Antisocial Behavior in Adolescence

Abstract

The study deals with the relationship between antisocial behavior in early adolescence and family environment. Sample consisted of 2,856 adolescents (53% girls, mean age 13.5 years, SD = 1.1) from urban areas in the Czech Republic. The Social and Health Assessment (SAHA), a school survey, was used to measure sociodemographic characteristics of the family, parent-child interactions, and antisocial behavior. K-means cluster analysis on the items of Antisocial Behavior Scale was used to identify types of adolescents differentiated on the basis of antisocial behavior. Four major clusters of adolescents were identified. Subsequently, adolescents from different clusters were compared on sociodemographic variables (Pearson’s chi-square) and aspects of upbringing (analysis of variance [ANOVA]). While there were no substantial differences between adolescents from the different clusters in sociodemographic characteristics of their family (parental education, parents employment, family structure), there were significant differences in aspects of upbringing (consistence, involvement, control, warmth) between adolescents from clusters differentiated by antisocial behavior.

Keywords

family antisocial behavior typology adolescence

Antisocial behavior, together with early sexual activity (including early motherhood and parenthood), addictive substance use, unhealthy eating habits, suicide attempts and successful suicides, belongs to fundamental sources of developmental risks in adolescence (Bonino, Cattelino, & Ciairano, 2005; DiClemente, Hansen, & Ponton, 1996; Macek, 2003). Developmental psychology has, through a gradual process, embraced a view that risk behavior is a normative part of adolescent development (Bonino et al., 2005; Jessor & Jessor, 1977; Jessor, van den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa, & Turbin, 1995; Moffitt & Caspi, 2001; Silbereisen, Eyferth, & Rudinger, 1986). This view is based on the fact that up to 50% of children and adolescents between the ages of 10 and 17 engage in one or more forms of such high-risk behavior (Dryfoos, 1990; Smart, Vassallo, Sanson, & Dussuyer, 2004). This type of behavior has certain typical manifestations such as substance use or vandalism (Bonino et al., 2005; Silbereisen & Noack, 1988), which in most cases subside spontaneously in adult age (Moffitt, 1993; Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001; Morizot & LeBlanc, 2005).

The normative view on risk behavior in adolescence is not only based on incidence of such behavior but also on interpretation of its functions during adolescence. The developmental tasks during adolescence involve development of one’s own identity, controlling one’s impulsivity, gaining autonomy, and adoption of the adult’s responsibility (Havighurst, 1953; Macek, 2003; Schoeppe, Haggard, & Havighurst, 1953). These developmental tasks may be accomplished through a healthy, socially well-adjusted behavior or through a risk behavior (Jessor, 1998; Silbereisen & Noack, 1988). According to Bonino et al. (2005), rule breaking (a risk behavior form), for example, fulfils the same function as eccentric clothing (“safe” behavior) in the processes of self-confirmation, differentiation, and reaching autonomy; both ways follow the same purpose: expression of independence and control over one’s behavior, expression of opposition toward the adults, and testing their reactions.

Change of the point of view on risk behavior of adolescents was, besides other things, caused by an extensive research of antisocial behavior. Contemporary psychology defines antisocial behaviors as behaviors that breach norms, values, and principles accepted or recognized by the particular society. Certain authors, such as Bonino et al. (2005), define antisocial behavior as behavior targeted against norms, values, and principles of the community that the individual breaching the standards belongs to. Current concept of antisocial behavior covers all types of transgressive behavior of different etiologies and motivations and is superior to the other terms used in this field. Farrington (2009) considers conduct disorders as the most important type of antisocial behavior from the standpoint of clinical psychology and child psychiatry, aggressiveness from the standpoint of developmental psychology, and delinquency from the standpoint of criminology and sociology.

