their meta-analysis showed community policing. The program was differ­ that, overall, there was a significant 10% ent in each neighborhood. decrease in delinquency in follow-up studies The initial results of the program were dis­ for children who received skills training com­ appointing, but a one-year follow-up showed pared with controls, The greatest effect was that (according to self-reports) experimental for cognitive-behavioral skills training, where youths were less likely to have committed vio­ there was an average 25% decrease in delin­ lent crimes and used or sold drugs (Harrell, quency in seven follow-up studies. The most Cavanagh, & Sridharan, 1999). The process effecti ve programs targeted children aged 13 or evaluation showed that the greatest change older and high-risk groups who were already was in peer risk factors. Experimental youths exhibiting behavior problems. associated less often with delinquent peers, felt less peer pressure to engage in delin­ Peer Programs quency, and had more positive peer support. In There are few outstanding examples of effec­ contrast, there were few changes in individual, tive intervention programs for antisocial family or community risk factors, possibly behavior targeted on peer risk factors. The linked to the low participation of parents in most hopeful programs involve using high­ parent training and of youths in mentoring and status conventional peers to teach children tutoring (Harrell et aI., 1997. p. 87). In other ways of resisting peer pressure; this is effec­ words, there were problems of implementation tive in reducing drug use (Tobler, Lessard, of the program, linked to the serious and mul­ Marshall, Ochshom, & Roona, 1999). Also, in a tiple needs and problems of the families. randomized experiment in S1. Louis, Feldman, Community-based mentoring programs Caplinger, and Wodarski (1983) showed that usually involve nonprofessional adult volun­ placing antisocial adolescents in activity teers spending time with young people at groups dominated by prosocial adolescents risk for delinquency, dropping out of schooL led to a reduction in their antisocial behavior school failure, or other social problems. (compared with antisocial adolescents placed Mentors behave in a "supportive, nonjudg­ in antisocial groups). This suggests that the mental manner while acting as role models" influence of prosocial peers can be harnessed (Howell, 1995. p. 90). Welsh and Hoshi (2006) to reduce antisocial behavior. However, put­ identified seven community-based mentoring ting antisocial peers together can have harmful programs (of which six were of high qual­ effects (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999). ity) that evaluated the impact on delinquency. The most important intervention program Since most programs found desirable effects, whose success seems to be based mainly on Welsh and Hoshi concluded that community­ reducing peer risk factors is the Children at based mentoring was a promising approach Risk program (Harrell, Cavanagh, Harmon, in preventing delinquency. Similarly, a meta­ Koper, & Sridharan, 1997), which targeted analysis by Jolliffe and Farrington (2008) con­ high-risk adolescents (average age 12) in cluded that mentoring was often effective in poor neighborhoods of five cities across reducing reoffending. the United States. Eligible youths were identified in schools, and randomly assigned School Programs to experimental or control groups. The pro­ An important school-based prevention experi­ gram was a comprehensive community-based ment was carried out in Seattle by Hawkins. prevention strategy targeting risk factors for von Cleve, and Catalano (1991). This com­ delinquency. including case management bined parent training, teacher training, and and family counseling, family skills training, skills training. About 500 first-grade children 710 Cunduct Disorder, Aggression and Delinquenc)'

(aged 6) were randomly a~signed to be in the GBG was played repeatedly over :2 years. experimental or control c1as~es, The children In trajectory analyses. the researchers found in the experimental classes received special that the GBG decreased aggressive/disruptive treatment at horne and schooL which was behavior (according to teacher reports) up to designed to im:rea"e their attachment to their grade 7 among the most aggressive boys. and parent" and their bonding to the schooL on also caused a decrease in APD at ages J9-21. the assumption that delinquency was inhib­ However. effects on girls and on a second ited by the strength of social bonds. Their cohort of children were less marked. parents were trained to notice and reinforce There have been anumberofcomprehensive. socially desirable behavior in a program called evidence-based reviews of the effectiveness of "Catch Them Being Good." Their teachers school-based programs (Gottfredson. Wi Ison. & were trained in classroom management for Najaka, 2006; Wilson. Gottfredson, & Najaka, example. to provide clear instructions and 200 I: Wilson & Lipsey, 2007). Meta-analyses expectations to children, to reward children for identified four types of school-based programs participation in desired behavior, and to teach that were effective in preventing delinquency: children prosocial (socially desirable) methods school and discipline management. classroom or solving problems. or instructional management. reorganization of In an evaluation of this program 18 months grades or classes, and increasing self-control later. when the children were in differentdasses, or social competency using cognitive behav­ Hawkins et al. ( 1991) found that the boys who ioral instruction methods. Reorganization of received the experimental program were sig­ grades or classes had the largest average effect nificantly less aggressive than the control size (d 0.34), corresponding to a significant boys, according to teacher ratings. This dif­ 17% reduction in delinquency. ference was particularly marked for Caucasian After-school programs (e.g" recreation­ boys rather than African American boys. The based, drop-in clubs. dance groups, and experimental girls were not significantly less tutoring services) are based on the belief that aggressive. but they were less self-destructive, providing prosocial opportunities for young anxious, and depressed. In a later follow-up, people in the after-school hours can reduce Hawkins, Catalano, Kosterman. Abbott. and their involvement in delinquent behavior in Hill (1999) found that. at age 18. the full inter­ the community. After-school programs target a vention group (those receiving the intervention range of risk factors for delinquency, including from grades I to 6) admitted less violence, less association with delinquent peers. Welsh and alcohol abuse and fewer sexual partners than Hoshi (2006) identified three high-quality the late intervention group (grades 5-6 only) after-school programs with an evaluated impact or the controls. The benefit-to-cost ratio of this on delinquency. Each had desirable effects 0/1 program according to Aos et al. (2001 a) wa~ delinquency, and one program also reported 4.3. Other school-based programs have also lower rates of drug use for participants com­ been i>uccessful in reducing antisocial behav­ pared to controls. ior (Catalano et al.. 1995). In Baltimore, Petras et al. (ZOOS) evaluated Anti-Bullying Programs the "Good Behavior Game" (GBG). which Several school-based programs have been aimed to n:duce aggressive and disruptive child designed 10 decrease hullying. The most behavior through contingent reinforcement famous of these was implemented by Olweus of interdependent team behavior. First-grade (1994) in Norway. It aimed to increase aware· classrooms and teachers were randomly ness and knowledge of teachers. parents, and assigned either to the GBG condition (N children about bullying and to dispel myths or to a control condition (N = 165). and about it A 30-page hooklet was distributed Successful Interventions 711

to all schools in Norway describing what was countries. Of these, eight yielded clearly desir­ known about bullying and recommending what able results and only two yielded undesirable steps schools and teachers could take to reduce negative effects on bullying. They concluded it. Also, a 25-minute video about bullying was that the findings of existing evaluations were made available to schools. Simultaneously, the generally optimistic. Similarly optimistic con­ schools distributed to all parents a four-page clusions were drawn in systematic reviews folder containing information and advice about by Vreeman and Carroll (2007) and Ttofi, bullying. In addition, anonymous self-report Farrington, and Baldry (2008). questionnaires about bullying were completed by all children. Multimodal Programs The program was evaluated in Bergen. Multimodal programs including both skills Each of the 42 participating schools received training and parent training are more effective feedback information from the questionnaire, than either alone (Wasserman & Miller, about the prevalence of bullies and victims, 1998). An important multimodal program in a specially arranged school conference day. was implemented by Tremblay, Pagani-Kurtz, Also, teachers were encouraged to develop Vitaro, Masse, and Pihl (1995) in Montreal, explicit rules about bullying (e.g., do not bully, Canada. They identified about 250 disruptive tell someone when bullying happens, bullying (aggressivelhyperactive) boys at age '6 for a will not be tolerated, try to help victims, try prevention experiment. Between ages 7 and to include children who are being left out) 9, the experimental group received training to and to discuss bullying in class, using the foster social skills and self-control. Coaching, video and role-playing exercises. Also, peer modeling, role playing, and reinforcement teachers were encouraged to improve monitor­ contingencies were used in small group ing and supervision of children. especially on sessions on such topics as "how to help," the playground. The program was successful "what to do when you are angry," and "how to in reducing the prevalence of bullying by half. react to teasing." Also, their parents were A similar program was implemented in trained using the parent management training England in 23 Sheffield schools by Smith and techniques developed by Patterson (1982). Sharp (1994). The core program involved estab­ This prevention program was successful. lishing a "whole-school" anti-bullying policy, By age 12, the experimental boys committed raising awareness of bullying and clearly less burglary and theft, were less likely to get defining roles and responsibilities of teachers drunk, and were less likely to be involved in and students, so that everyone knew what bul­ fights than the controls. Also, the experimental lying was and what they should do about it. boys had higher school achievement. At every In addition. there were optional interventions age from to to 15, the experimental boys had tailored to particular schools: curriculum work lower self-reported delinquency scores than the (e.g., reading books, watching videos), direct control boys. Interestingly, the differences in work with students (e.g., assertiveness training antisocial behavior between experimental and for those who were bullied), and playground control boys increased as the follow-up pro­ work (e.g., training lunchtime supervisors). gressed. A later follow-up showed that fewer This program was successful in reducing bul­ experimental boys had a criminal record by lying (by 15%) in primary schools, but had age 24 (Boisjoli, Vitaro, Lacourse, Barker, & relatively small effects (a 5% reduction) in Tremblay, 2007), secondary schools. intervention programs that tackle several Baldry and Farrington (2007) reviewed of the major risk factors for CD and delin­ 16 major evaluations of programs to prevent quency are likely to be particularly effective. school bullying, conducted in II different Henggeler, Melton, Smith, Schoenwald, and 712 ConducllJisorder, Aggression and Dclinqucnc:,;

Hanley (1993) in South Carolina evaluated onset but also frequency. seriousness. duration. multisystemic therapy (MST) for jU\enile escalation. deescalation. desistance. remission. offenders. tackling family. peer. and school risk motivation and situational influences. More factors simultaneously in individualized treat­ studies are needed with multiple informants ment plans tailored to the needs of each family. and frequent measurements. MST was compared with the usual Department How the prevalence and incidence of anti­ of Youth Service" treatment. involving social behavior varies between ages I () and 17 out-of-home placement in the majority of is less well understood. The existing evidence cases. In a randomized experiment with delin­ suggests that the incidence of phy"ical aggres­ quents. MST was followed by fewer arrests. sion decreases during adolescence but that the lower ...e1f-reported delinquency. and less peer­ prevalence of CD and delinquency increase. oriented aggression. Borduin et al. (1995 j More research is needed 011 the age distribution also showed that MST was more effective in of different types of antisocial behaVIOr. in order decreasing arrests and antisocial hehavior than to explain these lindings. Abo. more research was individual therapy. According to Aos. is needed on different types of developmental Phipps. BarlloskL and Lieh (200 I bJ. MST had pathways and trajectories dunng this age range, one of the highest benefit-to-cost ratios of any A great deal is known about the key risk fac­ program. For every $1 spent on it. $13 was tors for adolescent antisocial behavior. which saved In victim and criminal justice costs. include impulsiveness. low empathy. low IQ MST was the most effective intervention and low school achievement. poor parental in the review by Farrington and Welsh (2003). supervision. child physical abuse. punitive or However. since that review two later meta-anal­ erratic parental discipline. cold parental atti· yses have reached dramatically opposite con­ tude. parental conflict. disrupted families. anti­ clusions about the effectiveness of MST; Curtis. social parents. large family size, low family Ronan. and Borduin (2004) concluded that income. antisocial peers. high-delinqucncy­ it was effective, but Littell (2005) concluded rate schools. and high-crime neighborhoods. that it was not. Therefore. we cannot be conti­ However. the causal mechanisms linking these dent about the effectiveness of MST until this risk factors with antisocial outcomes are less controversy is resolved by more evaluations. well established. Larger developmental theo­ ries that explain broader patterns of results CONCLUSIONS need to be formulated and tested (Lahey. Moffitt. & Caspi, 2003; Farrington. 2005). A great deal is known about adolescent anti­ More research is needed on risk factors for per­ social behavior from high-quality longitudi­ sistence or escalation of antisocial hehavior. To nal and experimental studies. First. males are what extent risk factors are the same for males more antisocial than females. Second, alJ types and females, for different ethnic groups. or at (including CD. aggression, and delinquency) different ages need!:> to be investigated. More tend to coexist and are intercorrelated. Third. cross-national comparisons of risk factors. and the most antisocial adolescents at one age tend more studies of promotive and protective fac­ also to be the most antisocial at a later age. tors. arc needed. Fourth. an early onset of antisocial behavior The comorbidity and versatility of antisocial predicts a long and serious antisoclal career. behavior poses a major challenge to scientific However. both the prevalence and the age of understanding. It is important to investigate to onset ofantisocial behavior ca!1 vary dramatically what extent research findings are driven by a according to ih definition and how it is measured. minority of multiple-problem adolescents or Research is needed on a wider range of features chronic delinquents. Often. multiple risk fac­ of antisocial careers; not jusl prevalence and tors lead to multiple-problem boys (Farrington. References 713

