A Psychosocial Test of the Maturity Gap Thesis

Abstract

Previous tests of the maturity gap thesis incorporated one-dimensional autonomy-based measures of social maturity. We present the first test of the maturity gap thesis to incorporate psychosocial measures (i.e., temperance, responsibility, and perspective). Four delinquency and substance abuse variables from Wave 2 of the Add Health data were regressed on the following variables developed from Wave 1: relative pubertal development, relative psychosocial maturity, personal autonomy, and interactions among each (n = 4,530 participants younger than 18 and 294 older than 18). Personal autonomy lost significance when psychosocial maturity, personal autonomy, and pubertal development were included in the same model. However, psychosocial maturity did not clearly interact with either personal autonomy or pubertal development. Psychosocial maturity was associated with deviant behaviors for both males and females, above and below age 18.

Keywords

delinquency psychosocial maturity puberty maturity gap

It is well-documented that deviant tendencies increase during adolescence (Blumstein, Cohen, & Farrington, 1988; Farrington, Piquero, & Jennings, 2013; Moffitt, 1993; Spear, 2000; Steinberg, 2008). Although it is still not completely clear why risk-taking behaviors increase during this time, several studies have found that pubertal development is associated with antisocial outcomes during adolescence (Cota-Robles, Neiss, & Rowe, 2002; Ge, Conger, & Elder, 2001; Haynie, 2003; Mendle, Turkheimer, & Emery, 2007; Peskin, 1967). Additional research has investigated the effects of physical changes in the body combined with social maturity in the quest to explain deviance (Felson & Haynie, 2002; Galambos & Tilton-Weaver, 2000). Most recently, a disparity between pubertal development and social maturity known as the “maturity gap” (Moffitt, 1993) has been proffered as a driving force behind delinquent behavior, particularly in adolescence-limited offenders (e.g., Barnes & Beaver, 2010; Piquero & Brezina, 2001). In the maturity gap perspective, most adolescents are described as “chronological hostages of a time warp between biological age and social age”; a “gap” is said to exist when an individual is reproductively mature but not socially mature (Moffitt, 1993, p. 687).

The measurement of pubertal development is relatively straightforward; reproductive changes are largely physical in nature, meaning they are readily observable (e.g., facial hair growth or breast enlargement). The timing of these changes has been of particular interest for explaining deviance (Barnes & Beaver, 2010; Felson & Haynie, 2002; Williams & Dunlop, 1999). Social maturity, in contrast, is decidedly more complex to observe and measure, yet the operationalization of this important concept has not yet received the attention it should. Even Moffitt (1993) did not formally define social maturity. The closest she came was in her observation that teens

. . . remain financially and socially dependent on their families of origin and are allowed few decisions of any real import [,yet] they want desperately to establish intimate bonds with the opposite sex . . . and be regarded as consequential by adults. (p. 687)

Most prior tests of the maturity gap thesis have conceptualized social maturity in terms of teens’ autonomy from parents. This was the core measure in Barnes and Beaver’s (2010) article. Earlier work by Piquero and Brezina (2001) also incorporated two nearly identical measures of autonomy, namely “autonomy with peers” and a “desire-for-autonomy scale” (pp. 359-360). Likewise, Sentse, Dijkstra, Lindenberg, Ormel, and Veenstra (2010) conceived of social maturity in terms of parental protectiveness with measures pertaining to autonomy in decision making (e.g., Did parents permit youth to make decisions regarding the clothes they chose to wear?).

Recent work in developmental psychology calls for a departure from one-dimensional autonomy-based conceptions of social maturity (e.g., Monahan, Steinberg, Cauffman, & Mulvey, 2009; Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996). While Moffitt (1993) focused on teens’ desire for access to adult roles, reductions in antisocial behavior during the transition to adulthood could be due to improvements in individuals’ “maturity of judgment” or “psychosocial maturity” (Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996). Psychosocial maturity, which refers to improved socioemotional competence and adaptive functioning among adolescents (Galambos, Turner, & Tilton-Weaver, 2005), might well serve as a better measure of social maturity compared with prior studies’ operationalization of social maturity in terms of autonomy. Indeed, the transitional period from late adolescence to young adulthood is characterized by changes that involve multiple dimensions, including biological, psychological, and social (Rocque, 2015). Maturation (especially perceived maturation) can be influenced by an array of factors (see Galambos, Kolaric, Sears, & Maggs, 1999; Tilton-Weaver, Vitunski, & Galambos, 2001), so the measurement of social maturity should attempt to take these dimensions into account.

There is good reason to suspect that the negative effects of pubertal development could be harnessed by well-developed psychosocial maturity. On one hand, biological development is driving individuals toward sensation-seeking. On the other hand, psychosocial maturity controls and organizes such drives, if established normally within an individual. According to Steinberg and Monahan (2009), there are substantial changes in sensation-seeking, risk-taking, and reward sensitivity in early adolescence. At the same time, the ongoing maturation of the cognitive control system reduces risk-taking, especially between adolescence and adulthood. It plays an essential role in self-regulation, through better coordination of emotion and cognition. One can see a similar notion in Moffitt’s (1993) life-course persistent offenders group, which experiences neurological deficiencies that can negatively influence the normative self-regulation process. This may prevent these individuals from experiencing balanced developmental growth in terms of both the self-regulation process and biological maturity.

Absent from the literature is a test of the maturity gap thesis that incorporates the concept of psychosocial maturity. To address this gap, we present results from the first formal test of the maturity gap thesis that provides a multidimensional conception of social maturity which is not simply autonomy-based. We also compare the delinquency-predicting abilities of an autonomy-based social maturity (measured as parental permissiveness) concept with a multidimensional social maturity concept (measured as psychosocial maturity). We offer a preliminary answer to the question, which better explains delinquency? We do so by testing the main effects of pubertal development, psychosocial development, personal autonomy, and interactions among these factors. In addition, we examine how substance use varies according to the relative positions individuals occupy on dimensions of pubertal development and psychosocial maturity.

Literature Review

Maturity in Adolescence

Maturity is a continuum characterized by biological, psychological, and social changes (Rocque, 2015). A mature person is supposed to be capable of making long-term decisions, socializing with others effectively, solving problems efficiently, and properly evaluating the rights and interests of others (Greenberger, Josselson, Knerr, & Knerr, 1975; Greenberger & Sørensen, 1974; Tilton-Weaver et al., 2001). These abilities are not uniformly observable across young individuals because developmental processes in some individuals may be affected by biological or socioemotional deficiencies that could pave the way for a long-term pattern of offending (Moffitt, 1993).

Several theoretical perspectives explain the link between maturational processes and delinquent outcomes (Ge & Natsuaki, 2009; Mendle & Ferrero, 2012; Mendle et al., 2007). Two are relevant in the present context. First, the biological perspective claims that increases in adrenal and gonadal hormones during puberty can elevate the risks for internalizing problems (Susman, 1997). Second, the psychosocial perspective suggests that early maturation forces individuals to deal with the new strains of being an adult, or feeling like an adult, without possessing the necessary resources that adults use in daily situations (self-regulation or ability to foresee future outcomes).¹ The following subsections elaborate on each of these perspectives.

Pubertal Maturity

Pubertal timing indicates when an individual’s reproductive development occurs: earlier, at the same time, or later relative to the pubertal timing of peers of the same sex and age (Ge, Natsuaki, Neiderhiser, & Reiss, 2007). The literature is not clear with respect to the effect of pubertal development timing on delinquency (Ge & Natsuaki, 2009). While researchers have found that early pubertal development is associated with some problem behaviors (Felson & Haynie, 2002; Kaltiala-Heino, Marttunen, Rantanen, & Rimpelä, 2003), there is also evidence that late pubertal development may be related to unwanted behaviors (Graber, Lewinsohn, Seeley, & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Williams & Dunlop, 1999). Briefly, the literature regarding the link between puberty and behavioral outcomes centers around four dimensions: the link between neuropsychology and puberty, the effects of early puberty, the effects of late puberty, and the effects of either early or late puberty (i.e., off-timers) on behavioral outcomes.

Several studies have investigated the link between neuropsychological functioning and puberty. For example, one study found that girls with idiopathic central precocious puberty displayed immature brain development and thereby exhibited more problem behaviors and had lower IQs than a comparison group (Deng, Tao, Liu, & Sun, 2016). Similarly, Klauser et al. (2015) observed in a sample of 9-year-old children that there may be reduced frontal white matter volumes (in a cluster located on the left corona radiate) in children experiencing earlier sexual development. Another study found that girls who experienced premature sexual development displayed lower levels of executive functioning and higher externalizing and anxious symptoms compared with girls who developed later (Sontag-Padilla et al., 2012). However, not all studies have found support for the idea that early pubertal development is associated with lower executive functioning in all situations. For example, a study comparing 40 young girls who matured early with 36 girls who matured at normal times failed to find significant differences in IQ and concluded that the neuropsychological functioning of the two groups was largely comparable (Tissot et al., 2012).²

Several criminologists have also examined the link between pubertal development and problem behaviors. For example, in a study of male adolescents, Felson and Haynie (2002) found that early pubertal development was a significant predictor of various types of delinquent behavior, but they also concluded that pubertal development was unrelated to risk-taking. They noted that mature boys were more likely to engage in autonomous behaviors, display improved psychological adjustment, have more friends, and perform better in school. However, Felson and Haynie also argued that mature boys were more likely to engage in violence, property crime, and illicit drug use. Another consequence regarding early maturation is that it might put individuals at risk for developmental difficulties (Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2003), including an interruption in identity development as a result of forcing individuals to behave like adults while they lack the adaptive skills to behave as such (Galambos & Tilton-Weaver, 2000).

