Trajectories of desistance and continuity in antisocial behavior following court adjudication among

24 Pages·2010·0.41 MB·English

DevelopmentandPsychopathology22(2010),453–475
#CambridgeUniversityPress,2010
doi:10.1017/S0954579410000179
REGULAR ARTICLE
Trajectories of desistance and continuity in antisocial behavior
following court adjudication among serious adolescent offenders
EDWARDP.MULVEY,aLAURENCESTEINBERG,bALEXR.PIQUERO,cMICHELLEBESANA,d
JEFFREYFAGAN,eCAROLSCHUBERT,fANDELIZABETHCAUFFMANg
aUniversityofPittsburgh;bTempleUniversity;cFloridaStateUniversity;dUniversityofPhilippinesVasayas;eColumbiaUniversity;
fUniversityofPittsburghMedicalCenter;andgUniversityofCalifornia–Irvine
Abstract
Becausemanyseriousadolescentoffendersreducetheirantisocialbehavioraftercourtinvolvement,understandingthepatternsandmechanismsoftheprocessof
desistancefromcriminalactivityisessentialfordevelopingeffectiveinterventionsandlegalpolicy.Thisstudyexaminedpatternsofself-reportedantisocialbehavior
overa3-yearperiodaftercourtinvolvementinasampleof1,119seriousmaleadolescentoffenders.Usinggrowthmixturemodels,andincorporatingtimeat
riskforoffendinginthecommunity,weidentifiedfivetrajectorygroups,includinga“persister”group(8.7%ofthesample)anda“desister”group(14.6%of
thesample).Casecharacteristics(age,ethnicity,antisocialhistory,deviantpeers,acriminalfather,substanceuse,psychosocialmaturity)differentiatedthe
fivetrajectorygroupswell,butdidnoteffectivelydifferentiatethepersistingfromdesistinggroup.Weshowthateventhemostseriousadolescentoffenders
reportrelativelylowlevelsofantisocialactivityaftercourtinvolvement,butthatdistinguishingeffectivelybetweenhigh-frequencyoffenderswhodesistandthose
whopersistrequiresfurtherconsiderationofpotentiallyimportantdynamicfactorsrelatedtothisprocess.
There is broad recognition of the potential of longitudinal of aggressive behavior; Coie & Dodge, 1998; Piquero, Far-
datato inform the studyof juvenile crime and delinquency. rington,&Blumstein,2003),andtheimportanceofparticular
Overthelastfewdecades,researchersconcernedwiththede- eventsatdifferentagesforpromotingonsetormaintenanceof
velopment of antisocial behavior have producedmanylarge antisocialactivity (e.g.,Kokko,Tremblay,Lacourse,Nagin,
prospective studies worldwide (see Thornberry & Krohn, &Vitaro,2006;Patterson&Stouthamer-Loeber,1984).
2003)andnumeroussecondaryanalysisprojects(e.g.,Broidy Panelstudieshaveconsiderablepotentialforhelpingjuvenile
et al., 2003; Sampson& Laub, 1993). The introduction and justiceandchildwelfareprofessionalsformulatemoreinformed
refinementofnewmethodologicalandstatisticaltechniques, identificationofat-riskgroupsandmorefocusedpreventivein-
particularly trajectory modeling (Muthe´n & Muthe´n, 2000; terventions (Mulvey & Woolard, 1997). Existing longitudinal
Nagin,1999,2005;Piquero,2008),havefueledtheseefforts, researchisminimallyuseful,however,inprovidingaclearpic-
allowingresearcherstodirectlyexaminegroup-basedpatterns tureoftheoffendingpatternsofadolescentswhoareintheju-
ofantisocialbehaviorovertime.Theseeffortshaveclarified venilejusticesystem,especiallyseriousadolescentoffenders,an
ourunderstandingofthecourseofparticularbehavioralpat- importantgroupfor thedevelopmentofcriminologicaltheory
ternsoverdifferentperiodsofdevelopment(e.g.,thestability andjuvenilejusticepolicy(Laub&Sampson,2001).Ingeneral,
extant studies have been directed mainly toward mapping out
developmentalregularitiesconnectedwiththeonsetandmain-
WearegratefulforthesupportofthisprojectbyfundsfromtheOfficeofJu-
tenanceofantisocialbehavior,providingapictureofwhenand
venileJusticeandDelinquencyPrevention(2007-MU-FX-0002),NationalIn-
stitute of Justice (2008-IJ-CX-0023),JohnD.and CatherineT. MacArthur howparticularchildrenveeroffthepathofnormaldevelopment
Foundation,WilliamT.GrantFoundation,RobertWoodJohnsonFoundation, to ones of high rates of antisocial activity (at least for an ex-
WilliamPennFoundation,CenterforDiseaseControl,NationalInstituteon tended time period).More specifically,longitudinal studies of
DrugAbuse(R01DA019697),PennsylvaniaCommissiononCrimeandDelin-
antisocial behavior usually have followed cohorts of children
quency,andtheArizonaGovernor’sJusticeCommission.Thecontentofthis
andadolescentssampledfromschoolsorcommunities,some-
articleissolelytheresponsibilityoftheauthorsanddoesnotnecessarilyrepre-
senttheofficialviewsoftheseagencies.WealsothankDanielNaginand timesoversamplingthosewithhigh-riskstatustoprovideade-
BobbyJonesfortheirconsultationandThomasLoughranforassistancewith quate numbers of both subjects whowill and will not display
dataanalysis. problem behaviors. Even with oversampling, though, this ap-
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Edward P. Mulvey,
proachusuallyyieldsonlyasmallnumberofadolescentswho
WesternPsychiatricInstituteandClinic,UniversityofPittsburghSchoolof
enduppenetratingdeeplyintothejuvenilejusticesystem(El-
Medicine,3811O’HaraStreet,Pittsburgh,PA15213;E-mail:mulveyep@
upmc.edu. liott&Huizinga,1987).Accordingly,thereislimitedinforma-
453
454 E.P.Mulveyetal.
tion about the specific developmental contexts andbehavioral Ourfocusin thisarticle isoncharacteristics ofoffenders
characteristics that differentiate among adolescents whose of- thatpredictpatternsofoffendinganddesistance,andnoton
fendingismostserious. the impact of various types of interventions on these same
Wewereonlyabletoidentifysixprevioustrajectorystudies outcomes. In the present analyses, we estimate the extent,
undertakenwithsamplesofadjudicatedoffenders.Threediffer- types,andmagnitudeofheterogeneityofsubsequentpatterns
ent data sets have been used, and all subjects were followed ofantisocialbehavioramongseriousoffenders,andwhether
throughportionsofadulthood.Threestudiesemploythesample thisheterogeneityismeaningfullyrelatedtoindividuals’de-
ofBostonareadelinquentsstudiedbytheGluecks(Eggleston, velopmental histories and life circumstances at the time of
Laub,&Sampson,2004;Laub,Nagin&Sampson,1998;Samp- court adjudication. Taking on the ambitious task of thor-
son & Laub, 2003), two involve cohorts of California Youth oughly mapping out the desistance process also requires an
Authorityparolees(Piqueroetal.,2001;Piquero,MacDonald, examination of the sanctioning and treatment experiences
& Parker, 2002), and one uses an offenders’ index from the ofoffenderswhileinthesystemaswellastheirexperiences
British Home Office (Francis, Soothill, & Fligelstone, 2004). inthecommunityincloselyspacedintervalswhileonproba-
Althoughimportant,thesestudiesarelimitedinfourways:(a) tionorafterreleasefromsecureconfinement.Staticcharacter-
theytendtoemployonlyofficialrecordsofoffending,(b)they isticsalonewillbeinsufficienttodifferentiatesubgroupswho
are based on a single site, (c) they contain primarily White follow different patterns of offending behavior (Nagin &
subjects(withtheexceptionoftheCaliforniaYouthAuthority Tremblay; 2005; Piquero, 2008; Sampson & Laub, 2005).
