Development of crime part 1 Flashcards
Definition of aggression
“Aggression refers to behaviours that are intended to and do harm another person”
General types of aggression
- Function
- Form
- Involvement
Function aggression
Proactive/Instrumental – towards a specific goal, calculated
Reactive/hostile – response to threat, attack or frustration, impulsive
Form aggression
Physical – physical damage or discomfort
Verbal – using words to inflict harm/pain
Relational – social exclusion, damaging social position or relationships
Involvement aggression
Direct - direct attack in person
Indirect – can be damage to a property, via another person, damaging social position – the perpetrator is unknown
Developmental changes in aggression
- Infancy - purely proactive physical aggression
- 2-6 yo- Still proactive aggression. Increase in verbal. Early starts of relational.
- 6-10 y.o- More sophisticated relational, decrease in proactive, increase in reactive.
- Adolescents - Relational cont. Increasement in violent aggression. Angry kids meet angry peers
Gender differences in developmental changes in aggression
- Infancy: Few gender differences in aggression.
- 2-6 y.o. boys are more physically aggressive
- 6-10 y.o boys use both physical and relational aggression and girls more relational aggression
- Adolescents- rates of violent behaviour are higher for boys than girls
Stability of aggression Study by Piquero et al., 2012
The review closes with an original empirical analysis using longitudinal data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development linking teacher-rated aggression in childhood/adolescence to official conviction records in mid-adulthood.
=> The findings suggest a strong degree of continuity in aggression/antisocial behaviour among the most aggressive youths/chronic offenders.
Stability of aggression
General stability over time and gender but the findings can vary; 18% of aggressive children
Role of gender: Moffitt (1993) female trajectories of aggression will reflect that of males, but with restricted representation in the higher aggression pathways
Role of genetics: Genes are responsible for 48% of the stability in reactive aggression and 85% in proactive aggression. [Tuvblad et al., 2009 Cliforni Twin study ]
Taxonomy of antisocial behaviour Moffitt et al., 1993, 2018
A theory stating that criminal acts are committed by 2 different groups of people
- Life-course-persistent antisocial behaviour (LCP)
- Adolescent-limited antisocial behaviour
Life-course persistent (LCP) offenders
Characterised by
Early-onset antisocial behaviour
Low IQ
More neuropsychological functioning
More temperamental and personality risk factors
Attentional deficits
Problems in emotion regulation
Greater family instability and family conflict
Have parents with less effective parenting strategies
Predominantly male
Adolescent-limited/ Adolescent onset people are:
Less violent
Have less severe problems
An exaggeration of normal adolescent development of rebellion and independence-seeking
They offend during their teenage years but they reform as becoming adults.
Developmental propensity theory
Lahey and Waldman, 2003
4 factors lead to an ‘antisocial propensity’ across development:
- Low cognitive ability (especially poor verbal ability)
- Low Prosociality
- High Daring
- Negative emotionality
Similarity to Moffit’s theory: the strength of the associations between these 4 factors and antisocial behaviour depends on the age of onset of behaviour
Negative emotionality
Tendency to experience negative emotions frequently, intensely, and with little provocation
Daring
Adventurousness and enjoyment of loud, rough, and risky activities.
Kids with high daring at greater risk of dev. conduct disorder (Lahey et al., 2008)
Prosociality
Prosociality is a dimension of temperament characterized by dispositional sympathy for
others
Age-graded informal social control theory (Sampson & Laub, 2005)
Suggests that social structural factors, such as family disruption, unemployment, residential mobility, and SES, indirectly affect delinquency through social bonds.
Focuses on what inhibits crime vs causing it
- Strength of bond to society (changes with age, family, school, peers, etc); depends on:
- Attachments (e.g., parents, schools)
- Parenting (e.g., discipline, supervision)
- Structural factors (e.g., SES, ethnicity)
- Individual differences (e.g., IQ, temperament) (indirect effects)
Emphasises change over time (e.g., marriage or a stable job can decrease offending)
Are there adult-onset only criminals?
At least 1/4 of first-time convictions will occur after 30 years (Skardhamar, 2014)
=> Challenges the Life-course persistent (LCP) offenders Moffitt 1993; 2018
BUT Beckley et al. including Moffit (2016)
- Dunedin cohort found:
=> Apparent adult-onset offenders are responsible for a small proportion of total crimes (30% of ppl responsible for ~15% of crimes)
=> Involved in less serious offences (e.g., property crime or fraud)
=> Did display antisocial behaviours during childhood but to a lesser extent (but then, who didn’t? Isn’t small degree of anitisocial behaviour/aggression normal in kids?)
OR
-They are LCP but just avoided getting caught in teenage years due to nature of the crime
- MH illness and/or substance misuse
- Adult-onset offending had the same causes as juvenile-onset offending (‘a light version’)
=> Is compatible with life-course persistent developmental theories
Jouvenille deliquency
An offending act (legl term) by a young person convicted of an offence which would be deemed a crime if committed by an adult
Most recurrent juvenile offenders will have conduct disorder
Conduct disorder (CD)
(DSM-V) CD falls within the larger category of ‘Disruptive, Impulse-Control & Conduct disorders.’