It is also possible that early-maturing young males are less prepared for abrupt changes in adolescence and less capable of controlling emerging impulses (Mendle & Ferrero, 2012). These difficulties can lead to a weaker judgment, which can produce problem behaviors (Barker & Galambos, 2005; Ge et al., 2001; Peskin, 1967; Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996). For example, adolescents who feel older than their age may engage in more antisocial behaviors (Barker & Galambos, 2005). In one study, boys who were physically more developed in the seventh grade (in comparison with less physically developed peers) manifested more externalized hostile feelings and internalized distress symptoms in Grades 8 through 10 (Ge et al., 2001). In addition, not being ready for adult roles could impose strains which lead to problem behaviors. Jackson (2012) studied how the effects of general strain on offending vary according to youths’ level of physical development, concluding that advanced pubertal development may significantly elevate the effects of strain on delinquency, which may differ by gender.

Other studies have explored the potential effect of late physical maturing on behavior. For example, late physical maturation can result in internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors among young males (Graber et al., 1997; Siegel, Yancey, Aneshensel, & Schuler, 1999; Williams & Dunlop, 1999). The opposite relationship is possible, as well; late physical maturation may be associated with abstaining from delinquency. Indeed, Moffitt (1993) considered late physical maturing as a reason for abstaining.

Still other studies have found that both early and late maturing (being an “off-timer”) results in adaptive difficulties and delinquent behaviors (Brooks-Gunn, Petersen, & Eichorn, 1985; Williams & Dunlop, 1999). As such, there are no definitive answers to the question of whether pubertal timing is associated with delinquency and other problem behaviors (Ge & Natsuaki, 2009).

Psychosocial Maturity

Psychosocial maturity is defined as the general level of socioemotional competence and adaptive functioning in individuals (Galambos et al., 2005). It refers to a developmental transition in which individuals improve their ability to control emotions and behaviors. It was first conceptualized by Greenberger and Sørensen (1974), but has evolved considerably in recent decades. Focusing on socioemotional factors, Greenberger and Steinberg (1986) identified a group of adolescents who believed that they were mature, when in fact they lacked cognitive maturation, which was expected from their perceived age. The authors then explored the extent to which employment experiences affected adolescents’ maturity development. They concluded that employment in adolescence may have deleterious effects on maturation, and it may negatively influence development by making individuals feel “pseudomature,” a term referring to the attainment of adult roles without the development of psychological maturity to go along with them (Galambos & Tilton-Weaver, 2000; Greenberger & Steinberg, 1986).

Later studies conceptualized psychosocial maturity in a slightly different manner. Cauffman and Steinberg (2000) and Steinberg and Cauffman (1996) studied psychosocial maturity from the perspective of maturity of judgment and focused on psychosocial factors related to decision making. Steinberg and Cauffman (1996) devised three main categories that encompass psychosocial maturity: responsibility, temperance, and perspective. Responsibility includes self-reliance, self-esteem, and a well-developed identity. These traits refer to a better perceived self-image. Temperance is related to controlling impulsive behaviors and possessing a higher level of self-control. It is a regulatory mechanism that helps prevent seeking immediate gratification, similar to self-control, as explained by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990). Finally, perspective is defined as the ability to foresee short- and long-term consequences and make decisions within a larger context. Perspective can also be seen as a trait that indicates an improved future orientation. All three components are expected to work in a harmonious manner to form psychosocial maturity.

According to Steinberg and Cauffman (1996), individuals develop increasing levels of temperance, perspective, and responsibility during adolescence. The differential maturity levels among the same-aged peers could be a result of the psychosocial differences that stem from diversity in their social and emotional maturity levels. Consequently, the relative lack of psychosocial maturity may provide a departure point for antisocial decision-making processes (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000).

The growth of psychosocial maturity could be seen as an underlying cause of desistance from antisocial behaviors during the transition to adulthood (Monahan et al., 2009; Rocque, Ozkan, Jennings, & Piquero, 2017). As Monahan and colleagues (2009) noted, “Although Moffitt focuses on increased access to adult roles as the chief cause of desistance among adolescence-limited offenders, it is also possible that declines in antisocial behavior during the transition to adulthood are due to increases in psychosocial maturity” (p. 1655). If increases in antisocial behaviors among individuals in the adolescence-limited group reflect their desire to feel mature, it is also reasonable to think that as youth become more psychologically mature, they will be less motivated to participate in delinquent behaviors (Monahan et al., 2009). Indeed, research has found that the psychosocial maturity levels of persisters were lower than nonoffenders and adolescence-limited offenders as they matured into adulthood (Cruise et al., 2008; Monahan, Steinberg, Cauffman, & Mulvey, 2013). However, the link between pubertal and psychosocial development is still not understood (Ge & Natsuaki, 2009; Mendle & Ferrero, 2012). Such inquiry is vital, as Ge and Natsuaki (2009) have observed that psychosocial processes are widely recognized yet rarely tested.

Maturity Disparity

It is generally agreed that adolescents are reproductively mature, but not mature enough to fully control their impulses (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000; Moffitt, 1993; Steinberg, 2008). According to cognitive neuroscience, a maturity disparity occurs when there is an imbalance between pubertal development and cognitive maturity. On one hand, risk-taking tendencies increase in adolescence as a result of changes in the brain’s fast-developing socioemotional system, which develops early in adolescence and results in reward-seeking behaviors (Steinberg, 2008). On the other hand, the prefrontal cortex, which assists the brain in the self-regulatory process, continues to develop gradually, even during young adulthood (Casey & Jones, 2010; Casey, Tottenham, Liston, & Durston, 2005; Steinberg, 2008). This maturation within the cognitive control system is considered responsible for the reduced risk-taking tendencies as a result of increased coordination between emotion and cognition (Steinberg, 2008).

Early-maturing individuals are expected to get caught in a gap between a still-developing neurocognitive system and a fast-developing reward-seeking mechanism (Steinberg, 2008). This differential developmental process, as Casey and Jones (2010) emphasized, might make adolescents more sensitive to certain deviant behaviors, such as the use of alcohol and drugs (rather than, for example, violent delinquency). It is the natural explanation for why adolescents are more risk prone (Steinberg, 2004). Pubertal development is thus associated with reward-seeking tendencies, while psychosocial maturity can be associated with a self-regulation process (Steinberg, 2008). Indeed, psychosocial maturity may explain differential maturity levels above and beyond pubertal maturity.

Current Study

We present the first test of the maturity gap thesis to incorporate psychosocial maturity measures. Prior tests of the maturity gap thesis have adopted two approaches. One approach focuses on the direct and interactional effects of social maturity and pubertal development on delinquency. The other attempts to operationalize and directly test the effects on delinquency of the maturity gap itself.

In the first approach, Piquero and Brezina (2001) focused on main and interactional effects of pubertal development, social maturity, and problem behaviors. They investigated the interaction between biological maturation and autonomy (specifically the need for autonomy and behavioral autonomy) among adolescent boys. The interaction between biological maturity and behavioral autonomy with peers significantly increased rebellious delinquency, but there was no significant interaction between biological maturation and the need for autonomy (Piquero & Brezina, 2001).

In a cross-sectional study of fifth-grade girls, Mrug et al. (2008) found that early maturation was associated with delinquency, but its interactions with parenting measures were nonsignificant for delinquency. However, they found significant interactions between early maturation and some parenting measures (maternal nurturance and communication) for relational and physical aggression.

In the second approach, Barnes and Beaver (2010) conducted a direct test of the maturity gap thesis. They focused on the “distance” between biological maturity (measured as pubertal development) and social maturity (measured as parental permissiveness). Their results indicated that the maturity gap was predictive of minor forms of delinquency and drug use, but not of more serious types of offending behaviors for males. They found reduced support for Moffitt’s hypothesis in the case of females. Barnes and Beaver (2010) criticized Piquero and Brezina’s (2001) interaction approach on the grounds that the main effects were blurred. As an alternative, they subtracted parental permissiveness scores from pubertal development scores to arrive at a single measure of the maturity disparity. While they argued that a negative gap score was indicative of no maturity gap, they did not explore the nuances associated with a negative score (e.g., a positive standardized score in puberty and a positive, but higher score in parental permissiveness vis-à-vis a negative standardized score in puberty and a positive standardized score in parental permissiveness).

Our study combined elements of each approach, but with the addition of a psychosocial maturity measure. We examined the effects of biological maturity (measured as pubertal development), social maturity (measured as psychosocial maturity), and personal autonomy (measured as parental permissiveness) on delinquency and drug use. We did not use parental permissiveness as social maturity because it fails to fully capture the breadth of social maturity. Indeed, Barnes and Beaver (2010) acknowledged that parental permissiveness is problematic, suggesting the need for a more comprehensive measure of social maturity. Therefore, while we employed the interaction approach undertaken by Piquero and Brezina, we also sought to improve on prior social maturity measures, which is in line with Barnes and Beaver’s suggestions. We also controlled for the Barnes and Beaver maturity gap measure in some supplementary analyses, which are reported in the “Results” section.