parolees), and (d) they contain a limited numberof important Nonetheless, examining relations between offender charac-
and relevant theoretical predictors that have been found to be teristicsandpatternsofoffendingarevaluableleadsforfram-
associated with antisocial and criminal activity over the life ingfutureresearchonthedesistanceprocessandthedevelop-
course. ment of possible screening tools for disposition decision
Information about patterns of change over time in serious making and risk management. The present analysis takes
offenders,ifavailable,wouldbeofenormousvalue,because thefirststepinaddressingthisbroadergoal.
itisthestartingpointformappingouttheprocessofdesistance Inthepresentstudy,trajectoryanalysisapproachesareused
frominvolvementinantisocialactivity(Ezell&Cohen,2005; todetermineifthereareidentifiablesubgroupsofseriousadoles-
Laub&Sampson,2001).Longitudinalresearchhasrepeatedly centoffenderswithdifferentpatternsofself-reportedoffending
documentedthatlessthanhalfofseriousadolescentoffenders during a 3-year follow-up period following adjudication. Al-
likely will continue their adult criminal career into their 20s thoughtheuseofgroup-basedtrajectorymodelingamongcrim-
(see Elliott, 1994; Piquero et al., 2001; Redding, 1997). De- inologistshasbeenbothwidelyemployedandcontroversial(Pi-
scribingthepathwaysoutofinvolvementinantisocialactivity quero,2008),webelievethattheenterpriseofidentifyinggroups
(andthejusticesystem)andidentifyingthekeyfactorsrelated ofindividualswithdifferentovertimepatternsofoffendingisa
todesistanceconstitutemajorquestionsthathavereceivedonly usefulendeavor,bothheuristicallyandpractically.Clearly,solu-
limitedattentionfromresearchers. tions obtained in any individual analysis (including this one)
are dependent on the characteristics of the sample examined,
the outcome measures used, and the length of the follow-up
PurposeofthePresentStudy
period(seeEgglestonetal.,2004;Piqueroetal.,2001;Roeder,
Thepresentarticledrawsondatafromanongoing,large-scale, Lynch,&Nagin,1999).However,trajectorysolutionscaniden-
prospectivestudyofacohortofseriousjuvenileoffenders,the tify individuals within meaningful populations, such as the
Pathways to Desistance study (see Mulvey et al., 2004). The sample for this study, who share common behavior patterns
primaryaimoftheanalysespresentedhereistoprovideapor- overtime.
traitoftheoffendingpatternsofagroupofseriousadolescent
offenders in the period following court adjudication. It ad-
FactorsPredictingSubgroupMembership
dressesthebasicquestionofhowmuchandwhattypeofvaria-
bilitymightexistinadolescentoffendersatthedeepestendof In addition to estimating distinct offending trajectories, our
the juvenile justice system. Knowing the trajectories of these interestinthisarticleisintherelationbetweenpatternsofof-
offenders in the critical period after their court involvement fendingandnumeroustheoreticallyrelevantfactorsthathave
providesvaluableinformationforfocusingassessmentandin- beenassociatedwithcontinuedoffendinginpreviousinves-
tervention strategies withthese individuals.We also examine tigations,butrarelystudiedwithinlargesamplesofjuveniles
thepowerofbackgroundcharacteristicstodifferentiateserious whohavebeenadjudicatedofseriousoffenses.Theuniverse
adolescentoffenderswhofollowdifferentbehavioralpathways ofpossiblevariablestoconsideraspredictorsofcontinuedof-
throughthistimeperiod.Inshort,thisstudyprovidesaunique fendingislong,andnosinglestudycouldhopetobeexhaus-
opportunitytoaddressthelimitationsofpreviouslongitudinal tiveinitscoverage.Followingacomprehensivereviewofthe
studiesofseriousjuvenileoffenders:itcontainsacomprehen- mostcommonandimportantriskorprotectivefactorsassoci-
sive, soundly measured, and generally complete set of both atedwithadolescentoffending(Loeber&Farrington,1998),
predictorandoutcomemeasuresonasampleofseriousadoles- we examined a set of variables indicative of an individual’s
centoffendersfromtwomajormetropolitanareas. riskorpropensityforfutureoffending(“casecharacteristics”)
Trajectoriesofdesistanceandcontinuityinantisocialbehavior 455
andasetofvariablesreflectingpotentiallycriminogenicso- (D’Amico,Edelen,Miles,&Morral,2008;Dembo,Wareham,
cialcontexts(“socialcontextcharacteristics”).Thisapproach &Schmeidler,2007)andthatcrimeandsubstanceusefluctuate
allowedustoexaminetherelativeinfluenceofbothpersonal togetherovertime(Sullivan&Hamilton,2007),suggestinga
andenvironmentalcharacteristicssimultaneously,andtocon- reciprocalrelationshipbetweenthetwobehaviors.
sidercontemporary theoretical modelsthat have been tested Affectivedisordersalsohaveademonstratedconnectionto
underawiderangeofsamplingandmeasurementconditions. involvementindelinquentbehavior.Affectivestatessuchas
Acentralquestionofthisinquiryiswhetherthefactorsasso- depressionoranxietycanoftenbemanifestedinadolescents
ciated with patterns of adolescent offending in prior studies asanger,leadingtoincreasedinvolvementinviolentactsto-
using population samples of adolescents are also predictive wardothers(Mattila,Parkkari,&Rimpela,2006).Inaddition,
ofdesistancewithinasampleofseriousadolescentoffenders. disproportionately higher rates of affective disorders have
beenobservedinsamplesofjuvenileoffenders(Abram,Tep-
lin, McClelland, & Dulcan, 2003). Although less is known
Casecharacteristics
abouttherelationbetweendelinquencyandaffectivepsycho-
Foursetsofindividualcharacteristicswereexamined:(a)crim- pathologyovertime,itseemsreasonabletoassumethatthere
inalhistory,(b)substanceuseandmooddisorders,(c)attitudes isasubstantialrelationbetweenthetwo(McReynoldsetal.,
toward the law, and (d) psychosocial maturity. Much prior 2008).