2002; Loeber et aL 2001). To what extent any screening or needs assessment to determine given risk factor generally predicts a variety of which problems need to be rectified and which different outcomes (as opposed to specifically adolescents are most likely to be amenable to predicting one or two outcomes) and to what treatment. It is important to establish to what extent each outcome is generally predicted by extent interventions are successful with the a variety of different risk factors (as opposed to most antisocial adolescents, in order to identify being specifically predicted by only one or two where the benefits will be greatest in practice. risk factors) is unclear. An increasing number Also, more cost-benefit analyses are needed, ofrisk factors leads to an increasing probability to show how much money is saved by suc­ of antisocial outcomes, almost irrespective of cessful programs. Saving money is a powerful the particular risk factors included in the pre­ argument to convince policy makers and prac­ diction measure, but more research is needed titioners to implement intervention programs. on this. There was insufficient space in this A great deal has been learned about adoles­ chapter to review theories explaining the links cent antisocial behavior in the past 25 years, between risk factors and antisocial outcomes, especially from longitudinal and experimen­ but these have to be based on knowledge about tal studies. More investment in these kinds of the additive, independent, interactive, and studies is needed in the next 25 years in order sequential effects of risk factors. to advance knowledge about and decrease There are many examples of successful these troubling social problems. intervention programs, including general parent education in home visiting programs, preschool Acknowledgments intellectual enrichment programs, parent man­ I am very grateful to Rowell Huesmann, Ben agement training, cognitive behavioral skills Lahey, Rolf Loeber, Barbara Maughan, Terrie training, anti-bullying and other school pro­ Moffitt, and Richard Tremblay for providing grams, mentoring and after-school programs, helpful comments and materials. and multimodal programs including individual and family interventions. The meta-analysis by Farrington and Welsh (2003) concluded that the REFERENCES average effect size of family-based programs on delinquency was d 0.32, corresponding Achenbach. T M. (1993). Empirical1.1< based taxollomy: How to use syndromes and profile types derived from li1e CBCJA-IB. TRF to a decrease in the percentage convicted from alld YSR. Burlington. VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. 50% to 34%. However, many experiments are Achenbach. T M.. Dumonci. L. & Rescorla. L< A. (2003). Are based on small samples and short follow-up American children's problems still gettmg worse" A 23-year comparison. Journal of Abnonnal Child Psyclwlogy, 3 J, 1-1 L periods. The challenge to researchers is to trans­ Achenbach. T M .. Verhulst, F. c.. Baron. G< D .. & Althaus, M< port carefully monitored small-scale programs ( 1987). A comparison of syndromes deri ved from the child behavior checklist for American and Dutch boys aged 6-11 implemented by high-quality university person­ and 12-16< Journal Qf Child PsrcJlOiogy ond Psychiatry. 28. nel into routine large-scale use, without losing 437--453< Alexandec J. F.. & Parsons. B< V (19731< Shon-Ierm behavioral their effectiveness. Often, multimodal programs interventIOn with delinquent families: Impact on family process are the most successful, making it difficult to and recidivism. Journal t!fAbnormal P,lychologv. 81, 219-225. identify the active ingredient. Successful mul­ American PsychIatric A"ociation. (1994)< DW/illOSlic alld slalis­ tical manual or memul disorders (4th ed<). Washington, DC: timodal programs should be followed by more American Psychiatric Association specific experiments targeting single risk fac­ Anderson, C. A .. & Huesmann, L R. (2003)< Human aggression: A social-cognitive Vlew< In M< A. Hog" & J. Cooper (Ed•.). Sage tors, which could be very helpful in establishing handi)()ok oj sociail'.l·vciwloRY (pp. 296-323)< London

a;p .k,. 714 Conduct Disorder, A/.\gression and Delinquency

Capaldi. D \1...& PUilC-;'·,tJli. (;. P i :9961. Cull vldl-:n: olft:nuCf' {nT (\,;-,1 .. and hellCrll" (I! prut!r.lIn, U: n:;Ju~~ ~nnH: ..:>.. rl'\ 1(:\\ hI.." uL"llnguhhed I:-urn frcyw:n; ofh:;)dt'f>'" Prt.:dlctinn hom ,,! rc'-;ean:h fir.ding' \\ Itl! J:nplil.:;'liioll' lor \\a..,hington 'state. In dlildb..mi [C· aJuk"CCllCt:. .lUI/owl (,f RnCiffcli [/1 CVIIlI! (l1!(! 1:3. C Welsh. D, P rarrmgtun. & L \V ~ha!l1

I II.JYX ) Parelllin~ inilu.:nu.;\ lal("-oll~':I, and on rtlllyin;: and LC,,\{if wul Cnmif1%gicu! p'qc!,,;!(1\{l. 3. ~~7· ~54. C4>;Pi. A. \:;(00). Thl' chlid j:-.. lalher 1,11 lhl' !llan' Per"olUllil: conlJ~ l3aklr:;. A. C. 8.: Farringl(lll, D. P. 1.:'0071. [.fIt'Lm ene\.., nujue~ t rom chilJhtJod lo ddulthood. Jnutlwl of rer,'o/Intllar dlul 10 pn:\'l'lll \l'huol hulJ\in~ hi'lim.\ tintl (!(tui(ltr.}.::, ,'jociul PI'ydwlugy. 7i,. 1:)~-- 172,

B~lrh.cr. L. D.. Seguin. J R.o \Vhilc. H. R .. Uale". f\t f~.. L1L:Our:-.t.'. Car~onfll;alL R .. L'l al ~ 2007 L Oboll.J.llj{j4i:s!.( ha:-ec rit":. 01 mah.: \ lolem:\.: and rheh inlt"f\ l'IlIJOf'l" to PH:-\ I.:nl ilnu;,ucial hch<1" 101 III k. LOl'her 6­ i\rl-/II';:Ifrr. (J-r D. P Farringloll (hi..... }, S'ennu." and rlolen: )11It-'11i1(' I;/lt.'ml­ as: RisA ji(ClOn' fwd ,\wcn:..jll{ iWCtTCIIIIr.'!i\ Ipp. 24;)-,2«.3; BarnelL W S. I IU(UJ Co:.I--hL'lh:fil ;,uwiy ... i~. In L 1. Sdn.;,.cmharl. Thpll~aud Oah ..... CA: Sage. H V Bamr:~_ &. D_ P Wei!"'arl (Ed... L Si,f;ni/icallf heJlt~t{I.L lile l1ir,Ii/Sn'pr I'ern Prc\c/]pf){ Sllu/\ lhmtlglJ ox!' ]7 ipp. l-l~ Cat"lallo. K. F. Hawk;r" J. Do. B"r~!und. L Pollard. J. A. &:

t73 L ") p... ilanu. rv11: High/S!,,:upc Prt.:'~ AnhUJ, M. W·. (~:()02l Pro..'\c·miotl \{'leIK'e UIlJ po... itlvt.' youth UC',"I<""'I<"'.II: Cumpclili\e ill cnopclallh' 11'<1l1lL'\\ nrb" .Iollnw/ IJunin. S. R.. Hill. K. G .. A~holl. R. D .. Ca!ala"o. R. 1.. 6: flaw,i", en! flealtit, ,1' I, 2.iO--::.4\l J. 1)_ \ 19t)X). Tiu:" cuntrihu!ioll of ganf: Ilh:mhcf.,hip 10 ilL'lill yUl,.'IK'y bt:yond ddillljUL'lll fnL'nd~, ('nmii/o/rn.:.\, 3(;, 9.~- i 15 Ct:rnJ..ovidL S. A.. Gionjunu. P. C,. & Pugh. M. I), I!S;X)l. ChrnHir otfcmh:r~. TilL' ml .... :-in~ C