For the main effects, we hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Early pubertal development will be positively associated with deviant behaviors.

Hypothesis 2: Personal autonomy will be inversely associated with delinquency.

Hypothesis 3: Psychosocial maturity will be inversely associated with antisocial behaviors.

For the interaction effects, we did not have a priori expectations and merely present the results from several exploratory models.

To test our hypotheses, we replicated Piquero and Brezina’s (2001) approach, but with the addition of a psychosocial maturity measure. Whereas they included physical maturity, autonomy, and the interaction between each, we included a third variable, psychosocial maturity, and tested a variety of interactions, the first of which was included in their study³:

Puberty \times Personal Autonomy .

Psychosocial Maturity \times Personal Autonomy .

Psychosocial Maturity \times Puberty .

Although the effect of pubertal development is constrained within adolescence, psychosocial maturity can still be influential even during young adulthood (due to ongoing progress in the cognitive system). This information may be valuable for determining the threshold that is used for defining legal responsibility, which is 18 in most countries. Indeed, recent studies have called for bringing developmental science into the debate over the proper age for criminal responsibility (e.g., Cauffman, 2012; Farrington, Loeber, & Howell, 2012). In light of these concerns, the effects of pubertal and psychosocial maturity were compared across the 18 and older and the under-18 sample. The younger sample consisted of adolescents who were younger than 18 years old, while the older sample consisted of those who were 18 or older. This age distinction not only provided an improvement over prior studies (Barnes & Beaver, 2010; Felson & Haynie, 2002), but it is also in line with the developmental taxonomy proffered by Moffitt (1993), which views the legal age boundary as an important threshold.

We also explored the classification of adolescents according to their pubertal and psychosocial progress. Based on standardized values of each kind of development, we present four categories of maturity disparity among youth and examine each category’s association with substance use. In line with prior research (Casey & Jones, 2010; Huddleston & Ge, 2003; Spear, 2002; Steinberg, 2007), we expected to see greater involvement (more frequency) in substance use among those whose pubertal development occurred early, but whose psychosocial maturity came later.

Finally, we explored whether self-control component is responsible for all significant findings. Reviewers of earlier drafts of this manuscript expressed concern that psychosocial maturity may have no effect on delinquency above and beyond self-control. To investigate this, we analyzed individual components separately to see whether the claim has merit. In doing so, we tested for significant interactions using individual components of psychosocial maturity as opposed to general psychosocial maturity interactions with related concepts.

Method

Sample

We analyzed the first two waves of data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), which began with an in-school questionnaire administered to a nationally representative sample of students in Grades 7 through 12, followed by a series of in-home interviews conducted in 1994-1995, 1996, 2001-2002, and 2007-2008 (Harris et al., 2009). There were 294 respondents who were 18 years old or older (56% male and 43% female), while 4,530 respondents were younger than 18 years old (47% male and 52% female). The total sample size was 4,824.⁴ Once the sample was broken down by age and gender, there were 2,144 males younger than 18, 166 males 18 or older, 2,386 females younger than 18, and 128 females 18 or older.

Dependent Variables

Minor Delinquency

Respondents were asked how often in the past 12 months they were involved in painting graffiti or signing on someone else’s property or a public place; damaging property that didn’t belong to them; lying to parents about where they had been or whom they were with; shoplifting; running away from home; stealing something worth less than US$50; and acting loud, rowdy, or unruly in a public place. Response options were, 0 = “never,” 1 = “1 or 2 times,” 2 = “3 or 4 times,” and 3 = “5 or more times.” Responses were summed to form a general minor delinquency scale (α = .73). Higher values reflect more involvement in minor delinquent acts.

Major Delinquency

Respondents were asked how often during the past 12 months they were involved in hurting someone badly enough to need bandages or care from a doctor or nurse, stealing a car, stealing something worth more than US$50, burglarizing, using or threatening to use a weapon to get something from someone, selling marijuana or other drugs, and taking part in a group fight. Response options were the same as above and were added to form a general major delinquency scale (α = .70). Higher values reflect more involvement in major delinquent acts.

Minor Substance Use

Respondents were asked whether they had tried smoking a cigarette, drinking alcohol, and using marijuana since the last interview. Response options were, 0 = “no” and 1 = “yes.” Responses were combined to form a minor substance use scale (α = .67). Higher values reflect more involvement in minor substance use.

Major Substance Use

Respondents were asked whether they used cocaine, inhalants, or other illegal drugs since the last interview. Due to the low reliability of the composite version (combined version of all three), a dichotomous measure was constructed. If respondents reported any use of cocaine, inhalants, or other illegal drug, they were assigned a value of 1. Nonusers of any of these drugs were assigned a value of 0.

Independent Variables

Relative Pubertal Development

For males, respondents were asked to describe the level of hair under their arms (1 = “I do not have hair at all” . . . 5 = “have whole lot of hair that is much as grown man”), thickness of facial hair (1 = “I have few scattered hair” . . . 4 = “very thick like a grown man’s facial hair”), and overall physical development compared with other young males their age (1 = “I look younger than most” . . . 5 = “I look older than most”). They were also asked to report whether they had a lower voice compared with when they were in grade school (1 = “about the same” . . . 5 = “a whole lot lower than when in grade school”). Response options varied between 1 and 4 for the thickness of facial hair, while they varied between 1 and 5 for the other questions. Responses were averaged, and the higher responses were indicative of higher pubertal development (α = .66).

For females, respondents were asked to describe the level of changing breast size (1 = “about the same as when in grade school” . . . 5 = “a whole lot bigger than when in grade school”), curvaceousness of their body (1 = “my body is about as curvy as when in grade school” . . . 5 = “my body is a whole lot more curvy than when in grade school”), their physical development compared with other girls their age (1 = “I look younger than most” . . . 5 = “I look older than most”), and to report whether they ever menstruated (0 = “no,” 1 = “yes”). Responses were averaged, and higher responses were indicative of greater pubertal development (α = .64).⁵

Another issue related to pubertal development is its measurement using the same age cohort. In measuring the relative development in puberty, it is better to create a standardized puberty variable by the same age, as pubertal status is commonly confounded with age (Ge et al., 2007). Unfortunately, a number of prior studies that included this adjustment analyzed sibling pairs, rather than a general sample (Ge et al., 2007; Harden & Mendle, 2012). To address this issue, maturity scores were standardized according to age class.⁶ For example, those who were 15 years old were standardized within 15-year-old peers, not within the overall sample. That is, each age group was standardized within itself, rather than within the whole female sample or male sample. Male age-standardized puberty had a correlation of .939 with the conventional measure, while female age-standardized had a correlation of .947.

Although there is a high correlation between age-standardized measurement and the conventional one (standardizing among full male or female samples), age-standardized measurement was used to replicate prior work in this area. A number of prior studies on pubertal development have employed standardized measures (Barnes & Beaver, 2010; Ge et al., 2007), so this tradition was replicated in the current study by additionally including age standardization. For each gender, an individual was classified as early or late maturing (relatively) based on the position of the standardized score on the scale. For example, positive scores show earlier maturation relative to the same-age and the same-sex peers, whereas negative scores show later maturation.

Relative Psychosocial Maturity

All three components of psychosocial maturity were included to construct the psychosocial maturity scores (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000; Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996). To reiterate, these were temperance, perspective, and responsibility. Following Cauffman and Steinberg (2000) and Steinberg and Cauffman (1996), temperance was operationalized as a combined score of impulsivity and self-control. For impulsivity, respondents were asked about how many facts they sought in seeking to solve problems, whether they thought different ways to solve problems, to what extent they used systematic methods for judging and comparing alternatives when making decisions, and whether they reflected on what went right and wrong when carrying out a solution. The response options were in a Likert-type scale format and reverse coded so that higher scores indicated lower impulsivity (α = .74). As for self-control, respondents were asked whether they were having trouble in getting along with their teachers and other students, paying attention in school, getting homework done, and keeping their mind on what they were doing. The responses were reverse coded so that higher scores indicated higher self-control (α = .70). Impulsivity and self-control scores were added to form the temperance scale.⁷

Perspective was defined in terms of future orientation, consistent with other research (Ozkan, 2016). While limited in scope, we operationalized the concept in terms of how much the respondent wanted to go to college and how likely was it that he or she would go to college. There is some evidence indicating that higher education expectations among youth are correlated with positive outcomes. For example, one study found that expecting to receive a college degree was advantageous for all students—particularly in the form of educational attainment and fewer depressive symptoms (Martin & Gardner, 2015). Accordingly, responses were based on a Likert-type scale, and higher scores indicated better future orientations. Responses were added together to form the perspective scores (α = .81).

Self-esteem was used to measure responsibility. The measure is imperfect because the Add Health does not contain specific information pertaining to responsibility. We used self-esteem as a proxy for a broader responsibility concept. Respondents reported whether they thought they possessed a lot of good qualities, had a lot to be proud of, and liked themselves just the way they were. They were also asked if they felt like they were doing everything just about right, were socially accepted, and were loved and wanted. The use of these items was generally seen as appropriate for measuring responsibility in a number of prior studies (e.g., Benson, 2014; Simmons, Rosenberg, & Rosenberg, 1973). Moreover, people with high self-esteem are known to claim to be more likable and attractive than people with low self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965, 1979, but also see the narcissistic dimension discussed in Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). After the responses were summed, the Likert-type scale responses were reverse coded so that higher scores were indicative of higher self-esteem (α = .84).