research on antisocial behavior in community and high-risk Thethirdsetofindividualpredictorsincludesindividuals’
samplesindicatesthatindividualswithahistoryofoffending, attitudes and values about antisocial behavior and beliefs
substanceuse,andothermentalhealthproblems,cynicalatti- about the law, law authorities, and legal institutions; some-
tudestowardthelegitimacyofthelaw,andpsychosocialimma- times referred to as “legal socialization” (Fagan & Tyler,
turity,especiallyproblemsinself-regulation,areatgreatriskfor 2005;Sampson&Bartusch,1998;Tapp&Kohlberg,1971;
continuedinvolvementinantisocialactivity.However,toour Tyler&Huo,2002).Attitudesabouttheacceptabilityofanti-
knowledge,nostudieshaveexaminedthesefactorssimultane- socialactivitytoachievedesiredendsortheelevationofone’s
ously,inconjunctionwiththecontextualvariableswedescribe owninterestsabovetheobligationsofthesocialcontracthave
below,orinasampleofseriousoffendersoveralengthystudy longbeenconsideredacentralcomponentofthecharacterofa
intervalthatspansdevelopmentaltransitionsfromadolescence repeat offender (Samenow, 1996). More specific attitudes
intoadulthood. aboutthelegitimacyofthelegalsystemhavealsobeenlinked
Thefirstsetoffactors,whichisthemostinfluentialfactorin to individuals’ inclination to follow a law-abiding lifestyle
judges’dispositiondecisions,concernstheoffender’spriorhis- (Tyler,1990,1997)andtocooperatewithpoliceandotherle-
tory of offending and arrest. A large literature (Campbell & galactors(Tyler&Fagan,2008).Ourownanalysesoflegal
Schmidt,2000;Hoge,Andrews,&Leschied,1995;Horwitz& socializationwithinthecurrentsampleindicatesquiteclearly
Wasserman, 1980; Matarazzo, Carrington, & Hiscott, 2001; thatoffendersdiffersignificantlyintheirviewsofthelawand
Thomas & Cage, 1977), including our own analyses with legalsystempriortotheiradjudication,thatthesedifferences
thissample(Cauffmanetal.,2007),indicatesthatdispositional arestableforasignificantperiodafteradjudication(Piquero,
decisionsincontemporaryjuvenilecourtsarebasedmainlyon Fagan, Mulvey, Steinberg, & Odgers, 2005), and that the
thetypeandseverityofthecurrentoffenseandtheindividual’s changesthatdooccurinthesebeliefsarerelatedlogicallyto
prior record, even when the adolescents considered are re- perceptionsofdeterrenceandthecostsandbenefitsofcrime
strictedtoseriousoffenders(thuslimitingtheheterogeneityof aswellastheriskofdetectionandpunishment (Fagan&Pi-
thesetwovariables).Accordingly,inthepresentsetofanalyses quero,2007).
we ask whether individuals with a history of relatively more Thefinalsetofpersonalfactorsincludesvariablesthatin-
seriousantisocialbehavior,asindexedbothbyjuveniles’self- dexindividualdifferencesinaspectsofpsychosocialmaturity
reportsofoffendingpriortotheircurrentadjudicationandtheir thathavebeenhypothesizedtoaffectantisocialbehavior.The
officialpriorarrestrecord,aremorelikelytofollowatrajectory mostinfluentialtheoryoftheunderlyingindividualcausesof
ofcontinuedoffendingthantheirpeers. individualdifferencesinantisocialbehaviorwithincriminol-
Thesecondsetofindividualcasecharacteristicscharacter- ogy is Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) General Theory of
izes individuals’ use and abuse of alcohol and illicit drugs Crime.Accordingtothisview,theonlysignificantindividual
(seeFagan,1990)andtheirmoodoranxietyproblems(Grisso, predictor of criminal activity is low self-control, defined as
2004).Agrowingbodyofevidenceindicatesahighdegreeof the “tendency to pursue short-term, immediate pleasure” to
comorbidityofsubstanceuseproblems(i.e.,highorproblem- theneglectoflong-termconsequences(p.93).ForGottfred-
atic levels of substance use or the presence of a diagnosable son and Hirschi (1990), self-control is, “for all intents and
substance use disorder of dependence or abuse) and delin- purposes, the individual-level cause of crime” (emphasis in
quency(i.e.,highratesofself-reportedcriminalbehaviororof- original,p.232)andisbelievedtostablypredictcriminalacts
ficialarrest)inadolescence,withabouthalfofallseriousjuve- throughoutthelifecourse(Hirschi&Gottfredson,1995),apo-
nile offenders having substance use problems(Grisso, 2004). sitionthathasreceivedextensivesupportinpriorresearch(Pratt
Thereisalsoevidencethatsubstanceuseatoneageisahighly &Cullen,2000).Deficienciesinself-controlwithinasampleof
consistentindicatorofcontinuedseriousoffendingatalaterage seriousoffendersshoulddistinguishindividualswhocontinue
456 E.P.Mulveyetal.
offendingfromthosewhodesistfromantisocialbehaviorover ExtendingPriorResearch
time(Cauffman,Steinberg,&Piquero,2005;Monahan,Stein-
Theanalysespresentedheredifferfrommuchoftheprevious
berg,Cauffman,&Mulvey,inpress).1Wealsoincludeotherin-
workexaminingpatternsofself-reportedoffending.First,we
dicatorsofpsychosocialmaturitythathavebeenlinkedtoado-
studyasampleofseriousadolescentoffenders,ratherthana
lescentantisocialbehavior,suchasresponsibility,perspective
general community or high-risk sample. Because trajectory
taking, and susceptibility to peer pressure (see Cauffman &
solutions are groupings of individuals in a sample based on
Steinberg, 2002). These constructs, indicating key perceptual
relative patterns of observations over time, any trajectory
abilitiesassociatedwithsuccessfultransitionfromadolescence
groupsobtainedcanonlybeinterpretedfortheirapplicability
to early adulthood roles, have been investigated in numerous
against the backdrop of the sample used for the particular
normativestudiesandoneslinkingtheseskillstoincreasedlike-
analyses. The trajectories derived here reflect possible sub-
lihood of involvement in riskyand antisocial behaviors (e.g.,
groupsofseriousadolescentoffenders,notalladolescentof-
Steinbergetal.,2008,2009).
fenders or adolescents in general. Second, the time period
covered starts with a baseline interview conducted shortly
Socialcontexts afteradjudicationandconsidersobservationsoverthesubse-
quent3years;mostpreviousanalysesconsiderchangesover
Theoriesofcontextualinfluencesonoffendinghavefocusedon differentages,ratherthanovertime.Thus,unliketheseprior
family, peers, and community as interrelated factors that in- analyses,thetrajectorygroupspresentedhereindicatesocial
crease the likelihood of involvement in antisocial behavior adaptationinrelationtotimesinceadjudication,ratherthanas
(Chung&Steinberg,2006).Ithasbeenshownthatadolescents afunctionofchronologicalage.
aremorelikelytoengageinantisocialbehaviorwhentheyare Bothoftheseaspectsofthedesignandanalysisaredelib-
exposedtoharshorlaxparenting,whentheyaffiliatewithde- erate. The Pathways to Desistance Study is primarily con-
linquentpeers,andwhentheygrowupinneighborhoodschar- cerned with providing data relevant for improving practice
acterizedbypoverty,disorganization,andlow“collectiveeffi- and policy in the justice system. As a result, our interest is
cacy” (Farrington, 2004; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2004; intheidentificationofgroupsofseriousadolescentoffenders
Loeber & Farrington, 1998). Cross-sectional analyses of data who present the most difficult individual and policy conun-
on histories of offending within the current sample indicate, drums,whodrivepolicyandlegislationwellinexcessoftheir
infact,thatoffendersfromcontextscharacterizedbypoorpar- numbersinthesystem,andaboutwhomleastisknown:those
enting, deviant peer groups, and neighborhood disadvantage who do not desist from offending, despite having been ar-
aredisproportionatelyoverrepresentedamongthemostserious restedandconvictedofaseriousoffense(e.g.,Laub&Samp-
of the serious offenders in the cohort (Chung & Steinberg, son,2001).Inaddition,dataareexaminedaboutthetimepe-
2006; Steinberg, Blatt-Eisengart, & Cauffman, 2006). What riod directly after court involvement. The pressing question
wedonotknow,however,iswhetherthesecontextualfactors for professionals in the juvenile and adult justice systems is
predictdistinctpatternsofoffendingovertimeandcontinued to determine what distinguishes those who get out of the
involvement in offending behavior at a high rate over time deependofthesystemoncetheyarethere(Jones,Harris,Fa-
andacrossdevelopmentalstages. der,&Grubstein,2001).Lookingaheadfromapointofcourt
Knowledgeofwhichindividualcasecharacteristicsandcon- involvementtoseewhatfactorsmightberelatedtodesistance
textualfactorsprospectivelypredictpatternsofdesistanceinse- canpromotereasonedandinformedinterventions.Afirsttask
riousadolescentoffendersandthestrengthoftheseeffectsare inthislargereffortistodetermineiftherearedistinctgroups
valuableforboththeoreticalandpracticalreasons.Information ofseriousadolescentoffenderswhofollowdifferentpathsof
about the factors most related to different patterns of involve- offendingaftertheyaredetectedbythecourt,andifthereare
ment in antisocial activities provides leads about the possible distinctcharacteristicsoftheadolescentswhoprogressalong
mechanismsbehindthesepatternsofbehaviors,withinthesam- eachofthesepathways.