Blum. H. M .. Boyle. M. H.. 6: Ofi'ord. lJ. R. II~X~1. Single-pare"! BrunncrlMa.t1..:I, f::ulliiil!:,; Chlid p"y-chialric disorder ilnd :-.dlUU! perfurmailL'c Clarke. R. V i 1995;. Snuatiollui LTJtnc pn:Yl!ntlon. In M TUHl) Juurnal (:/" rhe AJfleriC'fJ11 Ai (ldclIl.\' (:{ Cllild (lIId Al/o/eSCCfil & D, P. Farrington (E ..I\. L Building l: wIer .\odef,"\, .",'f/"llu>gh fJ!irclii(//I~r .:: 14<: I I), apIJmac!K.\ tu criJ.!1l' ImTl'llfioll (PP. 1)1-----150) ChJcago: Rui:.joli. R .. Vilaro. f, L.lt'uurl-c. E" l3arker. L D .. &. Trcmrlay, l.:ni\,t."r:-itJ of Chka¥-o Pn:'l-.'-, Ie L ('2007) and clmica! \iglljfi..:~nL"t: of d pn'::\t::mivc Cohell, P,. Brook. J. S. C~\hL'n. J.. VL'le/" C j\;" &. Cj;'l!"\,:ia, !v1. 1lYt)(jI. imervcntloll for hoy:-._ Hrifish JUllrJW/ (~r Psvc/lIutr.L Common and uncommon lO adok;,l'l:nt p~yChO;Ktth()l- I'If.41'\---IIY. and problem behu\'ioL In L Rohill,.., &. :\1. Rutter (Ed;.,,), BurduH!. C M .. ~lann. B, J . COlle. LT. Henggelcr. $, W.. Fucci. uml del'iolls jlathways .from c/iildiJuod In Udff/l/}ood B. R", Blal-~a:. D. M.. CL al. i 1t)95J, Mullisysh:miL' lreatment of (JlIlhridge: Cambrid!!f.' l~nj\('rsil:' Pre:-.~, .... erit)u~ ju\cnile offender:." pre\ention of Criminality Cohen. p., Cohl'n. 1., &: Brook, J. (199.ih}. An epidemiological and vioh:nce. Jf.lIfFlW/ of awl Cliuic(li Psychology, ~tlldy or" lii:-.order:-. in lale duldhi..x)u and adole:-.cence. Ii ()3. 569-578, Per~iSlenL'e of ilil'lonli.:r:-. Jou1'IIal f;1 C/lild Psrclw/ogy (lnd Brennan. r A .. Mednick. B R.. 6: Mednick. S. A. i 1993). Parental Psydlia/ry, 34. ~6Y----R77. p'\ychopathology. congenital fal'tors, and violence. In Cohen, P.. Cohell. J.. Ku,"". S.. Vde/. C. N HUrimark. c.. S.Hudgin-" (Ed.), ,III/cmu! di.Yorr/('r and crime tpp. 244----261 L .Juhn!'oll_ J" cl ttl. (199:':J). An epidcllliological ;o;wdy o! di;:.­ 'kwhur) Pal". C/I: Sage. order:-. in hue childhood and adolcl-ct'ncc. 1: Age and gcnJ.:r­ Broid,. L M .. Nugm.lJ. S.. Trcmhluy. R. E.. Bu!e".I. L Brume. B .. specific prevalence jourllal (~r Child 1).\~n·h(Jlogy and K. A .. c! aL (20tH). Dcvelopmcl1wl tr;]y,~cloriet- of Psychiatry, 34. 85 !-867. disruptive hehavior.\ and adolcSCCnl Coie. J. D. & DoJgc. K, .A.. ( I {Nt; I AggITs:~ion and anlis{1cii.d hcha\·· Del e/opmellfal 1'.ll,'c/'f'h'er. ior. In W. Damon ,wd ~, fEd:._ L H{f}u/l)(Jo~, of child ~22-~~5. fJJYc!w;oJ.!Y {5th t'd. i_ \'01. _~: f'}!lOfiollul tau! pc/'.wnalit.) Brownfield. D., & Sorcn~on, .A. M (1494). Sib;.;hip hi!.t: and slhlinf l!n-e/upmellf lpp. 779~Ro2~ !\e\\ YnrL John \V'iie:' 6: Snn:-." (il::1inqul,,'l1cy, !kl'iwlllJdwl'irn; /5,45-61 Co;e. 1. D.. Dodge. K. A.. & BlIt.'hlfr. C. Antlwny, C . Kri,lmaklJlHar. A,. Stonl'_ G .. (jcrard..L hcha\'i('f and MIl'lal :-.lalU;-'. &. Pt:'lllbenOIL S_ (1'-)<)7). Interparenwl conflict and youth proh­ Pl;'o' reifYJiol1 in chiltl!to(ll! (PI', 17.·-591. Cambridge: Camhridge kill beha\'inr~: A md;I-,lnalysi,,,, .!nurJW! <-:1 Child (lml Falllily liniversity Pre"". Stilt/ies, (). 213-~47 ('oJc-, J. D .. &. Milkr~.Iollll!\on, 5" l2001 I. Peer faclor... and inh::rven, BllI'i-.t. J. [J,. Lm:h(,:L R.. & B:nnafll'L l-L C3002i. OPPo\lljonal tlons. In f{, I~oeher &. D. P. hmwt!I(11l (reUS. L ("Ilild dclIJUI11t'ni\: dl'fi,lIl! dl:-ordcr and (OndUCl tlj~onkr: A n."yil,;w of lllV pu:-.t JO /J('t'('lojJ!fwm. illlCITenllOli. and .\('JTin-' !If'''!;'\ (pr, 191· 209L year:-, part 2, Journal 01 'he AI/writ (11/ Anuh'I/I.' of Child mul Thou:-and Oul:--, CA, S:lgC AI;ulcsu:'!l! Psychia!n. 41, 1275-1.2i)~. Colder. C. R .. &: Slin'. c. (IQ9XI. A lon~ilUdjna' ~llIdy nf'the ll1ll'l'­ Bur'e. J. D .. I_ocher. R.. Luhe). 1:;. B .. <.: Rathou? P..1. (21)05) aClive effect;.. pf impul\l\'jl~ and f)n'elopuK'IlI.ai tran.,itiom, all)0l1.£2 affcc[J\'L' and hehavior,d heha\ ioe journal (!f}fllllh Adolf''''''''''' ~7. di.,ordcr'- in adolt:-l'l'lll hoy~. )OU,.;ui! 01 eMitl />,\ .....cJw/ory tIIul Collislw¥.> S .. GOUdtllUfL R .. Pkldc~. A .. & !'Vluughan, B C:::007 J. V'i} i·hiilll~Y . .;(). I ~OO-·I ~ I 0, Modelllllg the (\mtribution of ill filmjl~ life III linll' HUO!e.... CCI11 .)'oeiol SCI('nc(' {(wi (aim:., R, B. &: C~lirn\_13 D. j 19941. J)ld/llf'.\ mrd lisk;: Jlarln'.-uy.\ trends in conduct f:1 youth in our 111!/{'. Camhndgt:: Cilmhridge t1nhl'rsity Pre:--.", /I1cdirilll'. 05. 257(1

young adult crime: A prospective. populatlon-ba~ed study, Farrington, D, P. (l Y83), Randomized experiment~ on crime and American Joum,,/ of PHthiulry, 164, 166~~1675 jus.tice. [n M. Tonry & N, Morri~ (Ed~.j, Crime andjustict:, voL Costello, E. L Angold, A .. Burns, B, L Erkanli, A .. Stangl. D, K, (pp. 257~308). Chicago; University of Chicago Press, & Tweed, D. L. (1996). The Great Smoky Mountain; Study of Farrington, D. P. (l986a). Age and crime. In M. Tonry &. N. Morris Youth: FunctlOnal impairment und ~eriow. emotional dismr­ (Eds,), Crime and ju.l1icc, vol. 7 (pp. 189.. 250). ChIcago: bance. ArchiveJ 01 General Pn'Chiutr\, 53, 1137~1143, University of Chicago Pres~. Cote, S. M .. Vaillancourt. T. LeBlanc, j, C .. Nagin, D, S .. & Farrington, D, P. (19S6b). Stepping stones to adult criminal career;. Tremblay, R. E. 12(06), The development of physical aggres­ In D. Olweu>, l. Block, & M. R. Yarro" (Ed>,), Depelol'mrnJ sion from toddlehood to pre-adolescence: A nationwide longi­ (~fall1is()cial and pcomciai behal'ior (pp. 359-384), Ne" York' tudinal study of Canadian children, Juurnal ofAbnormal Child Academic Press. PSycilOlugy, 34, 71-85. Farrington, D p, (1989a). Early predictors of adolescent aggression Cf'a.ig, W, M .. Pepler, D" & Alia;, R. (2001)). Observations of bully­ and adult violence. Violence and VictimJ, 4, 79-100, ing in the playground and in the classroom. Schuol Psychoiogy Farrington, D. p, (1989b). Self-reported and oftlcial offending from lnternationa', 21, 12~36. adolescence to adulthood, In M, W. Klein (Ed.), Cross-national Crick, N, R., & Grotpeter, l, K, (1995). Relational aggression, gen­ research jn self-reported crime and deiinquen(v (pp. 399-423), der. and social-psychological ad)usunent. Child DeJ'rlol>ment. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. 66.710-722, Farrington, D, p, (1990), Implications of criminal career research for Curtis, N, M., Ronan, K, R., & Borduin, C. M. (2004). Multisystemic the prevention of offending. lournal afAdolescrnce, 13,93-113. treatment: A meta-analysi~ of outcome .~tudie::,. Journal of Farrington, D, p, (1991). Childhood aggression and adult violence: Family P,wciwlogy, fl!,411-419. Early precursors and later life outcomes. In D, J. Pepler & Denno, D. W. (l990). Biology and viulrnce: Fmm birth to adult· K. H. Rubin (Ed,.), The drvelopmenl and tre(//menl of child­ hood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, hood "glireHion (pp, 5-29), Hillsdale, Nl: Lawrence Erlbaum, Dishion. T L McCord, J.. & Poulin, F. (1999). When interven­ Farrington, D, P (1992.), Criminal career research in the United tion:-. harm: Peer group!>. and prohlem behavior. American Kingdom, British lournal oj Criminology, 32, 521 .. 536. Ps)'clwlogist, 54, 755.. 764, Farrington, D P. (l992b). Explaining !he beginning, progress Illld end­ Dishion, T J., Patterson, G, R.. & Kavanagh, K, A, (1992), An ing of Illltisocial behavior from birth to aduldlOod. In J. McCord experimental test of the coercion model: Linking theory, mea­ (Ed,), filets, frameworks muiforecas1S: Advances in criminolugical surement and intervention. In J. McCord & R. Tremblay (Eds,), thrul), vol. 3 (pp. 253-2g6), New Brunswtck, t\J: Transaction, Prel'el1ting amisocial behavior (pp. 253~282). New York: Fanington, D. P. (l992c). Juvenile delinquency. In J, C. Coleman (Ed,), Guilford Press, The sdwol years (2nd ed,: pp, 123-163). London: Routledge, Dodge, K. A, (J 991). The structure and function of reactive and Farrington, D. P. (1993a). Childhood origins of teenage antisocial proactive aggression. In D. j, Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eels.), The behavior and adult social dysfunction. lournal oj the Royal dr'Velopmem and treatmell/ o{'childhood aggression (pp. 201--218), Society ofMedicinr, 86, 13--17, Hillsdale, Nl: Lawrence Erlbaum. Farrington, D. P. (1993b), Understanding and preventing bullying, Dodge, K. A, (201J3j. Do social mformation'processing patterns In M, Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crimeandjustice, vol. 17 (pp, mediate aggressive behavior? In B. B, Lahey, T E. Moffitt, & 381-458). Chicago: University of ChIcago Press, A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes ofconduct disorder and juvenile delin­ quency (pp, 254-274), New York: Guilford Press. Farrington, D, p, (1994), Childhood, adolescent and adult features Dodge, K. A .. Lansford, J. E., Burks, V. S .. Bates, J, E., Pettit. G, S., of violent males, In L. R, Huesman (Ed,j, Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 215-240), New York: Plenum Press, Fontaine, R .. et aL (201J3), Peer rejection and social information­ processing factors in the development of aggressive behavior Farrington, D. P. (1997a), Humll1l development and criminal careers. problems in children. Child Development, 74, 374-393. In M, Maguire, R, Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds,), The Oxford Dodge, K, A" Pettit. G, S .. & Bates, 1 E. (1994), Socialization handbook of criminology (2nd cd,: pp, 361-408), Oxford: mediators of lhe relation between socioeconomic status and Clarendon Press, child conduct problems. Child Development, 65. 649-665, Farrington, D. p, (J 997b). The relationship between low rest­ Due, P.. Holstein, B. E.. Lynch, l., Diderichsen, 1', Gabhain, S. N.. ing heart rate and violence, In A, Raine, p, A. Brennan, Scheidt. P.. et aL (201J5). Bullying and symptoms among school, D. P. Farrington, & S, A, Mednick (Eds,j, Biosociai hases of aged children: International comparative cro,,-sectionai study in violence (pp. 89-105), New York: Plenum Press, 28 countries. European lournal ojPublic Health, 15, 128--132, Fal1'inglOn. D, P. (1998j, Predictors, causes and correlates of male Elliott, D, S. (1994), Serious violent offenders: Onset, developmen­ youth violence, In M, Tonry & M. H, Moore (Eels,), Youth vio· tal course, and termination. Criminology. 32, 1-21. lence (pp, 421-475), Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Elliott. D. S.. Huizinga, D .. & Menard, S, (1989j, Multiple problem Farrington, D. P. (2000). Adolescent violence: Findings and impli­ youth: Delinquenc)', 5uhstanc{J use, and merJIa[ health prob­ cations from the Cambridge Study. In G. Boswell {Ed.j, Violent lems, New York: Springer-Verlag. children and ad()/escenls: Asking thl' question why (pp. 19 ..35), Elliol!, D. S.. & Menard, S, (1996). Delinquent friends and delin­ London: Whurr. quent behavior: Temporal and developmental patterns, In Farrington, D, P. (2002). Multiple risk factors for multiple proh­ .J. D. Hawkim: (Ed.). Delinquency and crime: Curren! theories lem violent boys. In R, R. Corrado. R, Roesch. S. D, Hart, & (pp. 28-67), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, l, K. Gierowski (Ed',j, MulJi-prolJiem violent youtil: AfoUluia· Eysenck, H, 1. (1996). Per;onality and crime: Where do we stand? lion for comparatil-'e research on r"U::eaJ, interven/ions and ouI­ Psychology, Crime and La»', 2, 143 .. 152, comes tpp, 23-34), Amsterdam: lOS Press, Fabio, A.. Loeber, R .. Balasubramani. G, K.. Roth, l.. Fu, W .. & Farrington, D, P. (Ed,), (2005), Jll1egraJed developmenJai alld life­ Farrington, D. P. (2006j, Why some generations are more vio­ course theories of offending: Ad\"ances in criminological thf!­ lent than others: Assessment of age, period and cohort effects. m)', vol. 14. New Brunswick. t\J: Transaction. American lourllal ofEpidemiololl.'·, 164, 151-160. Farrington, D, p, (20061. Comparing f(lOlball hooligans and violent Farrington, D, p, (J 972), Delinquency begin> at home, New Society, offenders: Childhood adolescent. teenage and adult features, 2l. 495--497. Monatsschn/i fut' Kriminologie und Strafrechtsrejorm [Journal Farrington, D, P (1979). Environmental.'lress, delinquent behavior, (;{Criminolog\' and Penal Reji)/'nl), 89,193-205. and convictions. In 1. G, Samson & c. D, Spielberger (Eds.), Farrington, D. p,_ Barnes, G .. & Lambert, S. (1996a). The con­ Stress alld unxiety, vol. 6 (pp, 93~ 107). Washington, DC: centration of offendmg in families, Legal and Criminological HemisphL'fe, Psychology, f, 47-63. 71 (, Conduct Di~()rder. Aggression and Delinquency