By combining the three components (temperance, perspective, and self-esteem), psychosocial maturity scores were obtained (α = .79). To check the four-factor structure (which included two for temperance), a principal components analysis was performed. As expected, the items loaded on four factors: self-control, impulsivity, perspective, and responsibility (measured as self-esteem). Finally, similar to pubertal maturity, the psychosocial maturity variable was age-standardized. We return later to the limitations of our approach for measuring psychosocial maturity.

Personal Autonomy

Add Health respondents were asked about the level of autonomy they were granted. This variable is important for both Moffitt’s (1993) taxonomy and has been employed in other tests of the maturity gap thesis (e.g., Barnes & Beaver, 2010). Respondents were asked whether their parents let them make their own decisions about the time they must be home on weekend nights, the people they hang around with, what to wear, how much television they watch, which television programs they watch, what time they go to bed on week nights, and what they eat (α = .95). Responses were dichotomously coded and added together. As before, the scores were standardized, and higher scores indicated higher social autonomy.

Control Variables

As having delinquent peers is a well-established risk factor in criminology (Akers, 1998; Warr & Stafford, 1991), a variable controlling for this effect was included. Respondents were asked how many of their three best friends smoked at least one cigarette a day, drank alcohol at least once a month, and used marijuana at least once a month. Responses were added together to create a delinquent peer scale (α = .74).

Exposure to violence can be a criminogenic factor for adolescents (Haynie, Petts, Maimon, & Piquero, 2009). This was operationalized as the number of times respondents were exposed to violent conditions, similar to Benson (2014). Respondents reported whether they saw someone shoot or stab another person, or whether someone had ever pulled a knife or gun on them, shot them, stabbed them, or jumped on them. Response options were “never,” “once,’’ and “more than once.” These were coded with values of 0, 1, and 2, respectively (α = .63).

Race is an important control because prior studies have found qualitative differences among delinquency patterns across races (Haynie & Payne, 2006; Matsueda & Heimer, 1987). Race was operationalized as whether the respondent was White, Black, or Other. Two dummy variables were included in the models. The sample consisted of approximately 66% Whites and 24% Blacks, with the remaining 10% in the “Other” category.

Age was included as a control because maturity is substantially related with age. Also, the delinquency and age relationship is well-documented (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983; Sweeten, Piquero, & Steinberg, 2013).

Finally, parental education level was used as an indicator of social class, which ranged between 0 and 9, depending on the education level of the parents. While this measure is not comprehensive, educational credentials are known to contribute to social class (Krieger, Williams, & Moss, 1997). The social class of respondents with parents having no education was coded as 0, while it was coded as 9 for the highest education levels. Only one parent’s education score was used if respondent lived in a single-headed household. Descriptive information with regard to all variables appears in Table 1.

Table 1:

Descriptive Statistics (Before Multiple Imputation)

Variable	Observation number	M	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Minor delinquency	4,772	2.19	2.86	0	20
Major delinquency	4,779	0.76	1.79	0	21
Minor substance use	4,771	1.17	1.11	0	3
Major substance use	4,780	0.078	0.26	0	1
Pubertal development	4,660	0	1	−2.99	3
Psychosocial maturity	4,653	0	0.98	−3	2.31
Personal autonomy	4,824	2.07	1	−3.28	1.28
Delinquent peer	4,663	2.35	2.58	0	9
Exposure to violence	4,790	0.35	0.89	0	7
Age	4,824	15.11	1.60	11	21
Blacks	4,812	0.23	0.42	0	1
Others	4,812	0.09	0.29	0	1
White	4,812	0.66	0.47	0	1
Social class	4,715	5.51	2.23	0	9

Analytic Technique

To maintain clear temporal ordering, all outcome variables (delinquency and substance use) were drawn from Wave 2 of the Add Health survey, while all independent variables were constructed using Wave 1. Following prior research (e.g., Piquero & Brezina, 2001), potential interactions among developmental factors were also investigated. Specifically, we explored a number of potential interactions among psychosocial maturity, personal autonomy, and puberty. These are discussed more fully in the “Results” section.

Count models (negative binomial) were used to estimate minor and major delinquency. The use of count models to capture the variance in the highly skewed delinquency variables is quite common. They are also appropriate for analyzing rare behaviors, such as offending in a population (Barnes & Beaver, 2010; Felson & Haynie, 2002; Osgood, 2000). As for the minor substance use estimation, ordinal logistic regressions were estimated.⁸ Because the major substance use was a binary outcome, a logistic regression framework was utilized. Multiple imputations were used to fill in missing values to properly include sampling weights.⁹ To see how the Barnes and Beaver (2010) gap measure worked in our models, we included it in supplementary analyses (results provided at the bottom of Table 2; see further discussion below). We simply created the same gap in their study (by subtracting the standardized parental permissiveness score from the standardized puberty scores) and included it along with the standardized psychosocial maturity variable.

Table 2:

Developmental Correlates and Problem Behaviors for Both Genders Younger Than 18 (n = 4,530)

Variable	Males (n = 2,144)				Females (n = 2,386)
Variable	Minor delinquency	Major delinquency	Minor substance	Major substance	Minor delinquency	Major delinquency	Minor substance	Major substance
Pubertal development	0.04	0.08	0.16**	0.26*	0.02	0.06	0.18***	0.18
Pubertal development	0.03	0.05	0.05	0.11	0.03	0.05	0. 05	0.1
Psychosocial maturity	−0.22***	−0.18***	−0.16**	−0.40***	−0.30***	−0.32***	−0.31***	−0.45***
Psychosocial maturity	0.03	0.05	0.06	0.1	0.03	0.05	0.05	0.09
Personal autonomy	0.00	0.03	0.05	−0.16	0.02	−0.07	0.15**	0.2
Personal autonomy	0.03	0.05	0.05	0.13	0.03	0.05	0.05	0.11
Psychosocial Maturity × Autonomy	0.00	0.02	0.01	−0.06	−0.01	−0.04	−0.11**	−0.11
Psychosocial Maturity × Autonomy	0.03	0.05	0.05	0.09	0.03	0.04	0.04	0.09
Puberty × Personal Autonomy	−0.05	−0.17***	−0.08	0.08	−0.02	−0.03	0.03	0.05
Puberty × Personal Autonomy	0.03	0.04	0.05	0.1	0.03	0.04	0.04	0.08
Psychosocial Maturity × Puberty	−0.03	−0.05	−0.01	0.08	0.03	0.07	0.02	0.14
Psychosocial Maturity × Puberty	0.04	0.04	0.05	0.1	0.03	0.05	0.05	0.08
Delinquent peer	0.06***	0.14***	0.35***	0.35***	0.06***	0.12***	0.35***	0.24***
Delinquent peer	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.04	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.04
Exposure to violence	0.15***	0.29***	0.13*	0.11	0.22***	0.58***	0.20*	0.21*
Exposure to violence	0.02	0.04	0.05	0.08	0.04	0.07	0.09	0.1
Age	−0.05*	−0.06	0.06	0.11	−0.08***	−0.12**	−0.03	−0.11
Age	0.02	0.04	0.04	0.08	0.02	0.04	0.03	0.07
Blacks	−0.25**	0.36**	−0.37**	−1.21**	0.00	0.36*	−0.59***	−1.08**
Blacks	0.07	0.11	0.13	0.36	0.07	0.14	0.12	0.4
Others	0.11	0.29	0.08	−0.13	0.06	0.17	−0.14	−0.12
Others	0.1	0.16	0.16	0.39	0.1	0.15	0.14	0.33
Social class	0.07***	0.01	0.06*	0.06	0.04**	−0.02	0.03	0.11**
Social class	0.01	0.02	0.03	0.04	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.04
Barnes and Beaver Maturity Gap	ns	ns	ns	Sig.*	ns	ns	ns	ns

Note. ns = not significant. The numbers below the coefficients are standard errors.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Results

Table 2 summarizes the effect of relative development in puberty and psychosocial maturity on minor/major delinquency and substance use, specifically for participants younger than 18. Regression coefficients are reported, with standard errors beneath them (incidence rate and odds ratios are presented in Appendix A for the key variables of interest). At first glance, one can see that psychosocial maturity is consistently and inversely associated with delinquent outcomes, as expected (e.g., b = −0.22, p < .001, male minor delinquency). Pubertal timing is not related to minor and major delinquency for any gender. It is, however, associated with both forms of substance abuse in males (b = 0.16, p = .002, minor substance abuse; b = 0.26, p = .023, major substance abuse) and minor substance abuse in females (b = 0.18, p < .001). Personal autonomy is significant solely for females’ involvement in minor substance use (b = 0.15, p = .002).

According to the incidence rate ratios (see Appendix A), for younger males, being 1 standard deviation above the mean in the psychosocial development scale indicates 20% and 17% reductions in minor and major delinquency, respectively. As for females, a 27% reduction is obtained in both minor and major delinquency due to the inhibiting effect of psychosocial maturity.