pleasawholeandinidentifiedsubgroups(cf.Haviland&Na-
gin,2005).Onamorepracticalnote,theseresultsprovidethe
empiricalbaseneededtoconstructstructuredheuristicsorjudg- Methods
mentsystemsforclassifyingoffenders.Inshort,giventhelack
oflong-termdataonseriousadolescentoffendersgenerally,and Participants
thefactorsassociatedwithpersistence/desistanceamongsucha Thepathwaysstudyenrolled1,354adjudicatedadolescents2
groupspecifically(Laub&Sampson,2001),thisstudycanpro-
who were at least 14 and below 18 years of age at the time
videfertilegroundforspurringtheoreticalandpolicy-relevant
of the offense precipitating a court petition to the juvenile
discussionsaboutthecourse,nature,anddecisionsregardingse-
riousadolescentoffendingandoffenders.
2. Previousarticlesfromthisstudyreportedasamplesizeof1,355.Sincethe
publicationofthesearticles,1enrolledadolescentrevealedinalaterinter-
1. Itisimportanttonotethat,evenwithinapopulationofoffenders,there viewthatheliedabouthisageduringtheinterviewsandintheofficial
willbesufficientvariabilityinself-controltoassessitsrelationtoantiso- records.Givenhiscorrectage,hedidnotmeeteligibilityrequirements
cialandcriminalactivity(Hirschi&Gottfredson,2000). andthiscasewasremovedfromthesample.
Trajectoriesofdesistanceandcontinuityinantisocialbehavior 457
or adult court systems in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and proached (either the adolescent or the parent) declining to
Phoenix, Arizona, and found guilty (adjudicated) of one of participate. Some small, but statistically significant, differ-
alistofseriousoffenses.Eligiblecrimesincludedallfelony enceswerefoundbetweentheadolescentswhowereadjudi-
offenses with the exception of less serious property crimes, cated of eligible crimes, but not enrolled, and those adoles-
aswellasmisdemeanorweaponsoffensesandmisdemeanor centsenrolledinthestudy(thesearereportedinmoredetail
sexualassault.3Becausedruglawviolationsrepresentsucha inSchubertetal.,2004).Theenrolledgroupwasyoungerat
significantproportionoftheoffensescommittedbythisage theiradjudicationhearing(15.9vs.16.1yearsold;t¼–4.42,
group, and because males account for the vast majority of p,.001),hadmorepriorpetitionstocourt (meanof2.1vs.
thosecases(Stahl,2003),wewereconcernedaboutcompro- 1.5;t¼8.78,p,.001),andappearedinthecourtforthefirst
misingtheheterogeneityofthesampleifwedidnotlimitthe timeatanearlierage(13.9vs.14.2yearsold;t¼–3.29,p¼,
number of study participants who were drug offenders. .001). We did enroll proportionately more White offenders
Therefore,theproportionofjuvenilemaleswithdrugoffenses (test of proportions z ¼ 3.27, p , .005) and fewer African
wascappedatapproximately15%ofthesampleateachsite. Americans (test of proportions z ¼ 3.09, p , .005), most
All females meeting the age and adjudicated crime require- likelybecauseoftheimpositionofacapontheproportionof
mentsandallyouthswhosecaseswerebeingconsideredfor thesampleadjudicatedondrugcharges.Overall,thesedatain-
trialintheadultsystemwereeligibleforenrollment,evenifthe dicatethattheenrolledadolescentswerenoless,andpossibly
chargedcrimewasadrugoffense.Formostoftheseadoles- more,seriousoffendersthanthosenotenrolled.
cents,themostseriousadjudicatedchargethatqualifiedthem Abaselineinterviewwasconductedwithin75daysofad-
forenrollmentinthestudywasaseriouscrimeagainstperson judicationforenrolledyouthsinthejuvenilesystemand,for
(e.g., armed robbery, felony assault), and this was not their thosereferredtotheadultsystem,within90daysoftheirlegal
firstappearanceincourt.Furtherdetailsabouttheenrollment certificationasadults(astheresultofadecertificationhearing
process and sample characteristics are available in Schubert inPennsylvaniaoranadultarraignmenthearinginMaricopa
etal.(2004). County).Inmostcases(62%),thebaselineinterviewoccurred
We restricted ourcurrent analysesto male adolescent of- afterthedispositionhearing.Wethenconductedafollow-up
fenders who had at least three completed follow-up inter- interview(“time-point”interview)every6monthsfor3years
views out of the possible six (n ¼ 1,119). The ethnicity of andthenannuallythereafter.Allstudyparticipantshavecom-
thisselectedsampleis19.6%White,41.1%AfricanAmeri- pletedatleast3yearsoffollow-upinterviews,butinterviews
can,34.7%Hispanic,and4.6%other.Theparticipants’aver- beyondthatpointarestillongoing.Theanalysesreportedhere
ageagewas16.0years(SD¼1.2years)atthetimeofthein- usedatafromthebaselineinterviewandthesixfollow-upin-
itial interview. Table 1 presents the characteristics of the terviews completed over the first 3 years after the baseline
entire enrolled group, each gender group, and the selected interview.
subsample. Thecomputer-assistedinterviewassessesstatusandchange
There is limited research on longitudinal patterns of fe- across multiple domains such as individual functioning, psy-
maleoffending(Piquero,Brame,&Moffitt,2005),butexist- chosocial development and attitudes, family and community
ingstudiesindicatethatpatternsandtypesoffemaleoffend- context,andrelationships.Acombinationofstructuredandinter-
ing over time are likely to differ substantially from male viewer-ratedinstrumentswereused.4Onaverage,follow-upin-
offending(Moretti,Odgers&Jackson,2004).Unfortunately, terviewstook2hrtocomplete.Participantswerepaidfortheir
wehadonlyamarginallysufficientnumberoffemalesinthe participation.
sample(N¼184)toobtainastabletrajectorymodelforthis Interviewswerecompletedattheparticipants’homes,institu-
groupalone(cf.Nagin,2005).Ratherthanimposingstatisti- tionalplacement,orinapublicplacesuchasalibrary.Attempts
calcontrolsforthisvariableinanoverallmodel,weoptedto weremadetoprovideaprivatesettingortoconducttheinterview
consideronlymalesinthisanalysis,astrategythatallowsfor outofthehearingrangeofotherswithineachoftheselocations.
directcomparisonswithexistingstudies.Analysesofthepat- Trainedinterviewersreadeachitemaloudandrespondentsgen-
terns of female offending in this sample and in others are erallyansweredaloud.However,insituationsorinsectionsof
importantdirectionsforfutureresearch. theinterviewwhereprivacywasaconcern,aportablekeypad
wasprovidedasanoptiontoobtainanonverbalresponse.