l-L1rr!ll~IOn U i'.. bln'll 6.. LL'BiaaL'. t\-l ! l'-Jx2l, PC]"'I(lIli.dHy I·arnnglOll. D. P. ,& \\:ll<.."trulll. P-O H, ~ 11.)')4 1 Cnminai careers in

FilrringHlI:. D, P. (',-'id. J v.. Harnett. L . Jpllifk. U., Slllenuu. !\ h"deral Bureau of 1[J\'e'li~ ipp. 7l)-'J6), Sudoury. MA: and protective taclur:.. approaclL Jotlnw! IV Hen/tlf mul Social JOIli;:" and Bmtlel1 B"I((/I"Ior. .II>. 1.11-148 f-~l1TIlH';lpn. D. P.. Locher. R.. 8.: Stouthamer-LoehcL M, (2003) How FO!lturne. N .. Carhonneau. R .. Barker. E. D .. V.laro. f .. Hebert, M .• L\l~j the relationshIp het\';~en rate anu viulence be- explained',: In Cn!e. S. M.. et al. 1200X). Girb' hypcracttvily and physical D. F. H'lwl<..in." (Ed.). Violent crime: Asse,Ding race alld elhl1ic aggre~slnn during childhood and adjustment problem:-. in early e.\ (,Pl'. 2 Ll-::D7). Camhridge: Cambridge Univer... ity adulthood: A 15··ycar longitudinal study. Arc/;iv(J or Gr:neral PsychiaIJ:r. 65, 320-328. FarnmHOIl. D. P,. Loeber. R" Stouthamer-Loc-ber. M. S," "In Fnck. P. J.. Kamphaus. R. Lahey. B. B.. LocbcL R .. Christ. M. K;,mmcn. W .. &: Schmid!. L! 1'1%hl. Self-reported delinquency w.. A. G .. Hart. E. L. cl al. 1 I 'It; I). Academie underachievement anu ~i !,.;omhioed d~ilnqucncy :-.criollsne~:. scale hased on hoys, and lhe disruptive behavior disorder:... Journal of COllsulliflg mnlher." and teacher:..: Concurrent and predictive validity for wul Clinical Ps.ycho}ogy, 5(j. 28,)·-2~)4. African AI1V.:-l'iC<-tll' and Cb. Galli. U .. Tremblay. R. E .. Vi taro. r.. & MoOed!. P (2(~J)1. Youth gangs, delinquellL'Y anti drug use. A tc...;! of the ~ekClion. facilita­ I). P. Sn.vder, t~. I': .. &. Frnm:gan. T. A. ( 19Xc). Spedahl,aliun lion. anu enhancement hypo(hcsL'.\, JUllmal (~rChild 1\,,-1'1/(;/0;:;)' courl carCCI:", CmJlillolu,t:r. 26, -Hd-487 (Iud Ps\'ciJialn. .:I(), 1178-! 1<;(), "anlllgl'Dt1. D. P.. K. \Vl't\h. B C. (~003). i'amil,\ -hascd prevcmil1n Gootiman, R .. SlIl1l.mofL E., & S!evcn~on. J. (1995). Tilt' illlpact olkndmg, A rnetil-anilly .... is, AWlru/i(fJI ({wI Nell lntland of child IQ. purent IQ und siblill~ IQ 011 child hch'l\"Ioral ./ourt/a! (:/ Cf'/l/liIlOII>gL 3{), 1'].7,-1 i 1. dc\·iancc :"l:ore," . .louf"!Iul o! Child P,,-\dw(opy !lrul P,\,.ychiaW\\ i'arnnglnl:. D p" & \\'dsh. B. C. (20051 RandofillZt::d experiment:.. 36. 4(~)··-12~. in Wh~lt h;t\v \\'I,..' it:anH.:d in thl' lao.;! 1\\'(1 dCt..adc,,'.' Clonlol1. D. A. i 1495j. I--unclional fut1111y !hl'l".apy for c.iC'linyuent~, Crl!l1iflu/t/t;L I. 9~Jtt III K. R R"". D. H Antllllowiu. &. Ci. K. Dhaliwal (Eds.). hlrrington. D P. &. \\'d:-.h. A. C. i~O()6), A half (x.'IHur} of rail, (;olllg Mraiglll: E/f{-Cli\'(' d('(iJlt-I/IClln ellfii'u/ oml (lfkudef U()ml/t:d ex.ptTlIm.:nt:.. on crimc and JUsliee, In M. Tonr~ (hU, Fel/ahllHwioll (pp 163-1781. UHawa. Air Tnljn·t·n~ and Crim(' WUllll,\{;CC. \OL ,\-1 (PP, 5:)-1:'1.:::1. Chica~n' Uni\'cf:..il) IJubllcalion:.. of ChIcago (In..'\,'' Gordon, R A" Lahev, B. R.. Kawai, E .. LOl'h!.!!. R.. SI(1uti1umer­ FarnnglOll, ff P. &: \Vehh. 13, C. (2007i .\(Il'lllS chiltlren !rol1l if Ii!',.­ Locber. M .. 6:. l~aITinc[nil" D. P. 120041. Anti:-ot.'wl hchu\ior {~I crime: !:mh /'iSk 1m Ion (/lui d/n1hc inft'rI't'111iofl.1 Ox1"\lI'u· mc;nhcrshtp' S,..'kclioll and \ol.'!illilu(IOI). O,,!ord l:nl\Cf'lt> P1L''''' References 717