Among the control variables in Table 2, peer delinquency is significantly and positively associated with most delinquent outcomes (e.g., b = 0.06, p < .001, male minor delinquency). The effect of exposure to violence is also in the expected direction for both genders (e.g., b = 0.15, p < .001, male minor delinquency), while it loses its significance for younger males’ involvement in major substance use. On the contrary, age is associated with less minor delinquency for males (b = −0.05, p = .022), whereas it is associated with both minor (b = −0.08, p < .001) and major delinquency for females (b = −0.12, p = .005). Being African American is associated with lower minor delinquency for younger males (e.g., b = −0.25, p = .001), but the effect is opposite for major delinquency (b = 0.36, p = .001). Also, African American males are less likely to be involved with both forms of substance use (b = −0.37, p = .006, minor substance abuse; b = −1.21, p = .001, major substance abuse). As for females, being African American increases the risk for involvement in major delinquent outcomes (b = 0.36, p = .013), but decreases both forms of substance use (b = −0.59, p < .001, minor substance abuse; b = −1.08, p = .008, major substance abuse). Higher parental education is associated with increased minor delinquency (b = 0.07, p < .001) and minor substance (b = 0.06, p = .031) use among males, whereas it is associated with higher minor delinquency (b = 0.04, p = .007) and major substance (b = 0.11, p = .009) use for females.

We also explored three interaction effects: Psychosocial Maturity × Personal Autonomy, Puberty × Personal Autonomy, and Psychosocial Maturity × Puberty. The interaction between psychosocial maturity and personal autonomy is associated with less minor substance use among females (b = −0.11, p = .008). In other words, the deviancy-diminishing effect of psychosocial maturity decreases for those who exhibit higher personal autonomy. This interaction effect is portrayed in Figure 1. Also, the Puberty–Personal Autonomy interaction is associated with fewer major delinquent outcomes for males (b = −0.17, p < .001). This is roughly in line with work by Dijkstra et al. (2015), who found significant interactions between biological and social maturation and an absence of significant main effects.

Figure 1:

Psychosocial Maturity and Autonomy Interaction

Last, the bottom of Table 2 reports whether the Barnes and Beaver (2010) maturity gap measure was significant when included with our psychosocial maturity variable. Excluded from these models were Pubertal Development, Personal Autonomy, and the interaction variables. The Barnes and Beaver (2010) maturity gap variable was only significant in one model, namely major substance abuse among males.

Table 3 reports coefficients and standard errors for the same set of variables used in Table 2, but for the 18 and older sample.¹⁰ According to the results, pubertal development does not affect any type of unwanted behaviors. This finding is not surprising because most respondents likely completed their pubertal development before age 18. Psychosocial maturity, on the contrary, seems to consistently diminish deviant behaviors of various kinds, whereas parental permissiveness is not related to deviant behaviors in the older sample.

Table 3:

Developmental Correlates and Problem Behaviors for Both Genders 18 Years Old and Older ( n = 294)

Variable	Minor delinquency	Major delinquency	Minor substance	Major substance
Variable	b/SE	b/SE	b/SE	b/SE
Pubertal development	−0.13	−0.06	0.12	0.03
Pubertal development	0.11	0.14	0.13	0.31
Psychosocial maturity	−0.28*	−0.40**	−0.45**	−0.51
Psychosocial maturity	0.11	0.12	0.16	0.29
Personal autonomy	−0.06	−0.23	−0.12	−0.2
Personal autonomy	0.11	0.12	0.13	0.23
Psychosocial Maturity × Autonomy	−0.04	−0.25*	0.06	0.03
Psychosocial Maturity × Autonomy	0.1	0.12	0.15	0.31
Puberty × Autonomy	0.01	−0.03	−0.01	−0.58***
Puberty × Autonomy	0.1	0.12	0.12	0.16
Psychosocial Maturity × Puberty	−0.09	−0.09	0.18	0.1
Psychosocial Maturity × Puberty	0.11	0.12	0.15	0.29
Delinquent peer	0.09**	0.21***	0.42***	0.63***
Delinquent peer	0.03	0.05	0.06	0.11
Exposure to violence	0.05	0.19	−0.17	−0.14
Exposure to violence	0.08	0.1	0.1	0.18
Age	−0.01	−0.12	−0.36	1.00*
Age	0.22	0.25	0.3	0.48
Blacks	0.03	0.51	−0.46	−1.65
Blacks	0.23	0.28	0.35	0.91
Others	0.41	0.64*	−0.36	0.57
Others	0.22	0.29	0.39	0.66
Social class	0.01	−0.02	0.09	0.15
Social class	0.04	0.06	0.07	0.14
Gender	0.17	1.05***	0.25	0.27
Gender	0.19	0.25	0.27	0.51
BIC	96	79	99	78

Note. The numbers below the coefficients are standard errors.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Among the interactions in Table 3, that between psychosocial maturity and personal autonomy is negatively associated with major delinquency (b = −0.25, p = .038). Also, the interaction between pubertal development and personal autonomy is significantly associated with a reduction in major substance use (b = −0.58, p < .001). This may indicate that early puberty interacts with personal autonomy, thus serving as a protective force against major substance use.

If the self-regulatory mechanism is expected to develop even during young adulthood, a significant effect should exist even after the age of 18. In Table 3, it can be seen that psychosocial maturity continues to decrease the likelihood of problem behaviors, even for young adults (e.g., b = −0.28, p = .12, minor delinquency), with the exception of females’ participation in major substance use. These findings align with prior studies (Farrington et al., 2012; Steinberg, 2004, 2008).

Control variables, such as exposure to violence and social class are not significant in the older sample. Members of other races (non-White and non-Black) seem to be more likely to get involved with major delinquency (b = 0.64, p = .028), but there is no significant effect of race for other outcomes. Also, age is a predictor for major substance use for the older sample (b = 1.00, p < .041). In general, males are more likely to be involved with major delinquency, according to Table 3.

As the items used to operationalize temperance closely resemble self-control items, an additional analysis to explore additional effects above and beyond self-control was performed. We included individual psychosocial maturity components separately as well as their interactions with autonomy and puberty in Table 4 (for the young sample).

Table 4:

Ancillary Analysis With Individual Components of Psychosocial Maturity (Adolescent Sample)

Variable	Males				Females
Variable	(1)Minor delinquency	(2)Major delinquency	(3)Minor substance	(4)Major substance	(5)Minor delinquency	(6)Major delinquency	(7)Minor substance	(8)Major substance
Puberty	0.05	0.10	0.14**	0.28*	0.02	0.04	0.17**	0.19
Temperance	−0.21***	−0.21***	−0.22***	−0.31***	−0.27***	−0.29***	−0.27***	−0.29**
Perspective	0.05	0.01	0.00	−0.02	−0.02	−0.19***	0.04	−0.06
Responsibility	−0.07*	0.02	0.08	−0.15	−0.09**	0.03	−0.13*	−0.22*
Autonomy	−0.01	0.04	0.04	−0.13	0.01	−0.07	0.11*	0.25*
Temperance × Autonomy	0.02	0.08	−0.02	0.13	0.01	−0.01	0.03	−0.04
Perspective × Autonomy	−0.02	−0.01	0.03	−0.04	−0.00	−0.05	−0.04	−0.11
Responsibility × Autonomy	−0.00	−0.06	0.02	−0.24*	−0.01	0.00	−0.14**	−0.01
Puberty × Temperance	−0.02	−0.06	0.03	−0.00	0.07*	0.01	0.05	0.04
Puberty × Perspective	0.04	0.06	−0.05	0.04	0.00	0.03	0.01	0.08
Puberty × Responsibility	−0.05	−0.05	−0.01	0.06	−0.03	0.09	−0.03	0.09
Puberty × Autonomy	−0.05	−0.18***	−0.09	0.03	−0.01	−0.03	0.05	0.01
Delinquent peer	0.06***	0.14***	0.35***	0.35***	0.05***	0.11***	0.35***	0.24***
Exposure to violence	0.15***	0.28***	0.13*	0.10	0.22***	0.60***	0.20*	0.22*
Age	−0.05*	−0.06	0.06	0.11	−0.08***	−0.13***	−0.03	−0.10
Black	−0.25***	0.36**	−0.42**	−1.14**	−0.00	0.29*	−0.62***	−1.33***
Other	0.12	0.33	0.11	−0.21	0.07	0.18	−0.15	−0.12
Social	0.05***	−0.01	0.05*	0.05	0.04*	−0.00	0.03	0.10*
n	4,768	4,768	4,768	4,768	4,749	4,749	4,749	4,749

Note. Due to space constraint, standard errors are not shared. However, incidence rate ratios are shared in Appendix A for key variables.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Initial observations reveal that temperance (measured as self-control and impulsivity) has a major effect on delinquent outcomes (e.g., b = −0.21, p < .001, male minor delinquency); however, responsibility (e.g., b = −0.07, p = .038, male minor delinquency) and perspective (e.g., b = −0.19, p < .001, female major delinquency) are also associated with certain outcomes. For example, whereas higher responsibility (measured as self-esteem) seems to decrease minor delinquency for males, it decreases minor delinquency (b = −0.09, p = .003) and minor and major substance use for females (b = −0.13, p = .013, female minor substance abuse; b = −0.22, p = .013, female major substance abuse). Also, females with higher perspective are less likely to get involved with major delinquency (b = −0.19, p = .001). Furthermore, we detected four interactions among all possible interactions. When responsibility interacts with personal autonomy, it reduces major substance use for males (b = −0.24, p = .016) and minor substance use for females (b = −0.14, p = .003). Finally, the puberty–temperance interaction increases minor delinquency for females (b = 0.07, p = .013), and the puberty–autonomy interaction reduces involvement in major delinquency for males (b = −0.18, p < .001).