Retentionofparticipantsinthestudywasveryhighduring
Procedures
the interval for this analysis. Overall, 3% of participants
Potential participants were identified from a daily review of dropped out of the studyand 3% died during the 36-month
court record information in each site. Adolescents and their follow-upperiod.Onaverage,wecompletedover90%ofthe
parents(oraparticipantadvocateinsituationswhereparental expectedinterviewsateachtimepoint.Asaresult,atthe3-
or guardian contact was unobtainable) provided informed yearpoint,77%oftheparticipantshadnomissedinterviews
consent to participate in the study, with 20% of those ap-
4. Acompletelistoftheconstructsthatwereassessedandtheinstruments
3. Thelistofchargesusedforenrollmentisavailablefromthecorresponding thatwereusedcanbeobtainedfromthecorrespondingauthoruponre-
author. quest.
458 E.P.Mulveyetal.
Table 1.Sample characteristics
Characteristic EntireSample Males Females Sample
N 1,354 1,170 184 1,119
Meanageatstudyindexpetition 16.24(1.10) 16.25(1.11) 16.16(1.02) 16.23(1.11)
Meannumberofpriorpetitionsa 1.92(2.14) 2.06(2.21) 1.04(1.41) 2.03(2.20)
Meanageatfirstpriorpetition 14.93(1.64) 14.85(1.67) 15.40(1.33) 14.86(1.66)
Race/ethnicity
Caucasian/White 0.20 0.19 0.27 0.20
AfricanAmerican/Black 0.41 0.42 0.37 0.41
Hispanic 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.34
Other 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05
Mostseriousoffenseb
Crimeagainstperson 0.44 0.45 0.41 0.45
Propertycrime 0.25 0.27 0.14 0.27
Drugoffense 0.16 0.13 0.31 0.13
Weaponsoffense 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.10
Other 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Missingdata 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Note:Thevaluesinparenthesesarestandarddeviations.
aAveragecountofallpriorpetitionsavailableinthesubject’scourtrecordsexcludingprobationviolations.
bMostseriouschargeonstudyindexpetition.
(theyhaveabaselineandsixtime-pointinterviews)and17% manner as the general variety score, except using a limited
havefourorfiveofthesixpossibletime-pointinterviews. numberofbehaviorallyhomogeneousactivities.Thatis,each
ofthesescoresisthesumoftheendorsedactsthatareeitherag-
gressiveoffenses(foraggressiveoffendingvarietyscore)orin-
Measures
come offenses (for income offending variety score). These
Self-reported offending. We used a modified version of the scoresarenotusedasoutcomemeasures,butarecomponents
Self-ReportofOffending(SRO;Elliott,1990;Huizinga,Es- ofacompositescoreregardingprioroffendingthatisusedas
bensen, & Weihar, 1991) at each interview to measure the apredictorvariableinlateranalyses.
adolescent’s account of his/her involvement in antisocial
and illegal activities. The scale used here is composed of
Casecharacteristics.
22itemslistingdifferentseriousillegalactivities(thespecific
items arepresentedlater).The subject indicateswhether he/ Demographics. Research participants provided their date
she has done any of these activities “ever” or over the“last of birth, ethnicity, and parental involvement in crime (i.e.,
6months”(bothtimeframeswereusedatthebaselineinterview, whether father was ever arrested or jailed, whether mother
butonlythe“last6months”timeframewasusedduringeach waseverarrestedorjailed)duringtheinitialinterview.Re-
follow-upinterview).Asumofthenumberofitemsendorsed search participants completed the Wechsler Abbreviated
(a “general variety” score ranging from 0 to 22) is calculated ScaleofIntelligence(Wechsler,1999),whichproducesanes-
foreachsubjectateachtimepoint. timateofgeneralintellectualability(IQ)basedontwosub-
The SRO measure used in the Pathways to Desistance tests: one for vocabulary and one for matrix reasoning. The
Studyisaversion ofthe mostcommonly usedself-reported Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence performance is
delinquencymeasureacrosslongitudinalstudiesofantisocial correlatedwithboththeWechslerIntelligenceScaleforChil-
behavior. Repeated analyses have demonstrated the scale’s dren and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, and it has
validity,reliability,associationwith predictor variables, and beennormedforindividualsaged6to89years.
correlation with official measures of offending among both
general- and offender-based samples in childhood, adoles- Prior history of offending and arrest. Juvenile court rec-
cence,andadulthood(seeThornberry&Krohn,2000).Pre- ords were coded regarding prior involvement with the legal
viousresearchhasshownthatavarietyscoreprovidesacon- systemforcriminaloffenses.Thetotalnumberofpriorpetitions
sistent and valid estimate of overall involvement in illegal tocourtandtheageatfirstpetitionweretakenfromtheseoffi-
activityoveragivenrecallperiod(Osgood,McMorris,&Po- cialsources.Toreducepotentialproblemsfrommulticollinear-
tenza,2002;Thornberry&Krohn,2000). ity,weconstructedasinglemeasurefortheconstructofantiso-
Twosubcategoriesoftheoffendingvarietyscorearealso cialhistoryfrommultipleindicators(ageatfirstarrest,number
computed: aggressive offending variety (e.g., “Been in a ofpriorpetitionsinpastyear,levelofself-reportedincomegen-
fight?”) and income offending variety (e.g., “Used checks eratingoffensesever,levelofself-reportedaggressiveoffenses
orcredit cards illegally?”). These are calculated inthesame ever; see Mulvey, Schubert, & Chung, 2007). To derive the
Trajectoriesofdesistanceandcontinuityinantisocialbehavior 459
compositemeasure,weperformedaconfirmatoryfactoranaly- holdependence,drugabuse,ordrugdependence;(b)significant
sesusingthefullsampleofPathwaysstudysubjects,including lifetime social consequences from alcohol use; (c) significant
the variables of age at first petition to court, number of prior lifetimesocialconsequencesfromdruguse;and(d)significant
courtpetitionsinthepastyear,SROaggressiveoffendingvari- dependencesymptomsfrombothalcoholanddruguse.Thefirst
etyscore(ever),andtheSROincomeoffendingvarietyscore variable was based on the CIDI interview and the remaining
(ever).Thiscomposite measure fit the datawell (comparative three from the Substance Use/Abuse Inventory. Using items
fitindex[CFI]¼0.99;rootmeansquareerrorofapproximation fromtheSubstanceUse/AbuseInventory,wealsoconstructed
[RMSEA]¼0.04). measuresoftheamountofsubstanceuseoverthe6monthsprior
Mood/anxietyandsubstanceuseproblemswereassessed totheinitialinterview.Variablesreflectingtheoveralllevelof
usingtheCompositeInternationalDiagnosticInterview(CIDI), alcoholuseandtheoverallsubstanceusefrequencywerecalcu-
a highly structured clinical interview based on DSM-IV and latedfromtheself-reportsofsubstanceuse.