All the aforementioned types of antisocial behavior may be involved in antisocial behavior during adolescence. However, it is assumed that the most prevalent is the developmentally conditioned type of antisocial behavior (Farrington, 2005; Moffitt, 2003). This assumption is supported by the fact that antisocial behavior during adolescence is characterized by specific manifestations such as conduct problems (lying, truancy, staying out after dark without permission), physical fighting (fistfight), damage of public or private property, and shoplifting (Blatný et al., 2006; Bonino et al., 2005; Silbereisen & Noack, 1988; Smart et al., 2004).

In our study, we focused on the influence of family on antisocial behavior of adolescents. Family is the first and largely binding model of society that a child experiences. As such, it has substantial effect on formation of personality of children and adolescents. (Borecka-Biernat, 2005, Granic, Dishion, & Hollenstein, 2006, Collins & Laursen, 2004).

Although many adolescents revolt against their parents, reject their opinions and attitudes, and criticize their imperfections, they still can rely on the relationship with their parents and know they can come back to them. The importance of parents’ role of being reference persons remains high in adolescence and does not change significantly (Langmeier, Langmeierová, & Krejcírová, 1998). The effect of attachment established in childhood on prosocial or antisocial behavior in adolescence was pointed out by, for example, Thompson and Gullone (2008). However, if adolescents have bad relationship with their parents, they are likely to build more intensive relationships with their peers (Collins & Laursen, 2004), which may become the source of potential risks (Fridrich & Flannery, 1995; Sobotková, Blatný, & Hrdlička, 2007).

The influence of family on the development of antisocial behavior in adolescence could be classified in the following three domains (Farrington, 2009). The first group of factors affecting antisocial behavior is represented by demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of family such as family structure or education and employment/unemployment of parents. These determine both the structure of the family and its position in a broader social context (Bonino et al., 2005). The second group of factors includes variables of family functionality such as relationships within the family and parenting styles. For instance, Vieno, Nation, Pastore, and Santinello (2009) highlight the importance of closeness and intimacy in parent-child interaction as a protective factor of antisocial behavior. The third area of factors is associated with personality and other psychological characteristics of parents such as their antisocial behavior, perceived stress, or other internalized psychopathology.

The significance of demographic and socioeconomic factors was proved by many studies (Ruchkin, Koposov, Vermeiren, & Schwab-Stone, 2003). For example, Štěchová, Večerka, and Holas (2000) studied adolescents aged 7 to 15 years being treated by Social Welfare Departments and Counseling Centers and Reeducational Facilities. They observed that only every third adolescent came from a two-parent family while the majority of adolescents were reared by mothers only. Almost a half of adolescents experienced divorce or separation of their parents and one fifth witnessed segregation from family. These adolescents also often changed schools, moved to other locations, and acquired half siblings.

These risks already contain other factors such as quality of family environment and parent-child interactions. The importance of family relationships for good social adjustment and self-esteem of adolescent was proved by many studies. Gecková and colleagues (Gecková, Pudelský, & Tuinstra, 2000; Gecková, Pudelský, & Van Dijk, 2001) observed significant correlation between social support from parents and well-being and health of adolescents. Macek (2004) found out that perceived warmth from the parent of the same gender is an indicator of good self-esteem of adolescents. Trentacosta, Hyde, Shaw, and Cheong (2009) reported that “parental knowledge” (i.e., parents know what their child does and where and with whom he or she is) was an important factor of protection from antisocial behavior.

On the other hand, nonfunctional family environment results in conduct problems in adolescents. Farrington (2005) believes that the main factors of the development of antisocial behavior include family with impaired structure, low income, large families, parents with antisocial behavior, low attention of parents, child abuse, punishing or unpredictable parenting, cold attitude of parents, and conflicts between parents. Similar findings were reported by Gecková (1998) and Štěchová et al. (2000), who found out that the conduct problems in adolescents were related to inconsistency of parenting, parents’ lack of interest (including excusing children’s misbehaviors), low parental control, and hostility and directiveness in parents. It must be added that increased aggressiveness observed in children evokes negative parental behavior, which may retrospectively induce antisocial behavior in adolescence (Narusyte, Andershed, Neiderhiser, & Liechtenstein, 2007).

