Measuring Engagement in Antisocial Behavior During Late Adolescence and Early Adulthood for Typically Developing Youth

Abstract

Research examining the nature and extent of participation in antisocial behavior (ASB) in typically developing individuals during late adolescence and early adulthood remains rare. A self-report instrument for measuring participation in ASB was developed and administered to an Australian sample of 404 youth (64.9% females) aged 17 to 22-years using item-response theory methods. All participants reported involvement in multiple forms of ASB, although this involvement was skewed toward less serious behaviors, suggesting that engagement in these behaviors were common for typically developing youth. Unlike previous research, few sex differences were detected, with females’ self-reported involvement in ASB similar to that of males. A need for ongoing longitudinal research in typically developing samples was highlighted, particularly on the transition to adulthood.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Data Availability

The data for this research are made available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/6g8eh/; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6G8EH.

References

  1. 1.

    American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5, 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association

  2. 2.

    Burt SA (2009) Are there meaningful etiological differences within antisocial behavior? Results of a meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 29(2):163–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.12.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    DeLisi M, Piquero AR (2011) New frontiers in criminal careers research, 2000–2011: a state-of-the-art review. J Crim Justice 39(4):289–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Moffitt TE (2018) Male antisocial behaviour in adolescence and beyond. Nat Hum Behav 2(3):177–186. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0309-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Piquero AR, Farrington DP, Blumstein A (2007) Key issues in criminal career research: new analyses of the cambridge study in delinquent development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Loeber R, Menting B, Lynam DR, Moffitt TE, Stouthamer-Loeber M, Stallings R et al (2012) Findings from the Pittsburgh Youth Study: cognitive impulsivity and intelligence as predictors of the age-crime curve. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 51(11):1136–1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2012.08.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Harrington H, Milne BJ (2002) Males on the life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways: follow-up at age 26 years. Dev Psychopathol 14(1):179–207. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579402001104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Elonheimo H, Gyllenberg D, Huttunen J, Ristkari T, Sillanmäki L, Sourander A (2014) Criminal offending among males and females between ages 15 and 30 in a population-based nationwide 1981 birth cohort: Results from the FinnCrime Study. J Adolesc 37(8):1269–1279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.09.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Blokland AAJ, Nieuwbeerta P (2005) The effects of life circumstances on longitudinal trajectories of offending. Criminology 43(4):1203–1240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2005.00037.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Brennan PA, Mednick SA, Hodgins S (2000) Major Mental Disorders and Criminal Violence in a Danish Birth Cohort. Arch Gen Psychiatry 57(5):494–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bor W, McGee TR, Fagan AA (2004) Early risk factors for adolescent antisocial behaviour: an Australian longitudinal study. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 38(5):365–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1440-1614.2004.01365.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Stewart A, Allard T, Gray B, Ogilvie J (2007) Understanding initiation of offending and recidivism across the juvenile and adult justice systems. Justice Modelling @ Griffith, Griffith University, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Australian Institute of Criminology (2014) Australian crime: facts and figures 2013. Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra

  14. 14.

    Enzmann D, Marshall IH, Killias M, Junger-Tas J, Steketee M, Gruszczynska B (2010) Self-reported youth delinquency in Europe and beyond: first results of the Second International Self-Report Delinquency Study in the context of police and victimization data. Eur J Criminol 7(2):159–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370809358018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Blumstein A, Cohen J, Roth J, Visher CA (1986) Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals”. Report of the National Academy of Sciences Panel on Criminal Careers. National Academy Press, Washington, DC1

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Jolliffe D, Farrington DP, Piquero AR, MacLeod JF, van de Weijer S (2017) Prevalence of life-course-persistent, adolescence-limited, and late-onset offenders: a systematic review of prospective longitudinal studies. Aggress Violent Behav 33:4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Moffitt TE (2006) A review of research on the taxonomy of life-course persistent versus adolescence-limited antisocial behavior. In: Cullen FT, Wright JP, Blevins KR (eds) Taking stock: the status of criminological theory advances in criminological theory. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, pp 277–31115