ICD-10diagnosticcriteria(Kessler&Ustu¨n,2004).TheCIDI
isacomputerizedassessmenttooladministeredbynonclinical Attitudestowardthelegalsystem.Forthisstudy,wedevel-
interviewers(Kessleret al., 2004) that has good concordance oped measures of two central constructs regarding percep-
withotherclinician-baseddiagnosticinstruments(First,Spitzer, tions of the legal process, or legal socialization. Following
Gibbon, & Williams, 2002).The present studyonlyobtained Sampson and Bartusch (1998), we modified Srole’s (1956)
diagnosticinformationonmajordepressivedisorder,dysthymia, legal anomie scale to create a measure of legal cynicism
manic episode, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol abuse, that assesses general values about the normative basis of
alcohol dependency, drug abuse, and drug dependency in lawandsocialnorms.Theitemsassesswhetherlawsorrules
the previousyear. All items were coded as 0 (no diagnosis) arenotconsideredbindingintheexistential,presentlivesof
or1(diagnosis). respondents (Sampson & Bartusch, 1998). Respondents are
ResearchparticipantsalsocompletedtheRevisedChildren’s askedtoreporttheirlevelofagreementwithfivestatements,
ManifestAnxietyScale(Reynolds&Richmond,1985),a37- suchas“lawsaremadetobebroken”and“therearenoright
item,self-reportinstrumentdesignedtoassessthelevelandna- orwrongwaystomakemoney.”Themeasureiscomputedas
ture of anxiety. The subject is asked to endorse or deny each the mean of the five items, and it fit the baseline data ade-
statement as descriptive of his/her feelings or actions. A total quately(a¼0.60;CFI¼0.99;RMSEA¼0.03).
anxietyscoreiscomputedbasedonthenumberofpositiveen- WealsoadaptedTyler’s(1990,1997)measureoflegitimacy
dorsements from among 28 items, exclusive of 9 items that oflawandlegalactors.Itemsmeasuredrespondent’spercep-
comprisealiesubscale(a¼0.87forthebaselinedata). tion of fairness and equity of legal actors in their contacts
Inaddition,weassessedthequantityandfrequencyofal- withcitizens,includingbothpolicecontactsandcourtprocess-
coholanddruguseattheinitialinterviewusingitemsadapted ing(Tyler,1997;Tyler&Huo,2002;Tyler&Lind,1992).Re-
fromtheAlcoholandHealthStudyattheUniversityofMis- spondentsindicatetheiragreementwith11statementssuchas
souri(Chassin,Rogosch,&Barrera,1991;Sher,1981).This “overall,thepolicearehonest,”and“thebasicrightsofcitizens
measure considers the adolescent’s use of illegal drugs and are protectedbythe courts.” The measureiscomputedasthe
alcohol over the course of his/her lifetime and in the past 6 meanforthe11itemsandthisscorefitthebaselinedataade-
months.Theself-reportmeasureiscomprisedofthefollowing quately(a¼0.80;CFI¼0.92;RMSEA¼0.07).
subscales:substanceuse(e.g.,“Howoftenhaveyouhadalcohol Inaddition,weusedtheMechanismsofMoralDisengage-
todrink?”)andsocialconsequences,dependency,andtreatment ment(Bandura,Barbaranelli,Caprara,&Pastorelli,1996)to
(e.g.,“Haveyoueverhadproblemsorargumentswithfamilyor assessattitudesconcerningthetreatmentofothers,akeycompo-
friendsbeforebecauseofyouralcoholordruguse?”,“Haveyou nentofassessingthelegitimacyoflegalsanctions.Theself-
everwantedadrinkordrugssobadlythatyoucouldnotthinkof reportmeasurecontains32itemsthattapavarietyofjustifica-
aboutanythingelse?”). tionsformistreatingothers(e.g.,“Itisalrighttobeatsomeone
Inpriorwork(Mulveyetal.,2007),wedevelopedandre- whobadmouthsyourfamily.”).Followingtherecommenda-
portedthepsychometricpropertiesofcompositescoresderived tionsoftheauthorsofthescale,anoverallmeanofthe32items
from these measures to indicate the presence or absence of wasusedasageneralmoraldisengagementscore.Thisoverall
mood/anxiety problems and substance use problems, and we scoreshowedgoodinternalconsistencyatbaseline(a¼0.88).
usedthesesameindicatorshere.Mood/anxietyproblemswere
ratedusingfourdichotomousyes/novariables:(a)past-yeardi- Psychosocialmaturity.SteinbergandCauffman’s(1996)
agnosisofmajordepressivedisorder,dysthymia,oramanicepi- model of psychosocial maturity consists of three elements:
sode;(b)past(ever)impairmentfromdepressivesymptomatol- temperance, perspective, and responsibility; each of these
ogy;(c)past (ever)diagnosisofposttraumaticstressdisorder; hastwocomponents. Inthepresentstudy,weexamine each
and (4) significant anxietyproblems. The first three variables ofthesesixcomponentsindependently.Specifically,fortem-
werebasedonitemsfromtheCIDI,andthelastwasbasedon perance,weexamineimpulsecontrolandsuppressionofag-
theRevisedChildren’sManifestAnxietyScale.Thecomposite gression;forperspective,weexamineconsiderationofothers
forsubstanceuseproblemswascomposedoffourdichotomous andfutureorientation;andforresponsibility,weexamineper-
yes/noindicators:(a)past-yeardiagnosisofalcoholabuse,alco- sonal responsibility and resistance to peer influence. Four
460 E.P.Mulveyetal.
measureswereusedtocreatethesesixindices:theWeinber- mostcloselyreflectstheirbehavior.Next,theparticipantisasked
ger Adjustment Inventory (WAI; Weinberger & Schwartz, toratethedegreetowhichthestatementisaccurate(i.e.,“sortof
1990), which includes subscales assessing index impulse true”or“reallytrue”).Eachitemisthenscoredona4-pointscale,
control,suppressionofaggression,andconsiderationofoth- rangingfromreallytrueforthecharacterizationindicatingless
ers;thePsychosocialMaturityInventory(FormD;Greenber- resistancetoinfluence(1)toreallytrueforthecharacterization
ger,Josselson,Knerr,&Knerr,1974),whichincludesascale indicatingmoreresistancetoinfluence(4),withanswersofsort
that assesses personal responsibility; the Resistance to Peer oftrueassignedascoreof2(ifassociatedwiththelessresistant
Influencemeasure(Steinberg&Monahan,2007);andtheFu- option)or3(ifassociatedwiththemoreresistantoption).Ten
tureOutlookInventory(Cauffman&Woolard,1999),which suchitemsarepresentedtotheparticipant,eachexploringadif-
wasusedtoderiveameasureoffutureorientation. ferent dimension of peer influence (e.g., going along with
ThreesubscalesoftheWAIwereused:impulsecontrol(e.g., friends,sayingthingsonedoesnotreallybelieve),andoneresis-
“Isaythefirstthingthatcomesintomymindwithoutthinking tancetopeerinfluencescoreiscomputedforthismeasureby
enough about it”), suppression of aggression (e.g., “People averagingscoresonthe10items.Themeasureshowedexcellent
whogetmeangrybetterwatchout”),andconsiderationofoth- reliabilityandadequatefittothebaselinedata(a¼0.73;NFI¼
ers(e.g.,“Doingthingstohelpotherpeopleismoreimportant 0.92;CFI¼0.94;RMSEA¼0.04).
tomethan almost anything else”). Themeasure asks partici- Threecomposite measures(usedinprevious research,see
pantstoassesshowaccuratelyaseriesofstatementsmatchtheir Cauffman&Steinberg,2000)wereconstructedfromthesein-
ownbehaviorintheprevious6months(5-pointscale,falseto struments.Atemperancescaleiscomputedasthestandardized
true).Eachsubscalewasfoundtohaveadequatereliability(as meanofthe15itemscomprisingtheimpulsecontrolandsup-
indexedbyCronbacha)andgoodfittothebaselinedata(asin- pression of aggression subscales of the WAI. A perspective
dicatedbyconfirmatoryfactoranalysis):impulsecontrol(eight scaleiscomputedasthemeanofthestandardizedFutureOut-
items,a¼0.76;normativefitindex[NFI]¼0.95;CFI¼0.95; lookInventoryscoreandthe“considerationofothers”subscale
RMSEA¼0.07),suppressionofaggression(sevenitems,a¼ fromtheWAI.Aresponsibilityscaleiscomputedasthemean
0.78;NFI¼0.96;CFI¼0.97;RMSEA¼0.06),andconsid- ofthestandardizedPsychosocialMaturityInventoryscoreand
erationofothers(sevenitems,a¼0.73;NFI¼0.98;CFI¼ thestandardizedresistancetopeerinfluencescore.