- Persistent and repetitious behaviours that violate the basic rights of others or age-appropriate social norms
- A huge impact on individuals, families and communities
Diagnostic criteria is organised into 4 categories:
- Aggression towards people or animals
- Destruction of property
- Deceitfulness/theft
- Serious violations of rules
The developmental course of CD is stable (Kim-Cohen et al, 2009)
all antisocial youth have CD but not all CD kids will have antisocial personality disorder
Issues with diagnosing CD
- Very heterogeneous disorder
- Many many different symptom combinations are possible (Nock et al., 2006)
- Frequently co-occurs with other disorders (e.g., anxiety disorders) [3.1 times more likely to have an AD than those without (Angold et al., 1999)]
Diagnosis is based only on behavioural symptoms - can be tricky and socio-culturally dependent
No information on development, cause, or possible treatments
CD stats
Rates are between 2-10% with a median of 4% (5% in UK Blakely et al., 2021)
More prevalent in boys (4:1)
Rates higher for adolescents than children
Lower SES status
Rates have increased fivefold in the last 70 years in Western countries (Robbins, 1999)
Clinical features of CD by age
Younger (3-7 years): Defiance, disobedience, temper tantrums, property destruction Middle childhood (8-11 years): Physical fights, bullying, cruelty to animals, fire setting, stealing, lying Adolescence (12–17 years): Assault, robbery with force, vandalism, breaking and entering, running away from home, truancy, drug misuse
BUT age of onset has some issues (problems recalling first symptoms + cut-off age is not clearly defined)
Callous-unemotional (CU) traits
Screed with: Antisocial Process Screening Device (Frick & Hare 2001)
Children with CD + CU may be: remorseless, lacking in empathy, manipulative, deceitful &/or cruel.
DSM-5 At least 2 of:
- lack of remorse/guilt
- callous/lack of empathy
- unconcerned about performance
- shallow/deficient affect
Importance of Callous-unemotional (CU) traits diagnosis
- Stable predictive outcome (diagnosis of CU traits at 13 stable predicts psychopathy 11 years later)
- The pathology of CU and Psychopathy seems to be fairly similar and based in biology
- Conduct problems in youth without CU = dysfunctional parenting but less so for youth with CU (Frick & White, 2008)
- Form implications for developmental models of antisocial behaviour
CD+ CU key deficits
- A lot of evidence linking emotion recognition deficits with antisocial behaviour (see Marsh & Blair, 2008).
- CD (with or without CU traits) appears to be associated with broader emotion recognition deficits (Fairchild et al., 2009; 2010). - Deficits in emotion recognition may lead to inappropriate response decisions – e.g. misattribution of anger to an ambiguous facial expression may result in a physical confrontation.
- Deficits in recognising distress cues (e.g. sadness and fear)= high CU traits (Dadds et al., 2006) = lack of empathy (Klapwijk et al., 2016; Lozier et al., 2014)
- Impaired recognition of distress may delineate a specific developmental pathway to CD+CU
- Deficits in their reactivity to signs of fear (Fanti et al., 2016; Gao et al., 2010)
- Less sensitive to punishment cues; More fearless and thrill-seeking (Fingers et al., 2008;)
CD + CU social brain network abnormalities
Emotional evaluation and threat detection (Amygdala-vmPFC) Empathising network (insula and amygdala) Decision-making impairments (negative prediction error signalling) (dorsal striatum-vmPFC)
Paper on the importance of callous-unemotional (CU) traits
Frick and White, 2008
- Review of studies on CU traits
- CU traits seem to be relatively stable across childhood and adolescence
- They designate a group of youth with a particularly severe, aggressive, and stable pattern of antisocial behaviour.
- Antisocial youth with CU traits show a number of distinct emotional, cognitive, and personality characteristics compared to other antisocial youth.
> These characteristics of youth with CU traits have important implications for causal models of antisocial and aggressive behaviour, for methods used to study antisocial youth, and for assessing and treating antisocial and aggressive behaviour in children and adolescents.
How are CU traits form implications for developmental models of antisocial behaviour
CU traits are stable across time. They also characterise a specific group of youth who are particularly severe in aggression and antisocial behaviour (there is something about them that gives them CU traits and makes them “worse”)
- > They have specific temperamental characteristics (more thrill-seeking, reduced level of distress and response to danger) => which can be traced to specific neural mechanisms (amygdala and related circuits) [Blair et al. (2005)]=> can be linked to genetics
- > Abnormal development of temperament and conscience = temperament deficits in emotional reactivity cause CU traits (lower empathy or guilt) = Pardini (2006) reported that the association between fearlessness and violent delinquency was mediated by the presence of CU traits in a sample of adjudicated adolescents.
-> Early identification may provide ideas and room fo successful intervention
Cornell and Frick (2007) reported that preschool children who were behaviorally uninhibited showed enhanced conscience development if they experienced consistent discipline and a parenting style that emphasized a strong and obedience-oriented (i.e., authoritarian) approach to parenting. They suggested that the under-arousal exhibited by fearless children may require parents to incorporate stronger methods of socialization that bring arousal levels to an optimal range in order for the child to internalize parental norms for prosocial behaviour.
BUT sometimes the best approach is parental warmth and responsiveness b/c the authoritarian parenting may lead to too much arousal negatively affecting the conscience development. This approach focuses on positive aspects of the parent-child relationship (Kochanska, 1997)