Gonnan-Sn1lth. D . &. Loeber. R (2OOS). Are developmental path­ delinquents: Dc\'e/opmem, uHervt!nllon and service need!.' wav~ in dj')[uptive behavior)) the ~ame for girb and boy;,;'} (pp. 21 I ·-246J. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage, Jo;mal ofChild and Famih Stud"s, 14. 15-27, Herrenkohl. T. 1.. Maguw. E.. Hill. K. G.. Hawkim. J. D., Abbou. Gottfredson. D C. (2001). School I and del"'que!!n Cambridge: R. D.. & Catalano. R. F. (2000). Developmental risk factors for Cambridge University Press, youth vwlenee. Journal ofAdolescent Health. 26. 17&--186. Gottfred,on. D C.. MeN eil. R, 1.. &. Gonfredson. G. D. (19911. Hili. J.. &: Maughan, B. (Eds,). (2OOI). COil ducT disorder; ill child­ Socia} area influences on delinquency: A mu ltilevel analyses. hood alld adolescence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Journal ofResearch in Crime alld Delinquency, 28, 197..226, Hinshaw, S. p. Lahey. B. B., &. Hart. E. L (l993L Issues of taxon­ Gottfredson. D. C .. Wibon. D. B.. &. Napka. S. S (2006). School­ omy and eomorbidity in the development of conduct disorder. based crime prevention. In L. W. ShCnJlan. D. P. Farrington. Developmelll and Psvciwl'alholo!:l. 5, 31-49. B, C. Welsh. & D. L.MacKenzie (Eds.). EvidtmCk-based ,rime Hogh. E.. & WolL P. (1983). Violent crime in a birth cohort: prevelllion (re\·. ed.; pr. 5&--164). London: Routledge, Copenhagen 1953-1977. In K, T. van Dusen & S, A. Mednick Graham. J. 11988). ScilOUls. disruptive behaviour and delinquency. (Eds.), Prospective slUdie.1 ofcrime and delinquency (pp. 249­ London: Her Majesty\ Slationery Oftlce, 267 J. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Haapasalo. 1.. & Pokel". E. 11999). Child-rearing and child ahuse Howell. J. C. (Ed.). (1995), Gaide .for implementing the coml"'" antecedent~ of criminality, Aggression amI Violent /;Jc-nal'iOl; 1, hensiv!' strategy for M:ri()u~, violent, and crJronic juvenile 107-117. ojjellders. Washington. DC: U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Han>, H .. Farrington, D. P.. KilIia" M.. & Saum. G, (2004), The Delinquency Prevention. impact of difjerent family configuration, on delinquency. Huesmann,L R.. & Eron, L. D. (1989). Individual difference, and lhe British Journal oj Criminology, 44, 520--532. trait of aggression, European Journal afPersonali/)·. 3, 95-106. Hamalainen, M .. & Pulkkinen, L. (1995). Aggre,S]ve and non-pro­ Huesmann. L. R., Eron, L. D., Lefkowitz, M. M., &. Walder. social behavior a~ precursors of criminality. Studies on Crime L. 0, (1984), Stability of aggression over time and generalions. and Crime Preventiun, 4, 6~21. Developmental P,yciwlogy, 20, I !20-1134. Hamalainen.M" & Pulkkinen. L. (1996). Problem behavior as a pre­ Huizinga, D.. & Elliot!, D. S. (1986), Reassessing the reliability cursor uf male criminality. Deve/opmellf and Psychopalh%gy, and validity of self-repon measures. Journal ~t Qawllilative 8.443-455. Criminology, 2, 293-327, Harachi. T. W.. Fleming, C. B" While. H. R" Ensminger, Huizinga, D., & Jak.ob-Chlen. C. (1998). The contemporaneous M, E.. Abba\!, R. D., Catalano. R. F.. et al. (2006). Aggre,,!ve co-occurrence of serious and violent juvenile offending and behavior among girls and boys during middle childhood: other problem behaviors, In R, Loeber & D. P. Farrington Predictors and sequelae of trajectory group membership. (Eds.). Serious alld violent juvenile offenders: Risk ja<1ors and Aggre;sive Behavior. 32. 279-293. succes·1fu/ illlervenlions (pp. 47..fJ7). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Harrell. A, V., Cavanagh. S. E .. HamJOn, M. A .. Koper. C. S .• & Huizinga, D" Loeber. R .. & Thornberry, T. p, I 1993}. Longitudinal Sridharan, S. (J9971. llllpact ofthc Children 01 Rtsk program: study of delinquency. drug use, sexual activity and pregnancy Comprehensivc final report, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Urban among children and youth in three cities. Public Health Reports, Institute" 108.90-96, Harrell, A. V.. Cavanagh. S. E .. & Sridharan, S. (l999). Evaluation Jenkins. J. M., & Smith, M. A. (199!). Marital disharmony and of the Children at Risk program: Resul" one year ajier the pro­ children's behavior problems: Aspects of a poor marriage that gram. Washington. DC: U.S, Nationallnst;tute of Justice, affect children adversely. Journal oj Child Psychology and Hawkins. J. D.. Catalano, R. E. KOMerman, R .. Abbott. R.. & Psychiatry. 32, 793..810, Hill. K. G. (J 999). Preventing ado,e,cent he.llh risk behav­ John, 0. P.. Caspi, A .. Robin" R. W.. Moffitt. T. E.. & Stuthamer­ iors by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of Loeber. M. (1994). The "Little Five": Exploring the nomo­ Pediatrics and Ado/eseem Medinne. 153. 22&--234. logical network of the Five-Factor Model of personality in Hawkins, J. D., von Cleve, E" & Catalano. R. F. (1991). Reducing adolescent boys. Child DeI·elopme",. 65,160--178. early childhood aggression: Results of a primary preven­ Johmon, J. G., Cohen, P.. Kasen. S .. & Brook, J. S, (2006). A mul­ tion program. Journal of Ihe American Academy of Child and tiwave multi-infonnant study of the 'pecificity of the assO­ Adoiescem Psvehiatry, 30, 208-117, ciation between paremal and offspring psychialric disorders. Hawkins. J. D" Herrenkohl. T.. Farrington. D. P.. Brewer, D" Comprehensive Psvchia/ry. 47. 169..177. Catalano. R. F" & Harachi, T (1998). A review of predic­ W. Jolliffe. D.. & Farrington, D, P. (20(>4). Empathy and offending; A tors of youth violence, In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), systematic review and meta-analysi~. Aggression and Violent Serious and rio/en! juvenile offenders: Riskfaclors and success w BeM"iol', 9.441-476. .lui interventions (pp, 10&--146). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. Jolliffe. D., & Farrington. D. P. (2006a). Development and valida­ Heaven, P. C. L. (1996), Personality and self-reponed delinquency: tion of the Basic Empathy Scale . .Ioumal oj'Adolescence, 29. Analysi, of the "Big Five" personality dimensions. Persona"/)' 589-6 I J. alld Individual Differences, 20, 47-54. Jolliffe. D._ & Farrington. D. P. (20(16b). Examining the relationship HenggeJer. S. W.. Melton. G, B., Smith. L. A.. Schoenwald_ S K.. between low empathy and bullying. AR){l'essivl' BehaVIOr, 32, & Hanley. J. H. (1993), Family preservation using multisys­ 540-550. lemie lrealment; Long-tenn follow-up to a clinical trial with serious juvenile offenders. Jmmwl of Child alld Famih STadies, Jolliffe, D.. & Farrington. D. P. (10071. Examining the relationshIp 2,283-293. . . between low empathy and self-reported offending. Legal and Henry. B" Caspi. A.. Moffitt T E.. & Silva, P. A, (1996). Criminological Psycholollv, 12, 265-186. Temperamenta! and familial predictor, of violent and non­ Jolliffe, D .. & Farrington. D. P (2008). The injJuence of mentol'­ violem criminal convictions: Age:' to age 18. Deve/opnU!lllal ing Ull r('offending, Stockholm. Sweden: Nallonal Council for Psycholo!:y, 32, 614-623. Crime Prevention, Henry, B .. Moffitt. T.. Robins, L, Earb. E, & Silva, P. (993), Jolliffe_ D .. & Farrington, D. P. (in pre,,). A systematic review of Early family predictors of' child and adolescent antisocial the relationship between childhood impUlsiveness and later behavior: Who are the mothers of delinquents" Crimillal violence. In M. McMurran & R. Howard (Eds.). Persollality. IiellGl'iaur and Menw/ Heallh. 2, 97-1! 8. !lersonality disorder, and n'sk of l'loiellce. Chichesler. UK: Herrenkohl. T.l.. Hawkins, J, D.. Chung. I.-I.. Hill. K. G.. &: Battin­ John Wiley & Son" Pearson. S. (20l)]). School and community risk faelors and Jolliffe. D.. Farrington. D, P.. Hawkins. J. D.. Catalano, R. F.. intervention,. In R. Loeber & D. "" Farrington (Eds.). Child Hill. K. G .. &. Kosterman, R (20()3). Predictive. concurrent. 718 Conduct Disorder, Aggression and Delinquency

prospCClJVC. and relro~pl.';Ciivc validlt), of l\elf-reported de)jn~ and DSM-3R diagnoses ror prepubertal children: Change" ir, 4uenc) Crimillal Bellll\'iuuralld Menial Healrh 13, 179-197, prevalence and validii,\, Journal (~r tlu: American Academy (~l \ Child and Adole,lcenl PH'cllium·. 24. 620...626, Jone" M. B .. &. Offord. D, R. (1989), Reduction of anti,ocial behav· ior In poor children by non·school skill-development. Journal Lahey, B, B .. Moffitt. T E.. & Caspl. A. (Ed,.) (2003). ('au.m 0/ ~f C/iild P-,ycllOlugr and PsvehialrY, 30, 737-750, conduct disorder wuljUFenile delilUluen(\', New York: Guilford Juby. l-L & Farrington. D. P. (2001). Disentangling the link Pres::.. belween dtsrupled families and delinquency. British Journal (~r Lahey. B. B.. Schwab-Stone. M« Goodman. S. H, Waldman,!. D .. Crimill%g\; 41, 22-40. Canmo. G .. Rathouz. P. Let al. (2000). Age and gender dtfler­ Junger-Tus. J .. & Marshall. 1. H. 1199'11. The self-repon methodol­ ences in oppositional behavior and conduct probJem!\: A crO,l.;~­ ogy in crime research. In M. Tonry (Ed.). Crime and justice, sectlOnal household study oj middle childhood and adole,cence. voL 25 (pp. 291·-367). Chicago: Universiry 01' Chicago Pres;, Journal 'psychopathology. Journol of Child physical aggre~sjon among 5"-1! year old Canadian boy~ and Psw.h%8Y and Psve"ialry. 38, 625-632. girb. Ag,r;res5ive Belurl'ior, 33, 26--37. Kaukiaincn. A.. BJorkvist, K.. Lagerspetz, K.. Osterman, K.. van Lier, P. A. C. van der Ende. J.. Kool. H. M.. & Verhulst. F. C. Salmi valli, C .. Rothberg. S .. et al. (1999) The relationships (2007) Which better predIcts conducl problems" The relation­ between social inleHigencc, empathy, and three types of aggre~­ ship of trajectories of condUCI problems with ODD and ADHD sion. Aggrt's.'Stve BehuvioT. 25, i:H-89, symptoms lrom childhood inlo adolescence. Jm/l'lwl of Child Ps.yc/J%gy and Psychiarry. 48. 601·--608. Kazdin, A. E. (1997). Parem management training: Evidence. OUl­ Lipsey. M. W.. & Derzon, J, H. (199g). Pledicto" of violent or seri­ come~ and issues. Journal of !he American Academy o.f Child and Adolescem P.n-chialn. 36. 1349-1356, ous delinquency in adolescence and early adulthood: A synthesis of longitudinal research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Ed,.). Keiley. M. L, Howe, T. R.. Dodge. K. A.. Bate,. J. E .. & Pettit. G. Seri(}u~ anti vio/emjuvenile offenders: Risk/actors and success' S. (2001). The timing of child physical maltreatment: A cross· fiJI inlen'entiol1S (pp. 86-105), Thou,aml Oab. CA: Sage. domain growth analysiK of impact on adolescent ex.ternalizing anulnternallzing problem~_ Developmem and Psychopathology, Lipsey. M. W" & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective intervention 13,891-912. for ~erious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of re~earch" In R. Loeber & D, p, FarringtoH (Eds,). Serious wul dolen! Kirk, D, S. (20061. Examining the divergence across self-report juvenile otfenders: Risk factors ond succe.\'j:tul imen'entions and official data ~ource!\ on inference:.: about the a.dolescent (pr. 313-345), Thou,and Oaks. CA: Sage, life-course of crime. Journal (~r QuantilUlive Criminology, 22. 107-129. Lipsitt. P. D.. Btika. S. L. & LipsitL L P. (1'190). Early intelli· gence scores and subsequent delinquency: A prospectlve study, Klinteberg, B. A.. Andersson, T.. :'1agnusson. D., &. Stanin. H. American Journal a/Family Therapy. 18, 197-208. (1993). Hyperactive behavior in childhood a5 related to subse­ quent alcohol problem, and violent offending: A longitudinal Littell. 1. H, (2005), Lessons from a systematic review of effects study of mak subjects. Personality and Jndividual Differences, of multjsystemic therapy, Children and Youth Servites RevieH'. 15. 38 I -388. 27, 445-463. Kokkinos, C M .. & Panayiotou, G. (2004). Predicting bullying and Loeber. R.. Burke. J. D .• Lahey. B. B .. Winters. A., & Zera. M. victimization among early adolescents: A ->sociations with dis­ (2(00), Oppositional defiant and conduct disorder: A review of ruptive behavior disorden. Aggressive BellllviOf: 311. 520-·533. the pasl lO years. parI I. Joumal of Ihe Americall Academ\' of ChUd and Adolescenl P'~vchialrr. 39, 1468-14R4. Kokko. K .. & Pulkkinen, L. (2(K15). Stability of aggressive behavior from childhood to middle age in women and men. Aggressive Loeber. R.. & Farrington, D. p, (Ed,.). (2(K11 J. Child delinqueJtls: Behavior. 3}. 485-497. Development. intervention, and sen'ict: needs. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. Kolvin. L Miller. F J. W.. Fleeting, M .. & Kolvin. P A. (1988). Social and parenting factors affecting criminal-offence rates: Loeber. R.. Farrington. D. P.. Stoutharner-Loeber. M.. & van Finding' from the Newcastle Thousand Family Study (1947­ Kammen. W. B. (1998). Anti....ocial behavior and menral health J980). Brilish JOllntal of Psvchiatry, !52, 80--90. problems: £tplanGlory faclors in childhood and adolescen{'e. Koolhof, R .. Loeber. R .. Wei. E. H .. Pardini. D .. & D' Eseury. A. C Mahwah. ~,J: Lawrence ErJbaum. C007 j, Inhibition deficits of serious delinquenl boys of low Loeber. R:, Farrington. D, P.. Stouthamer-Loeber. M" Moffitt, intclhgence, Criminal Behaviour and Mental Healtb. 17. T. E.. Caspi. A" & Lynam, D. (2001), Male mental health '274-29:2. problems. psychopathy, and personality traits: Key findings Lahey. B. B.. van Hulle. C A.. Waldman. I. D.. Rodgers. J. L, from the first 14 years of the Pittsburgh Youth Stutly, Clillical D·Onofrio. B. M.. Pedl"", S..et aL (2006). Testing descriptive Child and Family P.\~vclwl()gy Rel'iew. 4, 273-297. hypotheses regarding sex differences in the development of Loeber. R" Farrington. D. p.. Stoulhamer-Loeber. M .. & White. conduct problems and delinquency. Journal o/Almormal Child H. R, {20(8). Violence and seriou:·; the}i: Development and pre~ Ps\,choloRY. 34. 737-755, diction/rom childhood 10 adulthood. Ne" York: Routledge. Lahey. B. B., Loeber. R .. Burke. 1. D.. & Applegale. B. (2005), Loeber. R .. Green. S. M.. Keenan. K .. & Lahey. B. B. (1995). Which Predicting future anll\iocial personality disorder in maJes from boy::. will fare worse: Early predictors of the onset of conduct a clinical asses~men! in chHdhood. Journal oj Consu/tiJlI( and dI~order in a six-year longitudinal sludy, Journal afThe American Clinical Pn'C/wlllg". 73, 389-399. Academy l!tChiid wul Adolescelll P""chia/lT, 34. 499-50'1. Lahey. B. B.. Loeber. R« Han. E, L.. Frick. P. L Applegate. B .. Loeoer, R .. & Hay. D. E (/997). Key issues in the developmenl of Zhang. Q..el al. (19951. Four·year longitudinal study of conduct aggression and violence from childhood 10 carly adulthood. dIsorder in boy~: Pattern" .md prediclors of persistence. Journal Annual Rel'ieH' of PsycholoK". 48. 371·-410. ofA/marmo! P""cllOlog.\'. 104.83--93. Loeber. R .. & LeBlanc. M. tJ~90), Toward a developmental crimi· Lahe}, B. B.. Loeber. R .. Stoutilamer-Loeber. M .. Christ. M, A. G.. nology, In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds. l. Crime amljuslice. \OL Green. S.. Russo. M, E. el a!. (1990), Comparison or DSM-3 12 (pp, 375-473 i. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. References 719