0.99;RMSEA¼0.04). Table2summarizesthecompositemeasuresofindividual
The Future Outlook Inventory is a 15-item measure that characteristics that were used in these analyses. Composite
utilizesitemsfromtheLifeOrientationTask(Scheier&Car- measures were used to represent prior criminal behavior,
ver,1985),theZimbardoTimePerspectiveScale(Zimbardo, mood/anxietyproblems,substanceuseproblems,andaspects
1990), andtheConsideration of Future Consequences Scale of psychosocial maturity (temperance, perspective, and re-
(Strathman, Gleicher,Boninger, & Edwards, 1994). The in- sponsibility).Thesecompositesallfitthedatawellandrepre-
ventory asks participants to rank the degree to which each sentconstructsofinterestinaparsimoniousmanner.
statementreflectshowtheyusuallyact,onascaleof1(never
true) to 4 (alwaystrue). A future orientation score is calcu- Socialcontextualcharacteristics.
lated based on the mean of eight items from the scale (e.g.,
Neighborhooddisadvantage.Wecreatedasummaryscore
“Iwillkeepworkingatdifficult,boringtasksifIknowthey
oftheadolescent’sneighborhoodresourcesbasedoncensusdata
willhelpmegetaheadlater”).Thescaleshowedgoodreliabil-
foreachofthelocales(c.f.,Chung&Steinberg,2006).“Neigh-
ityandanexcellentfittothebaselinedata(a¼0.68;NFI¼
borhood” was defined by 2000 census tract boundaries and
0.96;CFI¼0.97;RMSEA¼0.03).
basedontheaddressyouthidentifiedastheirprimaryresidence
The Psychosocial Maturity Inventory includes a 30-item
atthetimeofthebaselineinterview.Themeasureofneighbor-
subscale that assesses personal responsibility (e.g., “If some-
hood disadvantage was derived using four indicators from
thing more interesting comes along, I will usually stop any
2000Censusdata:percentageofhouseholdsbelowthepoverty
workI’mdoing,”reversescored).Individualsrespondona4-
line;percentageofhouseholdsreceivingpublicassistance;per-
pointscale,fromstronglydisagreetostronglyagree;anoverall
centage of unemployed residents; and percentage of residents
personalresponsibilityscoreiscalculatedasthemeanacrossall
withlessthanahighschooleducation(USBureauoftheCensus,
30items.Themeasureshowedexcellentreliabilityandanade-
2000).Thesefactorsarerobustpredictorsofneighborhoodrisk
quatefittothebaselinedata(a¼0.89;NFI¼0.82,CFI¼0.87,
thatareassociatedwithelevatedratesofbothjuvenileandadult
andRMSEA¼0.04).
crime(forareview,seeFagan,2008).Aprincipalcomponents
The measure of resistance to peer influence (Steinberg &
analysis,runseparatelyforPhiladelphiaandMaricopaCounty,
Monahan,2007)assessesthedegreetowhichadolescentsactau-
revealed one factor that accounted for 79% and 77%, respec-
tonomouslyininteractionswiththeirpeergroup.Participantsare
tively,of total explained variance. Factor scores for neighbor-
firstpresentedwithtwoconflictingstatements(e.g.,“Somepeo-
hooddisadvantagewereusedinthemainanalyses.
plegoalongwiththeirfriendsjusttokeeptheirfriendshappy”
and “Other people refuse to go along with what their friends Parenting.TheParentalMonitoringInventory(Steinberg,
wanttodo,eventhoughtheyknowitwillmaketheirfriendsun- Lamborn,Dornbusch,&Darling,1992)wasadaptedforthis
happy”)andarethenaskedtochoosethecharacterizationthat studytoassessparentingpracticesrelatedtosupervisionofthe
Trajectoriesofdesistanceandcontinuityinantisocialbehavior 461
Table 2.Composite measures of constructs
Construct Indicators Instrument
Priorcriminalbehavior Ageatfirstarrest Courtrecord
Numberofpriorcourtpetitions(pastyear) Courtrecord
Aggressiveoffenses Self-reportoffending
Incomeoffenses Self-reportoffending
Mood/anxietyproblems Diagnosisofselectmooddisorder(pastyear) CIDI
Impairmentfromdepressivesymptoms(ever) CIDI
Diagnosisofposttraumaticstressdisorder(ever) CIDI
Significantanxietyproblems RevisedChildren’sManifestAnxiety
Scale
Substanceuseproblems Diagnosisofsubstanceusedisorder CIDI
Significantsocialconsequencesfromalcoholuse Substanceuse/abuseinventory
Significantsocialconsequencesfromdruguse Substanceuse/abuseinventory
Dependencesymptomsfromalcoholordruguse Substanceuse/abuseinventory
Temperance Impulsecontrol WAI
Suppressionofaggression WAI
Perspective Futureoutlookscore FutureOutlookInventory
Considerationofothers WAI
Responsibility Psychosocialmaturity PsychosocialMaturityIndex
Resistancetopeers Resistancetopeerinfluence
Note:CIDI,CompositeInternationalDiagnosticInterview;WAI,WeinbergerAdjustmentInventory.
adolescent.Preliminaryquestionsestablishthepresenceofa Lizotte,Krohn,Farnworth,&Jang,1994)toassessthedegree
singleindividualwhoisprimarilyresponsiblefortheyouth. ofantisocialactivityamongtheadolescent’speers.Research
Therespondent’sanswerstoseveralitemsabouttheircurrent participantsanswerquestionsaboutthelevelofinvolvement
livingsituation,specificallywhethertheylivewiththeiden- oftheirfriendsinillegalactivities(e.g.,“Howmanyofyour
tifiedcaretaker,establishestheskippatternfollowedinthepa- friends have sold drugs?”) and the amount of pressure that
rentalmonitoringitems.Thescaleiscomposedofnineitems. theirfriendsexertonthemtobeinvolvedinillegalactivities
Fiveitemsassessparentalknowledge,andareaskedevenifa (e.g., “How many of your friends have suggested that you
youthdoesnotlivewiththepersonidentifiedastheirprimary shouldselldrugs?”).Twoscoresarederivedfromthismea-
caretaker. If theyouth lives with the primary caretaker, four sure. The peer delinquency–behavior score is the mean of
additional items are asked to assess parental monitoring of the12itemsregardingtheinvolvementofpeersinillegalac-
the youth’s behavior (e.g., “How often do you have a set tivity. The peer delinquency–influence score isthe mean of
timetobehomeonweekendnights?”).Aparentalknowledge the7itemsregardingwhetherpeerspressuretheadolescentto
scoreiscalculatedasthemeanofthefiveitemsregardingpa- engage in illegal activities. Confirmatory factor analyses for
rental knowledge and a parental monitoring score is calcu- each of these scales showed good fits to the baseline data
latedasthemeanofthefouritemsaddressingthisaspectof (peer delinquency–behavior: a ¼ 0.92; NFI ¼ 0.93; CFI ¼
therelationship.Confirmatoryfactoranalyseswereconducted 0.94; RMSEA ¼ 0.09; peer delinquency–influence: a ¼
fittingatwo-factorsolutionwiththeabovesubscalescoresto 0.89;NFI¼0.95;CFI¼0.96;RMSEA¼0.07).
thebaselinedata.Thissolution,allowingforonecorrelateder-
rortermfitthedatawell(CFI¼0.92;RMSEA¼0.08).