Maturity Disparity Groups

To add depth to our analyses, we also explored substance use in four distinct maturity disparity groups. Because males have been understudied in terms of pubertal timing and delinquency (Mendle & Ferrero, 2012), we focused on variations in standardized psychosocial maturity and standardized puberty for males. And for the sake of brevity, substance use was the primary focus. STD-PD refers to standardized pubertal development, while STD-PSM refers to standardized psychosocial maturity development. Examining the relative positions of STD-PD and STD-PSM (as in higher or lower than the mean), we constructed the following groups.

Group 1: STD-PD > 0 and STD-PSM < 0

This group is hypothesized to be the most vulnerable of all the groups. Members of this group are early-maturing individuals in comparison with their same-age peers, but they have lower psychosocial maturity levels than their peers, in a relative sense. They reach physical maturation in a reproductive way, but they lack necessary resources to be an adult. This group can be thought of as pseudomaturing (Galambos et al., 2005; Greenberger & Sørensen, 1974).

Group 2: STD-PD > 0 and STD-PSM > 0

In this group, the delinquent condition is based on the individual effect of the components in the absolute sense. A case could have a small positive PD score along with a much greater positive PSM score above the mean. For example, STD-PD = 0.1 standard deviation above the mean and STD-PSM = 2 standard deviations above the mean. In this case, PSM would be more effective than PD. Therefore, prediction is dependent on the magnitude of the related developmental processes. However, this group is expected to be less delinquent than Group 1, on average.

Group 3: STD-PD < 0 and STD-PSM < 0

Individuals in this group have lower pubertal development and psychosocial maturity. Group 3 is expected to be, on average, more delinquent than Group 2. The reason is because psychosocial maturity exerts a consistent effect, in line with our results. However, Group 3 is not expected as consistently delinquent as Group 1.

Group 4: STD-PD < 0 and STD-PSM > 0

This group is hypothesized to be the least vulnerable of all the groups. Although the situation is similar to the one in Group 2, in that the magnitude of deviation from the mean determines the delinquency condition, those individuals who have a positive PSM but a negative PD are most likely to be the least delinquent. Even if late pubertal development results in some problem behaviors (as cited in the previous sections), a positive PSM will presumably balance the situation. We do not claim, however, that this group consists of abstainers in an absolute sense because the result could be based on the relative magnitude of the PD and the PSM scores. On average, though, it is safe to say that this group is less delinquent than the other three groups.

The order of relative delinquent involvement in each of the delinquent involvement was expected to manifest as follows:

(More Delinquency) Group 1 > Group 3 > Group 2 > Group 4 (Less Deliquency) .

In Figure 2, the average delinquency is plotted against age. Figure 2 presents supportive evidence for distinct maturity disparity groups. As can be seen, Group 1 is the most likely to be involved in substance use, whereas Group 4 is least likely to be involved in substance use. In sum, the maturity disparity groups are provided to make a case for thinking differently about the maturity concept. Although the current study did not intend to provide a definitive classification, further elaboration on the classes could be possible.

Figure 2:

Maturity Disparity Groups Among Males by Age

Discussion

Our study adds to the maturity disparity literature by considering the effects on delinquency and substance use of relative developments in pubertal and psychosocial maturity. Both processes were included simultaneously to examine the effect on self-reported delinquency of earlier pubertal development when psychosocial maturity was controlled. We also attempted to provide a broader social maturity concept in analyzing adolescent deviancy and explored differential maturity disparity categories—as well as interaction effects among developmental factors. Finally, we investigated whether psychosocial maturity continues to develop even during young adulthood.

Summary of Findings

Several key findings emerged. First, relative pubertal development was not associated with delinquent outcomes. Rather, it was associated with substance use, in line with Casey and Jones’s (2010) suggestions. This also echoes Piquero and Brezina’s (2001) finding that the main effect of physical maturity was not significantly associated with delinquency. Therefore, a wholesale consumption of the idea that early pubertal development is always associated with aggression or other problem outcomes may not reflect reality. As our results reveal, early puberty that interacts with higher personal autonomy may even be protective for some problem behaviors, such as major substance use.

Second, and most important, psychosocial maturity effectively inhibits problem behaviors, and its effect seems to carry through into young adulthood. In other words, the timing of puberty is more related to the vulnerability of reward-seeking/sensation-seeking behaviors (substance use in this case), while higher psychosocial maturity provides an overall protective effect against all kinds of deviancy, especially for males.

Among the individual components of psychosocial maturity, temperance is the most consistent and robust predictor of problem behaviors, while responsibility appears to be the least important in terms of offending during adolescence (Ozkan, 2016). Nonetheless, responsibility had a nonnegligible effect on the outcomes examined. This effect was more pronounced for males than females. In line with Ozkan (2016), delinquent self-image might be blocking the protective effect of responsibility, especially among male peers. Indeed, this idea was proposed long ago by Rosenberg (1979); children within any subculture may not prioritize the attitudes of the larger society, but attach a higher importance to the perceptions of the surrounding environment.

Although most main and interactional effects of the individual components of psychosocial maturity are self-explanatory (they decrease delinquent outcomes), why higher puberty and better temperance are associated with more minor delinquency is not clear. This was an unexpected result.

Third, our results reveal that maturational development is an ongoing process, even for young adults. Although it is generally assumed that juveniles are risk-takers and more likely to exhibit impulsive behaviors, and are more prone to peer influence than older individuals (Farrington et al., 2012; Steinberg, 2004, 2008), “maturing” may not be constrained to the age of 18. As was shown in Table 3, younger adults continue to experience the maturational process after puberty. The age 18 threshold for legal treatment of young offenders (to place them into an adult criminal justice system in which retribution is more emphasized than rehabilitation) may not reflect actual maturational boundaries (Farrington et al., 2012). Consequently, as Farrington et al. (2012) argued, criminal procedures which recognize diminished responsibility for young adults could serve as viable alternatives to the status quo. As Cauffman (2012) and Farrington et al. (2012) noted, young adult offenders (18-24 years old) could be exposed to less harsher punishments, at least for substance use and nonviolent actions.

Another point that deserves attention is the link between self-control and psychosocial maturity, as it is important from a developmental/neurobiological perspective. By definition, psychosocial maturity includes self-control-related items (under temperance), but there is no clear-cut distinction made by Cauffman and Steinberg (2000) regarding the extent to which their conceptualization of temperance resembles Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) definition of self-control. Originally, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) defined low self-control as the tendency to prefer short-term, immediate pleasures and neglect long-term consequences. More recently, Hirschi (2004) included rational choice models of crime in his revised self-control theory and underscored the importance of social inhibitions by treating concern for the opinion of others as a principal source of control. Hirschi suggested researchers should focus on social bonds and the negative consequences of acts. This definition resembles the maturational perspective more than the previous self-control measure proposed by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990).

If social inhibitors (that are stemming from the family, school, or elsewhere) help explain low self-control, the extent to which neurobiological and neuropsychological deficits affect inhibition (or vice versa) is yet to be specified. The temperance items used in this article might be seen as generic self-control items (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), but it is also possible that maturational deficiencies led to the same responses as described in prior studies (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000; Goldweber, Dmitrieva, Cauffman, Piquero, & Steinberg, 2011; Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996). We believe that it is an important task to distinguish between psychosocial maturity and low self-control during adolescence, as personality starts getting shaped much earlier (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). While clinical approaches or specific neuropsychological tests (that are conducted before adolescence) are needed to make such distinctions, past research suggests there is a set of biological and neuropsychological factors that can influence serious offenders above and beyond their levels of self-control (Cauffman et al., 2005). Results from our supplementary analyses in Table 4 provide evidence for a psychosocial maturity effect on delinquency when self-control and impulsiveness are controlled.

Finally, the maturity disparity categories were suggested based on the relative positions of the individuals in the maturity gap. Conceiving of different classes of maturity may improve our understanding of the maturity gap in adolescence by indicating that differential maturity gap exposure could be possible for different people. This may provide improvements over a “one size fits all” approach. The members of Group 1, who were more physically and less socioemotionally developed, were the most vulnerable to substance use. Similarly, those who were more developed in psychosocial maturity and less in puberty were the least likely to be involved with substance use.

Limitations

Our study was not without limitations. First, the measurement of psychosocial maturity was not as comprehensive as Cauffman and Steinberg (2000) envisioned. Even they recognized, however, that their operational definition of psychosocial maturity may not fully encompass the theoretical foundation behind the idea. In other words, the operationalization of psychosocial maturity (responsibility, perspective, and temperance) may not exactly correspond to the underpinnings of theorized psychosocial maturity. It is likely that our measure of self-esteem as a proxy for responsibility may not as broadly reflect as the theoretical underpinnings of responsibility. While our measure of self-esteem is in line with prior work (Baumeister et al., 2003; Rosenberg, 1979), there is a good chance that responsibility is more than self-image or self-esteem.

While our findings indicate that psychosocial maturity protects against minor delinquency for males and females and minor/major substance use for females, it should be noted that varying degrees of self-esteem in certain conditions might yield negative outcomes. For example, high self-esteem may foster the pursuit of novel experiences, which may lead to early sexual activity or substance use (Baumeister et al., 2003). Excessive levels of self-esteem might decrease the quality of social relationships by turning one into a narcissistic, defensive, and conceited individual (Baumeister et al., 2003).