Loeber, R" Pardini. 0., Homish, D. LWei. E. IL Crawford. A. M .. Malinosky-Rummell. R .. & Hansen, D l ([9931. Long-term con­ Farrington. D. P.. e, aJ. (200S J. The prediction of violence and seguences of childhood physicai abuse, Psychological Bul/ellll, homicide in young men, Journal (~f' Consulting and CUnicai 1/>1. 68-79. Pncholagy. 73, 1074-1088. Mandel. H, P (l997). Conduci disorder and underachievemenT. Loeber. R.. &: Slouthamer·Loeber, M. (19%r Development ofjuve· ~ew York: lohn Wiley &: Sons. nile aggression and violence: Some common Olisconception!:> Maughan. B .. Pickles. A .. Rowe. R" Costello. E L & Angold, and controversies, American P,\)'chologisl. 53, 242<~59. A. (2000), Development.1 trajeciories of aggressive and Lucber. R.. Slouthamer·Loebel. M.. van Kammen. W B" & nonaggressive conduct problems. Journal of QuantiTative FarringlOn, D. P. (1991). Initiation. escalation and deSIstance Criminology. /6, 199-221. in juvenile offending and their correlates. Journal of Criminal Maughan, B., Rowe, R., Messer. L Goodman. R .. & Meltzer. H. IA"" and Crimillology, 82. 36·82. r2(04). Conduct disorder and oppositional defiam dISorder in Loeber, R" Wei. E .. Slouthamer-Loeber. M. Huizinga. D.. & a national sample; Developmental epidemiology. Journal oI Thornberry. T, (1999). Behavioral antecedents to serious and Child Psych%gr and Psychiatry, 45. 609"'{)21. violent offendIng; Join! analyses from the Denver Youth Survey. Maxfield. M. G., & Widom. C. S. (! 996). The cycle of violence Pittsburgh Youth Study. and the Roehester Youth Development revisited six years later. Archives of Pedialries and Ado/escen! Stud). Studies on Crime alld Crime Prevention. 15, 245-263. Met/ierne, 150,390--395, Loeber. R .. Wung. P.. Keenan. K.. Giroux. B.. Stouthamer·Loeber. Moffitt, T. E. (1993a), Adolescence-hmited and life-course· persistent M .. & van Kammen, W B. (1993). Developmental pathway, in antisocial behavior; A developmental taxonomy. Psychologlwl disruptive child behavior. Development ami Psydwpalh%gy. ReFiell, 100,674-701. 101-132. Moffitt. T E. (1993b,. The neuropsycholog)· of conduct disorder LOsel, E, & Beelmann. A, [2(06), Child social skil" training. In Deve/opme1ll and Psychopathology, 5,135·151, B. C. Welsh & D. P. Fan'ington (Eds.), Prevellling crime: Whal E. works/or children, offender;, viell/nI, and places (pp. 33-54). Moffitl. T. (2003). Life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited New York: Springer. antisocial behavior: A lO-year research review and a research agenda. In B. B. Lahey, T E. Moffitt. & A. Caspi (Eds.). Cuuses Lose!. E. & Bliesener. T. (2003). Hooligan violence; A study of conduci disorder and juvenile delinquent·'\ (PP. 49--75). on Its prevalence, origins, and prevention, In F. Dunkel & New York: Guilford Press. K, Drenkhalm (Eds.). YOUl" violence; Ne~ pallern; and local Moffin, T. E" Arseneault. Jaffee. S. R., Kim-Cohen, Koenen, l'es{J()JJse.\-ExperiefJce,\ ill East and West. Monchengladbach. 1.., J.. Odgers, C. et aL (2008). DSM-V conduct dlSor· Germany: Forum Veriag Godesberg. K c.. L. der: Researeh needs for an evidence base. Journal of Child LoseL E. Bltesener. L & Bender. D. (2007). Social informa­ P.nch%g)' alld Psychiatry, 49, 3-33. lion prm.:essing. ex.periences of aggression in social contexts; and aggressive behavior in adolescenl:L Criminal Justice and Moffitt, T E., Caspi. A., Dickson, N., Silva. P.. & Stanton. W. Bellavior, 34, 330-347, (1996). Childhood-onset versus adolescent-onset antiweial conduct problems in males; Natural history from ages 3 10 J 8 Luengo. M. A.. Otero. J. M .. Carrillo-dc-la·Pena, M, 1'.. & Miron, years. Devetopmen! and PsvcllOpathotogy. 8, 399-424, 1.. (1994), Dimensions of antisocial behavior in juvenile delin­ quency; A study of personality variables. Psw'holo!;); Crime Moffitt. T E, CaspL A .. Rutter, M .. & Silva. P A. (2001). Sex dij' and Lim. 1. 27-37, Ierences illlVlIisocial he/lavior. Cambridge; Crunbridge University Eress, Lynam. D, (996). Early identification of chronic offenders; Who is the fledgling psychopath'! Psychological Bullelin. 120, Moffitt, T. E.. & Henry. 8. (1991). Neuropsychological studies of 209-234. juvenile delinquency and juvenile violence, In 1. S. Milner (Ed.). Neuropsychology ofaggression (pp, 131-146) Boston: Kluwer. Lynam. D. R. (J 998). Early identification of the fledgling psycho­ path; Locating the psychopathic child in the current nomencla· Morash. M .. & Rucker, 1.. (1989), An exploratory study of the con­ ture, Journal ofA/mormal Psychology. 107. 566-575, nection of mother', age at childbearing to her children's delin­ quency in four data sets. Crime and Delinquency. 35, 45-93. Lynam, D, R.. Caspi, A" Moffitt. T, E., Wikstrom. P.-D. B .. Loeber, R., & Novak, S. (2()()()). The interaction between impul· Moretti, M. M .. Odgers. C. L & Jackson. M. A. (Eds.). (2004). sivity and neighborhood conte"t on offending: The effect, of Girls and aggression: ConJrUmting factors and intervention impulsivity are strongel in poorer neighborhoods. Journal of principles. New York; Kluwer/Plcnum Press. Abnormal Psychology, 109,563-574, Morgan. A, 8., & Lilienfeld. S. 0, (2000). A meta-analytic review Lynam. D .. MoffIt!, T. E .. & Stouthamer-Loeber. M, (1993). of the relation between antisocial behavior and neuropsycho­ Explaining the relation between IQ and delinquency; Class, logical measures of executive function. Clinical Pj~\'choJ(}gy race. test motivation. school failure or self-control? Journal (4 Revie~ ,20, 113..]36. Abnormal Psychologv. 102, 187-196. Murray, L & Farrington. D. P. (20()5). Parental imprisonmell!: McCord, J. (l977), A comparative slUdy of two generations of Effects on boy>' antiSOCIal behavior and delinquenc)' through native American" In R. F. Meier (Ed,), Theon' ill aimillolol?" the life-course. Journal (if Child Psrchologv and PsYchiatry. (pp. 83-921. Beverly Hills. CA Sage. 46. 1269-1278

McCord, J, (1979). Some child·re"rin~ antecedent, of crimi­ Murray. J, Janson. C-G .. & Farrington. D. p, (2007). Crime in atlult nal behaVior in adult men. Journal of Person(JJi~\' and Social otlspring of prisoners: A cross-national comparison 01 11'10 lon­ Psychology, 37, 1477-1486. gitudinal samples, Criminal Juslice and Behavior, 34. 133-149. McCord. J. (1982), A longitudinal vie" of the relationship between Nagin. D. S.. Farrington. D. P.. & Moffit!. T E (995). Life-coufse tra­ paternal absence andcrime.lnJ. Gunn & D. P. Farrington (Eds.). jectories of different types ofoffenders, Crlminalag.", 3.1. 111-139. Abnormal offenders. ddinqueflcy. cmd the criminal justice sys­ Nagin. D,S.. Pogarsky. G .. & Farrington. D. P. (1997). Adolescent (pp. 113-128). Chichester. UK John Wiley & Son,. lem mother> and the criminal behavior of their childrclt Law and McCrae, R, R.. & Costa. P. T (20031, Prmmnlitr in ad"il/lOod: A Sociel'" Review. 31, 137-162. Jiwl_jactor theo!".\' perspective. New York: Guilford Press. Nagin, D. S .. & Tremblay. R. E. (]999). TrajeclOries of boys' physi­ Maguin. E .. &: Loeber. R, 1.1996). Acadermc performance and cal aggression, Opposilion. and hyperactivity on the path to delin4uency. In M, Tomy fEd.). Crime alld juS/ice, vol 20 physically violent and nonviolent juvenile delin~uency. Child (pp. 145-2(4). Chicago; University ofClticago Press. /)el'e!opmelU.7(),1181·1196. Mak, A, S (1991 I. Psychosocial control chur.cteristic, of del in· Nel"}Jl. S, E.. & Dishion, T. 1. (2004). From boys to men; Predicting quent~ and non-delinquem~. Crimifwl.!u.';licc and Behavior, 18. adull adaplation from middle childhood sOCIometric status. 287·303. De>'elol'l1Ielll alld P.lycllOl'lilhologv. 16. 441-459. no Conduct Di~order, Aggre~si()n and Delinquenc~