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Stolzenberg L, D'Alessio SJ (2008) Co-offending and the age-crime curve. J Res Crime Delinq 45(1):65–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427807309441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Warr M (2002) Companions in crime: the social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Burt SA (2012) How do we optimally conceptualize the heterogeneity within antisocial behavior? An argument for aggressive versus non-aggressive behavioral dimensions. Clin Psychol Rev 32(4):263–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.02.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Tremblay RE (2010) Developmental origins of disruptive behaviour problems: The 'original sin' hypothesis, epigenetics and their consequences for prevention. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 51(4):341–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02211.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Gatti U, Soellner R, Schadee HMA, Verde A, Rocca G (2013) Effects of delinquency on alcohol use among Juveniles in Europe: results from the ISRD-2 study. Eur J Crim Policy Res 19(2):153–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-013-9202-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Pulkkinen L, Lyyra A-L, Kokko K (2009) Life success of males on nonoffender, adolescence-limited, persistent, and adult-onset antisocial pathways: follow-up from age 8 to 42. Aggress Behav 35(2):117–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Junger-Tas J, Marshall IH (1999) The self-report methodology in crime research. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 25:291–368. https://doi.org/10.1086/449291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Curcio AL, Mak AS, Knott VE (2015) The Australian self-report delinquency scale: a revision. Aust J Psychol 67(3):166–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Rutter M (2003) Commentary: Causal processes leading to antisocial behavior. Dev Psychol 39(2):372–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Osgood DW, McMorris BJ, Potenza MT (2002) Analyzing multiple-item measures of crime and deviance I: item response theory scaling. J Quant Criminol 18(3):267–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016008004010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Piquero AR, MacIntosh R, Hickman M (2002) The validity of a self-reported delinquency scale: comparisons across gender, age race, and place of residence. Sociol Methods Res 30(4):492–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124102030004002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Raudenbush SW, Johnson C, Sampson RJ (2003) A multivariate, multilevel Rasch model with application to self-reported criminal behavior. Sociol Methodol 33(1):169–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0081-1750.2003.t01-1-00130.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Farrington DP, Ttofi MM (2014) Criminal careers in self-reports compared with official records. Crim Behav Ment Health 24(4):225–228. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.1932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Carroll A, Durkin K, Houghton S, Hattie J (1996) An adaptation of Mak's self-reported delinquency scale for Western Australian adolescents. Aust J Psychol 48(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049539608259498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Elliott DS, Huizinga D, Ageton SS (1985) Explaining delinquency and drug use. Sage, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Le Blanc M, Bouthillier C (2003) A developmental test of the general deviance syndrome with adjudicated girls and boys using hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis. Crim Behav Ment Health 13:81–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Brener ND, Kann L, Shanklin S, Kinchen S, Easton DK, Hawkins J et al (2013) Methodology of the youth risk behavior surveillance system - 2013. Centers Dis Control Prev Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 62(1):1–25

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Flesch R (1948) A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 32(3):221–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Snow PC, Powell MB (2012) Youth (in)justice: Oral language competence in early life and risk for engagement in antisocial behaviour in adolescence. Trends Issues Crime Crim Justice 435:421

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    The National Health and Medical Research Council (2015) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007. In: Australian Research Council and the Australian Vice-Cancellors' Committee (Ed.). Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra

  38. 38.

    Revelle W (2017) psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research, 1st.7.5 edn. Northwestern University, Evanston

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Core Team R (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Samejima F (1969) Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychom Monogr 17(4):1

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Chalmers RP (2012) mirt: a multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. J Stat Softw 48(6):1–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    McDonald RP (1999) Test theory: a unified treatment. Psychology Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Stout WF (1990) A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensionality assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika 55(2):293–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Harwell M, Stone CA, Hsu T-C, Kirisci L (1996) Monte Carlo studies in item response theory. Appl Psychol Meas 20(2):101–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169602000201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Kang T, Chen TT (2008) Performance of the generalized S-X2 item fit index for polytomous IRT models. J Educ Meas 45(4):391–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2008.00071.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Orlando M, Thissen D (2000) Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Appl Psychol Meas 24(1):50–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216000241003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Orlando M, Thissen D (2003) Further investigation of the performance of S - X2: an item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Appl Psychol Meas 27(4):289–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621603027004004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Thissen D, Pommerich M, Billeaud K, Williams VSL (1995) Item response theory for scores on tests including polytomous items with ordered responses. Appl Psychol Meas 19(1):39–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169501900105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Brindle KA, Bowles TV, Freeman E (2019) A retrospective examination of antisocial and risk-taking behaviours. Psychiatry Psychol Law 26(4):644–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2019.1618747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2014) National Drug Strategy Household Survey detailed report 2013. Drug Statistics Series No. 28. Cat No. PHE 183. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra

  51. 51.

    Krohn MD, Thornberry TP, Gibson CL, Baldwin JM (2010) The development and impact of self-report measures of crime and delinquency. J Quant Criminol 26(4):509–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-010-9119-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Canter RJ (1982) Sex differences in self-report delinquency. Criminology 20(3–4):373–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Bacon AM, Burak H, Rann J (2014) Sex differences in the relationship between sensation seeking, trait emotional intelligence and delinquent behaviour. J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol 25(6):673–683. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2014.943796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Moffitt TE (2006) Life-course-persistent versus adolescence-limited antisocial behavior. In: Cicchetti D, Cohen DJ (eds) Developmental psychopathology, vol 3, 2nd edn. Wiley, Newark, pp 570–598

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Roisman GI, Monahan KC, Campbell SB, Steinberg L, Cauffman E (2010) Is adolescence-onset antisocial behavior developmentally normative? Dev Psychopathol 22(2):295–311. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000076

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

JO was awarded an Australian Postgraduate Scholarship to support the completion of this research.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James M. Ogilvie.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study with human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (The National Health and Medical Research Council 2015).

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6 Descriptive information for scale items
Table 7 Single-factor solution factor loadings and fit indices to assess unidimensionality for antisocial behaviour categories

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ogilvie, J.M., Stewart, A. & Shum, D.H.K. Measuring Engagement in Antisocial Behavior During Late Adolescence and Early Adulthood for Typically Developing Youth. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 52, 248–269 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-020-01005-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Self-report
  • Antisocial behavior
  • Adolescence
  • Item-response theory