Another limitation is that the self-control variable was based mostly on school-related attitudes. This may be appropriate for the younger sample, as they were more likely to continue their educational life. However, as young adults were less likely to be in a school environment, there may have been relatively more skipped survey questions regarding the school-related questions, which resulted in data loss among the individuals in the older sample. Future research should attempt to include an improved self-control measure.

Also, we would like to warn the reader regarding somewhat undesirable reliability levels for some of our measures (i.e., minor substance use, relative pubertal development, and exposure to violence). Part of the reason for low reliability for our pubertal measurement (similar reliability issues also in Barnes & Beaver, 2010; Felson & Haynie, 2002) is the inadequacy of common pubertal development scales. The gold standard for this kind of measurement is physical examination, which bypass self-report bias. However, physical examination is not very feasible when the sample size is large. Physical examination can be also perceived as a personal intrusion or inconvenience for some respondents. Despite its limitations, subjective pubertal timing is useful for understanding the psychological processes operating during the transition to adult-like behaviors (Moore, Harden, & Mendle, 2014).

Puberty and psychosocial maturity should also be examined within criminological theories. For example, in the case of strain, a gap between pubertal development and psychosocial maturity may get worse (amplifying deviancy) when youth are under significant levels of strain.¹¹ Pubertal development has been examined within a strain theory framework (Jackson, 2012), but psychosocial maturity has yet to be investigated with an eye toward criminological theories and adolescent delinquency. The coexistence of multiple stressors, such as school transitions or parental issues, might be more likely to influence coping abilities of early-maturing youth (Mrug et al., 2008).

Prior research has emphasized that behavioral inhibition, self-regulation, and the control of emotions are managed in the prefrontal cortex of the brain (Beaver, Wright, & Delisi, 2007; Goldberg, 2001; Raine, 2002). Research utilizing the Add Health data used a mini self-control scale in which respondents were asked whether they had trouble getting along with their teachers, trouble paying attention, trouble keeping their mind focused, and trouble finishing their homework (Barnes & Beaver, 2010; Beaver, 2008; Perrone, Sullivan, Pratt, & Margaryan, 2004). These items were hosted in our temperance scale, which is already in line with the concept of self-control. Beaver et al. (2007) also emphasized that self-control is only one part of larger executive functioning. For this reason, executive functioning may be responsible for many cognitive-related tasks, such as self-control, emotion control, and psychosocial maturity. As such, there is a good chance that neuropsychological deficits interact with psychosocial maturity, as well. Future research should investigate the extent to which neuropsychological deficits can affect youth maturation.

Conclusion

We argue that the concept of maturity is too broad to explain solely with a biological growth concept (Greenberger, 1984; Greenberger & Steinberg, 1986). The maturation process should be considered as a combination of biological and social development, both of which influence the maturation process. We tried to advance the understanding of social maturity of adolescents by incorporating psychosocial development of young individuals. However, we also acknowledge that even psychosocial maturity may not describe the whole picture, as developmental factors are very complex, possibly yielding distinct offending trajectories for different individuals.

Unlike biological development, psychosocial progression can be influenced by external effects that come from coexisting with others (e.g., parents, teachers, and friends) in a social environment. These forces might create internal pressures, both physiological and emotional. For example, Tilton-Weaver et al. (2001) noted that

social relationships and experiences may lead to delays in some areas of maturity or to premature entry into more mature behavior and activities. Adolescents’ paid employment may be one example of experiences that lead, for some, to what may be a premature entry into adult behaviors. (p. 144)

The bottom line is that maturity can evolve differently for individuals in various contexts.

Future research could turn attention to the forces that shape psychosocial maturity directly and influence the maturity gap indirectly. Specifically, the link between parenting and psychosocial maturity should be examined further, along with the effects of other correlates (e.g., school life) on adolescent adjustment. Also, the neurobiological underpinnings of maturity could be another promising research area. Last, the link between maturity and desistance also needs to be examined from a developmental perspective. Studies that shed light on adolescent development may further illuminate criminological understanding of adult criminality.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Incidence rate ratios and odds ratios	Minor delinquency	Major delinquency	Minor substance use	Major substance use
Incidence rate ratios and odds ratios for males in Table 2
Pubertal development	1.04	1.08	1.16**	1.3*
Psychosocial maturity	0.8***	0.83***	0.85**	0.67***
Incidence rate ratios and odds ratios for females in Table 2
Pubertal development	1.02	1.05	1.19***	1.19
Psychosocial maturity	0.73***	0.73***	0.73***	0.63***
Incidence rate ratios and odds ratios for components for males in Table 4
Pubertal development	ns	ns	1.15**	1.32*
Temperance	.80***	.80***	.80***	.73***
Perspective	ns	ns	ns	ns
Responsibility	.93*	ns	ns	ns
Incidence rate ratios and odds ratios for females in Table 4
Pubertal development	ns	ns	1.18***	ns
Temperance	.76***	.74***	.76***	.75**
Perspective	ns	.82***	ns	ns
Responsibility	.91**	ns	.87*	.80*

Note. ns = not significant.

Appendix B

Notes

Turgut Ozkan is a PhD candidate in criminology at the University of Texas at Dallas. He has published on a wide range of topics, including recidivism, delinquency, sentencing, and methodology. His research interests are developmental criminology, recidivism, machine learning, and quantitative methods. He has received several awards from various research competitions at both local and national levels.

John L. Worrall is professor of criminology at the University of Texas at Dallas. He has published articles and book chapters on a variety of topics ranging from legal issues in policing to crime measurement. He is also the author of several books, including the popular Crime Control in America: What Works? (3rd ed., Pearson), and currently serves as editor of the journal Police Quarterly.

References

Akers

(1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Barker

E. T.

Galambos

N. L.

(2005). Adolescents’ implicit theories of maturity: Ages of adulthood, freedom, and fun. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 557-576.

Barnes

J. C.

Beaver

K. M.

(2010). An empirical examination of adolescence-limited offending: A direct test of Moffitt’s maturity gap thesis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1176-1185.

Baumeister

R. F.

Campbell

J. D.

Krueger

J. I.

Vohs

K. D.

(2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44.

Beaver

K. M.

(2008). Nonshared environmental influences on adolescent delinquent involvement and adult criminal behavior. Criminology, 46, 341-369.

Beaver

K. M.

Wright

J. P.

Delisi

(2007). Self-control as an executive function: Reformulating Gottfredson and Hirschi’s parental socialization thesis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1345-1361.

Benson

J. E.

(2014). Reevaluating the “subjective weathering” hypothesis: Subjective aging, coping resources, and the stress process. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 55, 73-90.

Blumstein

Cohen

Farrington

D. P.

(1988). Criminal career research: Its value for criminology. Criminology, 26, 1-35.

Brooks-Gunn

Petersen

A. C.

Eichorn

(1985). The study of maturational timing effects in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14, 149-161.

10.

Casey

B. J.

Jones

R. M.

(2010). Neurobiology of the adolescent brain and behavior: Implications for substance use disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49, 1189-1201.

11.

Casey

B. J.

Tottenham

Liston

Durston

(2005). Imaging the developing brain: What have we learned about cognitive development? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 104-110.

12.

Cauffman

(2012). Aligning justice system processing with developmental science. Criminology & Public Policy, 11, 751-758.

13.

Cauffman

Steinberg

(2000). (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescence: Why adolescents may be less culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18, 741-760.

14.

Cauffman

Steinberg

Piquero

A. R.

(2005). Psychological, neuropsychological and physiological correlates of serious antisocial behavior in adolescence: The role of self-control. Criminology, 43, 133-176.

15.

Chantala

Tabor

(1999). Strategies to perform design-based analysis using the Add Health data. Retrieved from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/strategies/design.html

16.

Cota-Robles

Neiss

Rowe

D. C.

(2002). The role of puberty in violent and nonviolent delinquency among Anglo American, Mexican American, and African American boys. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 364-376.

17.

Cruise

K. R.

Fernandez

McCoy

W. K.

Guy

L. S.

Colwell

L. H.

Douglas

T. R.

(2008). The influence of psychosocial maturity on adolescent offenders’ delinquent behavior. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6, 178-194.

18.

Deng

Tao

Liu

Sun

(2016). Problem behaviors, intelligent quotient, and brain proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in girls with idiopathic central precocious puberty. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 9, 5011-5016.

19.

Dijkstra

J. K.

Kretschmer

Pattiselanno

Franken

Harakeh

Vollebergh

Veenstra

(2015). Explaining adolescents’ delinquency and substance use: A test of the maturity gap: The SNARE study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 747-767.

20.

Farrington

D. P.

Loeber

Howell

J. C.

(2012). Young adult offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 11, 729-750.

21.

Farrington

D. P.

Piquero

A. R.

Jennings

W. G.

(2013). Offending from childhood to late middle age: Recent results from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. New York, NY: Springer.

22.

Felson

R. B.

Haynie

D. L.

(2002). Pubertal development, social factors, and delinquency among adolescent boys. Criminology, 40, 967-988.

23.

Galambos

N. L.

Kolaric

G. C.

Sears

H. A.

Maggs

J. L.

(1999). Adolescents’ subjective age: An indicator of perceived maturity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9, 309-337.