:\t'\\:'\OlL J.. i\.~\\."OjL L. &: AdalTi"~ \1 (14~J:h Ttlt: .... o"'·taJ 01 P"pil'! I} J.. ~ Cl:.tlg. \\ i'v1 (l l195, /\ peck. beilmu tile f;;ncl..', JcItJlq~ILnL':- (rlminul IJrJim uwr (Old /vJcllwi f/CtJUlL 3 ~alUrl.l!t;-"l1l nh"cn alH)I1 ..... ~)j u~Wc ... "i\ l' d1Jldrl'Jl v. ith reIl10\t' uudiO\ I:-.ual fccordin,t-' I)n elol)lllCniul l\'l :'lwl(!({'I. 31 i\iolteimanlL D.. 6: Jen:-~ll. P. ~. : ! 995 L CnmorbicJ!) l)l dhord1.:r:" )~~--:~)~ 10 l.:hikJrl.'l1 anu ,lduh':~l'cnt:-,' In T. H. OllcndlCk" R. J. Prill! lEd,.,. III Pepler. D 1. Mad,ell. K. ( .. Wen'!e,. ( .. & Lelcnc. K S.lcd,., li,~\dlol(>g\. \01 lpp. 109- I~S) 0.'.:\\ York. Plenum Pre~" I::()O~! Til, d(-'\'('lol'lIIcnt (ilid 1f('({llIf('lll 0./ (Jidh(!od lI!{),'ly\\io/i Od:,;er.." C, I," t\ll1w,;, B, L \-iahwah. ~J: LI\-\TCfH.::t: Erlnaum. \-loHi!1. 1. L (C007, lor the .:onducl­ Pc!ra,. H.. Kellam. S Bn"," C. B.. Mulhen, l:l. (J .. probkm hoJ ' Call rmilil; hi..,tor: (~I lite Amcnnm t...,;. S . &. Podu:-.I-.a. J, ,\1. : ::OO~ i. lJ(,\ L-'l"plllL'ntonahl) ui<,orde; itnd Oft".-". D. R. Alder. R. L iJ: Buyle M. H 119H(l). Prn,llenL"ti un" and o.:rinllllJ! he!w\'ior: ~:J1t.::"':I'" t>~ yqun~ ,-ILlulthood or ~! uHl\cr~uj HltcnL"ltlit)l~ iii lIe'\l anL :-eCOllG grade correlate~ or umducl ul:..order. Amcrican Chl.:-.:-.rliUH1". wu) A/calwl / )t'/)end~'liCC. 1.)5\. S4)-S5l) f'n citiatrJ, fl. :'7']", ~7X. PiqUCTlL A R (2i)OI}) "'pCl'ltfilJ:aLJI)IL and \ luil:ncl..' Ut"I"rd. fJ 1<.. Bovk M. IL & Racme. Y ! l'lH'!,. Omarw Ch,IJ in oHendin.!.:' L~I(etT'" or NnuHci; UI ('rim(' {/iul Health Study: ('()rn.:ltH;;~ of di ...OfLh:r jaufIIlI! ot fhe AlI1cnnlll 'I('udcnn 01 C/lild alld ,4do!(',\('('tti /)\ycltwrrL 28, K5(;--XhO IJdIlUIIWIW\, ]iF::.....t I H Pltjuero. A. k (:200?;L 1';1l-..in& ."lo(k of dC\'(:\ormCnlal lr'--1Jt'l'IUrie~ o! Onord, D. R., Boyk. M. H. RaclJ1e. Y. A.. Flemint'. J. r.. Cadman. niminul aClivit) over thl' lih: t,.;our~t', III A, M. i,iI1l'rman (Ed.). D_ T. Bluo1. H. M.. !.:! al i J Y92 L Outcome. and n;.;k. Till" (OI1f.!, "/('11- of crime' A sym/wsi.1 (~t lfJ/l)!lllU/uwl (eward! lit a !Ilngiiudlflil! f'oHov. -up ",{ud:. !PI', 2J--7Rj, Nt", York: Springel AI'ai/em,! (~I ('hi!d llild Ailo/l',\cent 1J-,\-\'dliatJ'\, Offord. U. R.. lluvlc. M. H.. St.all11an. 1'.. Rac·Granl. t\. I.. Pitjue,'li. A. H," hlrringlun. D. P.. 6.: Blurnsh.:m. ,I\, (1iJ07). Kc., I\.\/W\ ;n ('rinlllwl f lIrct'!' re,\('urcil.' !v'('), W!Ol\,\(',\ Ilie COI!I/Jritlg(' Lillb. P. S" Cadmall. O. T. et al. rItJg7 L ()ntuflli Child Hl'uhh if! Ih'liu(jJlt-'1lf IJ(,I'('/r'IJfJWJli. Stud). II. Six-month pn.:valcm.:1.: or di~OfdL'f and rul!.:,,, of ~er\'iee S'ttd, Camhfld~L' l·ni\'!,:.':r<,11:Y Pn.>~ wili/iltion. Archil·e.\ (.~t (J('Jlt'rtti J\y(llialf:L ..J•.{ ~32--XJ6. Pl4uew. ,"" R" Fllrrillglon. D.P.. W("bh. H, C. Trcmhlu). R, &: Jcnning .... (2001-:: l. /;.·lIeel.\ familyljNIf't'JIf lru;/Img Powcr\. ]., Cult'. R .. L'! <.II. r14(7)- Lllng-terlll effect ..., of home v\;. (It early Ilrogrtlllls 011 uJ/lOoci((/ helial'u)f (lild (leIiJ/(/Iff'uc.\: A .luiclII" visitation 011 maternal life cour:-.e and child abus(> and nedect. mil' rt')'ieH' Stockholm. Sv.-edcn: ~ali()nl.l.l Council in!' Crime j,wr!w/ (It 1/1/' AmtriulJI A1edu:nl ;hWl iallon, 27S 637-6::t:~ Prevcnlion. Ol,h. D. L.. . Cok, R.. Eckenrode. L KHlIllan. H. 8.:.. i eiTeL'\'-; of nur~e home V!:-.ilallol1 Piqucro. A. K. Moffm, T E, 20051. Explaining the fat:h of nimc: antj:-.ocial hehaviur: [5'\-,(,l.Ir follow­ Ho\\ tlw developmental la,\onolllY rcplit':- w Furrington\ invi­ lution, In D. P. (Eu.}. Jllf('gruicd i/1"I'e(,')JlIlWllI(Ii 01 I.l nmdomibtd controlled lrj~lL journal ol 11;(> Ami'ricWi Farrin;::ton A,,,,,',n/"'" 2XO, 1238-i244. . 1i/e--C(lUf'S(' II/COrle\' t~r(:!lt'l1(iil!g tpp. 5!~73..1. l'\ev. NJ·Trans:., A. L &:: rarrin!2ton. D. P. t IYYI j, A

Robins, L N (1989i. EpidemIOlogy of anti,ocial personahlY· In Shaw, C. Ro. & McKay. H. D. (}9691. JU1'mii" delin4ueflc," and J. O. Cavenar (Ed,), PSlchiatry, vol. 3 (pp. 1-14). PhiladelphIa: urban areas (rev. ed.). Chicago: Universn' of ChIcago Pres>. Lippincott. Shaw, D. S., Lacourse, E" & Nagin, D. S. (2005). Developmental tra­ Robi"" L N. (1999). A 70-year his",r) of conduct disorder: jectories of conduct problems and hyperactivity from age~ 2 to Variations in definition, prevalence and correlate,. In P, Cohen, 10. Joumal ofChild Psychulof!yal1d Psychiatry. 46, 931-942. C. Slomkowski. & L. N. Robin, (Eds.). Historical and geu­ Sheehan. M. J" & Wall,on, M, W. (2008), Reciprocal influences graphIcal influem.e.1 un psychopatholugy (pp. 37-56). Mahwah. between maternal disClpline lechmques and aggression in chil­ NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. dren and adolescents. Agwessive Behavior, 34, 245-255. Robins. L. No. West. P. L & HerJanic. B. L. (1975). Arrests and Smith. C A .. & Stem, S. B, (1997). Delinquency and antiso­ delinquency 10 two generations: A study of Black urban families ciaJ behavior: A review of family proce.:-.~es and inl~rvention and their children. Journal oj'Child Psychology ond Psvchiatry. research. Social Sen'ice Review. 71. 382-420. 16. 125-140. Smith. C. A" & Thornberry, T, P. (1995). The relationship between Rogeness, G A. (1994). Biologic finding; in conduct disorder. childhood maltreatment and adolescent involvement in delin­ Child and Adolescent Psychiatrh Clinics of North America, 3, quency. Criminology, 33, 451-481. 271-284 Smith, P. K., Morita. J., Junger-Tas, D" Olweus, D" Catalano, R., Romano, Eo. Tremblay. R E.. Vitaro. E, Zoccolillo. M., & & Slee, P. T. (Eds.). (1999). The nature of school /;u/l"il1". A Pagani, L (2001 l. Prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses and the cro.'is~nationat perspective. London: RoutJedge, role of perceived impairment: Findings from an adoiescent com~ Smith, P. K" Pepler, D" & Rigby, K. (2004), Bullving ill schools: munity ,"mplc. Journal of Child Psychology ,,"d Psvchiall)·. How successful ('an inlervenriun.'i be: Cambridge: Cambridge 42,451-461. Univer~ity Press. Ros>, R, R" & Ross, R. D. (Eds.j. (1995). Thinking straight: The Smith, P. K" & Sharp, S. (1994). SclIOollmllying: ImighLl alld per­ reasoning lind relmbililalion program jor delinqut'lu"y preven­ spectives, London: Routledge. tion and offender rehabilitation, Ottawa, Canada: Air Training and Publication, Solberg, M" & Olweus, D. (20031. Prevalence eshmation 01 school bullying with the Ol"eus BuUyIVic,im Questionnaire. Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. R (1994). Parental and child Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239-268. externalizing behavIor in nonclinical samples: P,\'vchological Bulletin, 116, 55-74. Stams, G, J., Brugman, D" Dek()vic, M" van Rosmalen, L., van der Rowe, D. C., Vaszonyi, A. T.. & Flannery, D. J. (1995). Sex differ­ Laan, P., & Gibbs, J, C. (2006). The moral judgment of juve­ ences in crime: Do means and wIthin-sex variation have SImilar nile delinquents: A meta-analysis, Journal of Abtwnnal Child causes: Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, Psychology, 34, 697-713. 84--100. Stattin, H" & Klackenberg-Larsson, I. (1993), Early language and Rutter, M, (1981). The city and the child. American Journal of intelligence development and their relationship to future crimi­ Orthopsychiatry, 51. 61()-625, nal behavior. Juurnal ufAbnort1lal Psychology, 102, 369-378. Rutter, M., Giller, H" & Hagell, A. (l9981. Antisocial behal'ior in StaUin, H" & Magnusson, D. (1991), Stability and change in crimi­ younli people. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. nal behavior up to age 30. British Journal of Criminology, 31, 327-346. Sampson, R. J .. Morenoff, J, D., & Raudenbush, S. (2005). SOCIal anatomy of racial and ethnic disparities in violence. American Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M" & Darling, N. Journal tifPublic Health, 95, 224-232, (1992). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achieve­ ment: Authontative parenting. school involvement and encour­ Sampson, R. J" Raudenbush, S. W., & Earl,. E (1997). agement to succeed. Child Developmenl, 63, 1266-1281. Neighborhoods and violen! crime: A multilevei study of collec­ tive efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924, Stephenson, P., & Smith, D. (1989). Bullying in the junior school. In D, Tattum & D. Lane (Eds,), Bul/yinl! in schools. Stoke-on­ Sanders, M. R" Markie-Dadds, c.. Tully, L. A., & Bor, W (2000). The Triple-P Positive Parenting: Program: A comparison of Trent, England: Trentham. enhanced, standard and self-directed behavioral family interven­ Sutton, J" Smith, P, K., & Swettenham. 1. (1999). Social cogni­ tion for parents of children with early onset conduct problems. tion and hullying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation? Journal ofCofl.l'ultil1g and Clinical Psycholo!?y, 68, 624-<>40. British Journal ofDevelopmen/al Psyclwlugy, 17, 435-450. Schwartz, C. E., Snidman, N., & Kagan, J. (1996), Early childhood Szatmari, P" Boyle, M. H., & Offord. D. R. (J993), Familial aggre­ temperament as a deteoninant of externalizing behavior in ado­ gation of emotional and behavioral problems of childhood in lescence, Development and Psychopathology, 8, 527-537, the -general population. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, Schweinhart, L. L Barnes, H, V" & Weikart, D, P. (1993). Sigl1(ticant 1398-1403. bel1~{its, Ypsilanti, Ml: HighiScope. Thornberry, T. p" Huizinga, D" & Loeber, R. (1995). The prevention Schweinhart. L. L Montie, J., Zongping, X., Barnett, W. S" of serious delinquency and violence: Implications from the pro­ BelfIeld, C. Ro. & Nores. M. (2005). Lifetime ~fj'eClS: The High! gram of research on the causes and correlales of delinquency, In Scope Pern' Preschool Stud." 11tr(lIIgh age 40, Ypsilanti, MI: J, C. Howell, B. Krj,herg, J, D. Hawkins, & J. J, Wilson (Eds.), HIgh/Scope Press, Sourcebook on serious, I'io/enl and chronic ju\'eniie offenders (pp. 213-237). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schweinhan, L. J.. & Weikart, D. P, (1980\. Young children lira" up. Ypsilanti. MI: High/Scope, Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (Eds.), (2003). Taking swck oj delinquency: An overview a/findings/rom contemporary lml?i­ Seguin, 1.. PihL R, 0., Harden, P. W" Tremblay, R. Eo. & Boulerice, tudinal studies. New York: KluwerlPlenum Press. R. (1995). Cognuivc and neuropsychological characteristics of physically aggressive boys. Journal ofAlmomUl/ Psvclwlog.. , Thornberry, T. P" Krohn, M. D" Lizotte, A. L Smith, C. A., & 104.614--624, Tobin, K. (2003). Gangs and delinquency ill developmental per­ Sexton. T. L. & Alexander, J. F. (2000). Functional jamill' tlrer­ spective. New York: Cambridge Unive"ity Press. apr. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Juvenile Justi~e and Thornberry, T. P., Lizotte, A. L Krohn. M, D" Farnworth, M" Delinquency Prevention. & Jang. S. J. (1994). Delinquent peers. belief, and delin­ Shaffer. D .. Fisher. P.. Dulcan, M. K .. Davies, Mo. Piacentini, L quent behavior: A longitUdinal test of interactional theory. Schwah-Stone, M. E" et al. (1996). The NIMH Diagnostic CrimillaloK'. 32, 47-83. Interview Schedule for Children, version 2.3 (DISC-2.3): Tobler. N, S" Lessard, T.. MarshalL D" Och,horn, P" & Roona. M, Description, acceptability, prevalence rates and performance in (1999), Effectiveness of school-ba,ed drug prevention pro­ the MECA Study. Joumol of'lhe American Academy of' Child grams for marijuana use. Schoul Psych%!:.Y illlernaJiona/, 20. alld Adolescenl Psychiall)', 3.), 865-877 . . 105-·137. 722 Conduct Disorder, Aggression and I)elinquenc~