Results
The Quality of Parental Relationships Inventory (Conger,
Ge,Elder,Lorenz,&Simons,1994)wasadaptedforthisstudy Latentclassgrowthanalysiswasusedtoidentifygroupsthat
toassesstheaffectivetoneoftheparental–adolescentrelation- follow distinctive patterns or pathways of self-reported anti-
ship,askedseparatelywithregardtomotherandfather.Forty- social behaviorover time. Latent class growth analysis uses
two items tap parental warmth (e.g., “How often does your a single outcome variable measured at multiple time points
mother let you know she really cares about you?”). For this todefinealatentclassmodelinwhichthelatentclassescorre-
study,weusedthescalefortheparentalwarmthofthemother, spondtodifferentgrowthcurveshapesfortheoutcomevari-
whichshowedreasonablyacceptablefittothebaselinedata(a able.Theanalysisestimatesthedifferentgrowthcurveshapes
¼0.92;NFI¼0.95;CFI¼0.95;RMSEA¼0.08).Therewere and class probabilities for each group (Muthe´n & Muthe´n,
toomanymissingvaluesfortheratingsoftheparentalwarmth 2000). We used the group-based trajectory modeling proce-
ofthefathertoincludethisvariable. dure developed by Nagin and colleagues (Land, McCall, &
Nagin, 1996; Land & Nagin, 1996; Nagin, 2005; Nagin &
Peers.ThePeerDelinquentBehavioritemsareasubsetof Land,1993;Nagin&Tremblay,1999;Roeder,Lynch,&Na-
19questionsusedbytheRochesterYouthStudy(Thornberry, gin, 1999) to identifysubgroups of individuals who display
462 E.P.Mulveyetal.
similar patterns of behavior over time. Analyses were done Table3. BIC and 2log (B ) of the models considered
e 10
usingthePROCTRAJprogram,anSASprocedureforesti-
matinggroup-basedtrajectorymodels.Becausewewereana- No.ofGroups BIC NullModel 2log (B )
e 10
lyzingcountdata(numberofactsendorsed)andmorezeros
1 214586.20
were present than would be expected in the purely Poisson
2 213008.40 1 3155.6
model, we used the zero-inflated Poisson model (Lambert,
3 212641.75 2 733.3
1992;Zorn,1998).Becausewewerenottestingnestedmodels, 4 212522.83 3 237.8
we followed the lead of D’Unger, Land, McCall, and Nagin 5 212461.63 4 122.4
(1998)andusedthechangeintheBayesianinformationcriter- 6 212417.87 5 87.52
7 212390.26 6 55.22
ion(BIC)tocomparethefitofdifferentmodels,accordingto
theguidelinesprovidedbyJones,Nagin,andRoeder(2001).
Note:BIC,Bayesianinformationcriterion;2log(B ),twicethelogarithmof
e 10
Thelevelofmissingdatafortheself-reportmeasurewas theBayesfactor.Thenullmodelcolumnrepresentsthenumberofgroups
low.Thetotalnumberofinterviewscompletedonthesample testedinthenullhypothesis.Here,2loge(B10)(cid:2)2(DBIC),whereDBICis
(N¼6,365)represents95%ofthenumberofinterviewsthat theBICofthealternative(morecomplex)modelminustheBICofthenull
(simpler)model.ThelogformoftheBayesfactorisinterpretedasthedegree
couldhavepossiblybeencollectedifallsubjects(N¼1,119) ofevidencefavoringthealternativemodel.
were successfully interviewed at each time point. Only 10
completedinterviewshadmissingdataonself-reportedanti- ofthesample,isalsoalowoffendinggroupbutwithaslightly
social activity. Missing data were assumed to be missing at moremarkeddeclinethangroup1inthefirsttwofollow-uppe-
randominthePROCTRAJprogram. riods. Group 3, which constitutes 17.6% of the sample, has
The analysis examining the sample for trajectory groups moderate levels of offending across the 36-month period.
took into account the effect of institutional confinement on Group 4, which represents about 14.65% of the sample, is a
thesubject’slevelofoffending,becausethisfactorcansub- high declining group whose level of offending is relatively
stantiallyaffectthederivedsolutioninsamplesofactiveof- highatthestartandsteadilydecreasesacrossthe36-monthpe-
fenders (see Piquero et al., 2001). Exposure time or the riod(i.e.,“desisters”).Group5,whichformsabout8.7%ofthe
amount of time the subject was free to engage in criminal sample,isahighoffendinggroupwhoselevelofoffendingis
acts in the community was used as atime-varyingcovariate highatthestartandremainsrelativelyhighercomparedtoother
intheanalysis.Thisvaluewasaproportionindicatingtheto- groupsacrossthe36-monthperiod(i.e.,“persisters”).Compar-
taldaysduring the6-month recall period thatthe individual isonsofthesetwogroupsmaybeespeciallyinformativetoour
was reported to be in the community (i.e., not in a detox/ understandingofthedesistanceprocess.
drug treatment facility, psychiatric hospital, secure facility, We checkedthe appropriateness of thisfive-groupmodel,
or residential treatment facility). This information was not usingfourdiagnosticstandardsrecommendedbyNagin(2005):
available for the baseline observation, so these values were (a) the average posterior probability of group membership
setuniformlyto1forthisstartingperiod(Nagin,2005). shouldbeatleast0.7forallthegroups,(b)theoddsofcorrect
classificationisgreaterthan5forallgroups,(c)thereisarea-
sonably close correspondence between a group’s estimated
Patternsofself-reportedoffending
probability of membership and the proportion of individuals
andidentificationofsubgroups
classifiedtothegrouponthebasisofmaximumposteriorprob-
Mixturesofuptosevenlatentclasseswereconsidered.Atthein- ability assignment rule, and (d) the confidence interval for
itialstagewherewedecidedonthenumberofclasses,theform groupmembershipprobabilityissufficientlynarrow.Table4
ofthepolynomialusedtocapturetheshapeofeachtrajectory presentsthefourdiagnosticsofmodelperformanceinthesam-
group was cubic in time. Table 3 presents the values of BIC pleandsuggeststhatthecapacityofthemodeltoestimategroup
and2log (B )forthesolutionswithdifferentnumberofgroups. membershipprobabilitiesandtosortcasesamongthegroupsis
e 10
For these data the BIC continued to improve as more verygood.Foreachgroup,thereisaclosecorrespondencebe-
groups were added, which is typical. The five-group trajec- tweentheestimatedprobabilityofmembershipandthepropor-
tory solution was chosen as the overall best fitting model, tionassignedtothegrouponthebasisofamaximumposterior
however, because the six- and seven-group trajectory solu- assignmentprobabilityrule.The95%confidenceintervalsare
tionsdidnotaddsubstantiallytotheunderstandingofdiffer- also relatively narrow for each group, less than 0.06 plus or
ent group patterns. The additional subgroups identified in minuspˆ .Theaverageposteriorprobabilityofgroupmember-
j
thesesolutionsweresmall(,5%ofthesample)anddidnotin- shipisconsiderablyabovethe0.7cutoffforeachgroup,andthe
dicatetrajectoriesthatweredistinctinshapefromtheonesap- oddsofcorrectclassificationisalsoconsiderablyabove5forall
pearinginthefive-groupsolution. thegroups.
Figure1showsthefinal,five-grouptrajectorysolutionusing Anillustrativefigureshowsthedifferencesinthelevelsof
exposure time as a time-varying covariate. Group 1, which self-reported antisocial activity among the groups. Figure 2
comprisesabout24.8%ofthesample,isalowoffendinggroup, showstheproportionofeachofthreeofthegroupsatdifferent
withalowlevelofoffendingatbaselinethatapproacheszeroin levelsofself-reportedoffending(Groups1,3,and5)thaten-
thefollow-upperiods.Group2,whichmakesupabout34.4% dorseseachoftheitemsincludedintheSROvarietyscoreat