24.

Galambos

N. L.

Tilton-Weaver

L. C.

(2000). Adolescents’ psychosocial maturity, problem behavior, and subjective age: In search of the adultoid. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 178-192.

25.

Galambos

N. L.

Turner

P. K.

Tilton-Weaver

L. C.

(2005). Chronological and subjective age in emerging adulthood: The crossover effect. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 538-556.

26.

Conger

R. D.

Elder

G. H. J.

(2001). The relation between puberty and psychological distress in adolescent boys. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 49-70.

27.

Natsuaki

M. N.

(2009). In search of explanations for early pubertal timing effects on developmental psychopathology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 327-331.

28.

Natsuaki

M. N.

Neiderhiser

J. M.

Reiss

(2007). Genetic and environmental influences on pubertal timing: Results from two national sibling studies. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 767-788.

29.

Goldberg

(2001). The executive brain: Frontal lobes and the civilized mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

30.

Goldweber

Dmitrieva

Cauffman

Piquero

A. R.

Steinberg

(2011). The development of criminal style in adolescence and young adulthood: Separating the lemmings from the loners. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 332-346.

31.

Gottfredson

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

32.

Graber

J. A.

Lewinsohn

P. M.

Seeley

J. R.

Brooks-Gunn

(1997). Is psychopathology associated with the timing of pubertal development? Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 1768-1776.

33.

Greenberger

(1984). Defining psychosocial maturity in adolescence. In Karoly

Steffen

J. J.

(Eds.), Adolescent behavior disorders: Foundations and contemporary concerns (Vol. 3, pp. 1-37). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

34.

Greenberger

Josselson

Knerr

(1975). The measurement and structure of psychosocial maturity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 4, 127-143.

35.

Greenberger

Sørensen

A. B.

(1974). Toward a concept of psychosocial maturity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 3, 329-358.

36.

Greenberger

Steinberg

(1986). When teenagers work: The psychological and social costs of adolescent employment. New York, NY: Basic Books.

37.

Harden

K. P.

Mendle

(2012). Gene-environment interplay in the association between pubertal timing and delinquency in adolescent girls. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 73-87.

38.

Harris

K. M.

Halpern

C. T.

Whitsel

Hussey

Tabor

Entzel

Udry

J. R.

(2009). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health: Research design. Retrieved from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design

39.

Haynie

D. L.

(2003). Contexts of risk? Explaining the link between girls’ pubertal development and their delinquency involvement. Social Forces, 82, 355-397.

40.

Haynie

D. L.

Payne

D. C.

(2006). Race, friendship networks, and violent delinquency. Criminology, 44, 775-805.

41.

Haynie

D. L.

Petts

R. J.

Maimon

Piquero

A. R.

(2009). Exposure to violence in adolescence and precocious role exits. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 269-286.

42.

Hirschi

(2004). Self-control and crime. In Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 537-552). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

43.

Hirschi

Gottfredson

(1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 552-584.

44.

Huddleston

(2003). Boys at puberty: Psychosocial implications. In Hayward

(Ed.), Gender differences at puberty (pp. 113-134). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

45.

Jackson

D. B.

(2012). The role of early pubertal development in the relationship between general strain and juvenile crime. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10, 292-310.

46.

Kaltiala-Heino

Marttunen

Rantanen

Rimpelä

(2003). Early puberty is associated with mental health problems in middle adolescence. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 1055-1064.

47.

Klauser

Whittle

Simmons

J. G.

Byrne

M. L.

Mundy

L. K.

Patton

G. C.

. . . Allen

N. B.

(2015). Reduced frontal white matter volume in children with early onset of adrenarche. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 52, 111-118.

48.

Krieger

Williams

D. R.

Moss

N. E.

(1997). Measuring social class in US public health research: Concepts, methodologies, and guidelines. Annual Review of Public Health, 18, 341-378.

49.

Martin

Gardner

(2015). College expectations for all? The early adult outcomes of low-achieving adolescents who expect to earn a bachelor’s degree. Applied Developmental Science, 20, 108-120.

50.

Matsueda

R. L.

Heimer

(1987). Race, family structure, and delinquency: A test of differential association and social control theories. American Sociological Review, 52, 826-840.

51.

Mendle

Ferrero

(2012). Detrimental psychological outcomes associated with pubertal timing in adolescent boys. Developmental Review, 32, 49-66.

52.

Mendle

Turkheimer

Emery

R. E.

(2007). Detrimental psychological outcomes associated with early pubertal timing in adolescent girls. Developmental Review, 27, 151-171.

53.

Moffitt

T. E.

(1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.

54.

Monahan

K. C.

Steinberg

Cauffman

Mulvey

E. P.

(2009). Trajectories of antisocial behavior and psychosocial maturity from adolescence to young adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1654-1668.

55.

Monahan

K. C.

Steinberg

Cauffman

Mulvey

E. P.

(2013). Psychosocial (im)maturity from adolescence to early adulthood: Distinguishing between adolescence-limited and persisting antisocial behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 1093-1105.

56.

Moore

S. R.

Harden

K. P.

Mendle

(2014). Pubertal timing and adolescent sexual behavior in girls. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1734-1745.

57.

Mrug

Elliott

Gilliland

M. J.

Grunbaum

J. A.

Tortolero

S. R.

Cuccaro

Schuster

(2008). Positive parenting and early puberty in girls: Protective effects against aggressive behavior. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 162, 781-786.

58.

Osgood

D. W.

(2000). Poisson-based regression analysis of aggregate crime rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 21-43.

59.

Ozkan

(2016). Reoffending among serious juvenile offenders: A developmental perspective. Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 18-31.

60.

Perrone

Sullivan

C. J.

Pratt

T. C.

Margaryan

(2004). Parental efficacy, self-control, and delinquency: A test of a general theory of crime on a nationally representative sample of youth. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 298-312.

61.

Peskin

(1967). Pubertal onset and ego functioning. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 72, 1-15.

62.

Piquero

A. R.

Brezina

(2001). Testing Moffitt’s account of adolescence-limited delinquency. Criminology, 39, 353-370.

63.

Raine

(2002). Annotation: The role of prefrontal deficits, low autonomic arousal, and early health factors in the development of antisocial and aggressive behavior in children. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 417-434.

64.

Rocque

(2015). The lost concept: The (re)emerging link between maturation and desistance from crime. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 15, 340-360.

65.

Rocque

Ozkan

Jennings

W. G.

Piquero

A. R.

(2017). Forcing the plant: Desistance from crime and crime prevention/offender rehabilitation. In Tilley

Sidebottom

(Eds.), Handbook of crime prevention and community safety (2nd ed., pp. 183-204). Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Taylor & Francis.

66.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

67.

Rosenberg

(1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic Books.

68.

Royston

(2005). Multiple imputation of missing values: Update of ICE. Stata Journal, 5, 527-536.

69.

Sentse

Dijkstra

J. K.

Lindenberg

Ormel

Veenstra

(2010). The delicate balance between parental protection, unsupervised wandering, and adolescents’ autonomy and its relation with antisocial behavior: The TRAILS study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 159-167.

70.

Siegel

J. M.

Yancey

A. K.

Aneshensel

C. S.

Schuler

(1999). Body image, perceived pubertal timing, and adolescent mental health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 25, 155-165.

71.

Simmons

R. G.

Rosenberg

(1973). Disturbance in the self-image at adolescence. American Sociological Association, 38, 553-568.

72.

Sontag-Padilla

L. M.

Dorn

L. D.

Tissot

Susman

E. J.

Beers

S. R.

Rose

S. R.

(2012). Executive functioning, cortisol reactivity, and symptoms of psychopathology in girls with premature adrenarche. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 211-223.

73.

Spear

L. P.

(2000). The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 24, 417-463.

74.

Spear

L. P.

(2002). The adolescent brain and the college drinker: Biological basis of propensity to use and misuse alcohol. Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement, 14, 71-81.

75.

Steinberg

(2004). Risk taking in adolescence: What changes, and why? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1021, 51-58.

76.

Steinberg

(2007). Risk taking in adolescence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 55-59.

77.

Steinberg

(2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28, 78-106.

78.

Steinberg

Cauffman

(1996). Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors in adolescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 249-272.

79.

Steinberg

Monahan

K. C.

(2009). Age differences in resistance to peer influence. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1531-1543.

80.

Susman

E. J.

(1997). Modeling developmental complexity in adolescence: Capturing the future of biology and behavior in context. Journal of Research in Adolescence, 7, 283-306.

81.

Sweeten

Piquero

A. R.

Steinberg

(2013). Age and the explanation of crime, revisited. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 921-938.

82.

Tilton-Weaver

L. C.

Vitunski

E. T.

Galambos

N. L.

(2001). Five images of maturity in adolescence: What does “grown up” mean? Journal of Adolescence, 24, 143-158.

83.

Tissot

Dorn

L. D.

Rotenstein

Rose

S. R.

Sontag-Padilla

L. M.

Jillard

C. L.

. . . Beers

S. R.

(2012). Neuropsychological functioning in girls with premature adrenarche. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18, 151-156.

84.

Warr

Stafford

M. C.

(1991). The influence of delinquent peers: What they think or what they do? Criminology, 29, 851-865.

85.

Williams

J. M.

Dunlop

L. C.

(1999). Pubertal timing and self-reported delinquency among male adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 157-171.