"InJuil. P. tL, &: CJonn'lil";)m,[h. U I ll)'j}<.!, Ul'\l'IOprnClll or ."l:rjllu~ Til( fII~Tt'dihie .'can [millmg and \ !OlL"ll! nl;t;nding carc~r"'. jll E. LOI,:ht.::- 6: D. P r'HTinglor; ,;.,. Utflu: 0; Juvenile JU'-.(icC' and I Et.h., . .'wI'iu/J.' and '/Ii/en! jll\i'Il;!'!- (~ttt,ltd('n.· RI\~ irldun wu!

,\//( cn'dui tIIU'ITcliIIOfLI I pp. 6X-X5 J ThuL::-.l.n.J Oab, CA: E,,. &- RankHL .I. H 1199) J. Fami!!e... and :;,ut'c \\." of thL' impact 01 hroken h()me~. 'lola!:.)' 11 .. (iUrrllaH-Sn;illL 0 .. ~ J:knry. D. B.! 20(1.1 '. The ur:vdnp­

menlal ~u)log) oj ur!)(tll malL:': )outh '< iolenl''': /)e\ doplllt'lIio; \VeI"iL B C &. Hoshi. A. {:::0001. COlllmUIlHll'".\ Jud 1<';,\c/wlllgL }I.;. 2'";4·-::!l); \'enlf()Jl. In L 'A'. Sh.:mlJfL D, p, B, C Tl)lall_I'. H .. (iilrman-Smi!h. D.. &: l.ol'her. K (~OO(Jj Lk\L'lopll1cntal D. L MilL'Ken/i.: {Ed~,l. (re\'. umlll~ or OIT',eh til" UL'ruptiv\' h..-hayior" allJ iatl':- ut'linqul':lll'> eu,: pp J65~197L London ROUlied,gL' of 1I1nt:'r~ul~ yotHh, JUI/OJd/ (~I Cll1M om! lomi/\' ,)flIdie" Y. We ..... L D. J.. &: F-arringlOll. 0. P. (Jln:'J, tHu, b('colIJn deiill(llIenr:-' 2().L 230 Lond()ll: HeinemJnn.

1 (Hll!. L S L 6: h.lfrillgton, O. P 1200;"/. Efll'Cliven('z...... oj ¥t'c"l. l), J. &. Farrillt!lOll. D. P, (19771. lite dL'linqw:n! Ira.\" 0/ fife. ""RCil",olllng and Rdldhilllalion" in rcuucin~ (}rft.·ndin~ L{)!lLioll: Heinemann p,~/(,(Jfl1l'nw, 2(),,2o. White, L M()ffitL T E . C",pi, i\" B"flU,cil. I), J ' "cedb, D. j,. 'lri.H:~, p" L. \Vollg-ang. M. E.. &. F-iglio, R. M. 119~5L Udinqilenn &. Stumharnt:r~L()(.'her. M. ! jtN4J. Mea.\uring and ill ftn' blrtli :·o/ioFB. \Va~illll~.iI)-n. l)( U.S. Offll.':c ,)1' Juvtllih: to delin4uelle;.. JU~liL·e and lkllllLjucncy Prc\'cnlloll

E (2000j The dt'vL"loPIllI:I1I aggn:~~jvc 0; hehav· P. K. i 1'lY I ). A surrcy oi lite Jill/lilY.' ami extem ,.:hildhom!· \Vh:.1! hil\C 'We- learned in !he pa:-.l il! jllnim/wuldlc ami ,\CU;miofY .\c/wo/'\ (final n:porr jourHoi {~I Nclnll'iortl! /)el dopme!ll. t(! tl/{ (;ulht';lkitlll FOl/lulwiolll' Sheffieid. CK, University of ShctTidd. VepanlllelH of P~YL'hol()g), n':Jl1hla~. R, i 200Xi. t;IH.ler:--tanding r I:, dt'vdopmelll and prL'\T!l!i()1l \V,durn. C. S. (J4X!.)j ThL' t.:~dt' \J( vioklH':C. .')l'i(,I1("(,. 244, T,)\.\ard:-. e>..p;;rtlllental epigen· 160-166, ('til :"ludiL',\ Tmnwclioll.\ (~l tlie Royul Sodety. R 363. 2()13-·2622 \Vidolll, C S. (IY44i. Childhuod viclimlL.ulion and adulescent problem behH"'lll", In I< D Kctleriinu, & (vI. L Lamh I Eds,). 'frcmhla), R, r" JapcL C, Peru,,", 0" McuufL p" Boi\ III. M" A(lolc.~celll IJfOh/clII In.:lulI'io{.\ q;p, 1:::7~164J. Hilbduk. NJ: ZoccolilJo, M, t::t al.! 19t}tJj. The ~ear...:h for Ihc age of onset ol Lawrence Erlh..lum. R()u~ ....rau and 13UlldufU revi.o.;itt'd. Criminal Wic'llcr. M., Capaldi. [), M .. &: KlIll. H, K. t2007L Arrc't trllJec, Hea/th, !. F. c.. & VUII der EmJe. J. 1 IY'J5), The eight,year 'tahil, Ity of prohlelll hehavior in an epidemiologic sample.. PcJiotri( for aggressivt' and dbruplivr heh;'i\ ior: Update oJ 8. mela­ analysis. American Journal (~l Prc\'elllirc .MedicilJe, 33(2S,. RCH'orc/J, .if)'. 612-617. 1~(),··143. Vn.:cmall. k.. C.. &; Cmrol!. A. E" I2(Xl7 L A syMemalic review of Wolfgang. M. Thornherry. T p, Ftglio. R, M. 1I9K7L ..... chnol-ha"ed irHt'rvclIlion,.., tu prevent hull)'ing, Archi\'c,\ E.. & From hoy IU IIIWI. {mill detint/l/('/lcy to crime. Chicago: Univcr..,ity of 0/ PnIilllrin {lnd Ado/csn>11! A-1cdidnc 161. 7~-88 Ch1c«g:O Pres;-., \Vad~l,\orth. M. (1979). RO(Jf., (;f'dt"iillfjU('/Ir'Y. London: Martin R()hcr! ..... (ll1 Zuho, M, A" Brumhaugh, S .. Sldkll,meiC[. 0" Feld, B. C M"""h. M .. Chesllev··Lind. M,. el ttl. (200HL Violellcc hy le(,lJug!' t!irls: W,,,chhu,ch, D A., & Willuugllh\. M, T (2(K)X). A!ll'J1tion,defkili 1'1"('11(/.1. wlioJfl(('Xl, \Vm,hington, DC' ll.S, Offkc of Juvenik hyrenH.:ti\'tI: di"(lrdel ant! l'llllou<.,,-tlnt'moliol1al lrail~ ,.\1111 11I{(,I'\'('/II/u1I.\ ipp. 197 ·247). Th()u'

W('tr~tcr·"Strali(ln. C. ! 199K 1 Pn.:, L'ntinv CI.)JldllL'1 pnihlem~ in HCJU order. Del'l'/opfllellf (llId I'\lchof.lll!holnt!y. 65··71'\, Star! L'hildrcn: SlIcllgLi1clIIng parcntint: cOlnpclcnL'it"\ . .lOUr/wI I~f (·(If!.lultillg tilid Clil/lco! PSlc/;olog.\, (If), 715 ~7.1() HANDBOOK OF ADOLESCENT PSYCHOLOGY

THIRD EDITION

Volume 1: Individual Bases of Adolescent Development

Edited By RICHARD M. LERNER LAURENCE STEINBERG

G1 WILEY John Wiley & Sons, Inc.