The last group of factors having impact on antisocial behavior in family environment is associated with psychological characteristics of parents. Occurrence of antisocial behavior is related to psychiatric disorders in parents (e.g., Ge, Conger, Cadoret, & Neiderhiser, 1996), parental substance use (e.g., Kandel, Rosenbaum, & Chen, 1994), and parental criminality (Farrington, Gundry, & West, 1975). Witnessing family violence could be almost as influential for future aggressive behavior in children, as being a victim of child-rearing practices (Hughes, Parkinson, & Vargo, 1989; Ruchkin, 2003).

To conclude, family is the most significant institution that passes on the norms and values applicable in given culture to children and adolescents and plays a crucial role in developing prosocial or antisocial behavior of adolescents.

Objectives of the Study

Our study aims for analyzing the relationships between the factors of family environment and antisocial behavior of adolescents. We have focused on sociodemographic characteristics of the family, which determine the status of a family in the broader social context and, therefore, may constitute indirect risk factors underlying the development of risk behavior, and on characteristics of the parent-child relationship, whose quality is generally regarded as a significant protective factor with regard to the development of antisocial behavior. As for sociodemographic variables, we have focused on the family structure, parents’ employment, and parents’ education, from the perspective of quality of parent-child relationship on the perceived involvement, warmth, and control by parents and on consistency of upbringing.

With regard to operationalization of antisocial behavior we adopted an approach used within the SAHA project that is associated with a method of the same name (Schwab-Stone et al., 1999; Weissberg, Voyce, Kasprow, Arthur, & Shriver, 1991). As for the content, the SAHA method distinguishes four dimensions of antisocial behavior: conduct problems (lying, skipping the school, staying out without permission), property crimes (e.g., shoplifting, damaging public or private property), violent behavior (e.g., starting a fistfight, carrying a gun), and disciplinary consequences (e.g., have been suspended from school, arrested by the police). Specific antisocial behaviors, however, are not manifested in all adolescents in the same degree, so we decided to use a typological approach for our analysis and conducted a cluster analysis on individual items of the Antisocial Behavior Scale. The usefulness of the typological approach, which enables identification of different specific groups of individuals in a behavior population, has been pointed out by studies, for example, by Terrie E. Moffitt and Diana Smart.

Moffitt (1993, 2003) found out that juvenile delinquency is undertaken by two different groups of adolescents with antisocial behavior: The first group shows life-course-persistent antisocial behavior, whereas the second has adolescence-limited antisocial behavior. The first group (less numerous) typically consists of boys whose antisocial behavior emerged already in their preschool age. These boys suffer from neurospsychological and temperamental problems and have unfavorable family history (disturbed family structure, underage parents; Loeber & Farrington, 2000; Moffitt et al., 2001; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). The second group consists of adolescents who are expected to show their antisocial behavior in reaction to developmental tasks of adolescence (Bonino et al., 2005; Moffitt, 2001).

Diana Smart and colleagues (2004) focused on the classification of developmental trajectories of antisocial behavior between 13 and 18 years of age. Besides many other trajectories, they identified three main clusters of trajectories. The first and largest group (74%) comprised adolescents with low (or zero) degree of antisocial behavior in all studied age brackets (13-14, 15-16, and 17-18 years). The second group consisted of individuals who were defined by Smart as “experimenting.” Experimenting adolescents showed high level of antisocial behavior in only one age bracket, most often between 13 and 14 years or 15 and 16 years. And they abandoned antisocial behavior at the age of 17 to 18 years. This group of adolescents represented 8% of all the identified developmental trajectories. The last group consisted of individuals who were defined by Smart as “persistent” (12%). These adolescents showed high level of antisocial behavior at two and more developmental levels. These three groups differed in the proportion of boys and girls: Group with low/zero level of antisocial behavior had only 41% boys, as compared with 43% boys in “experimenting” group and 65% boys in persistently antisocial group. The results of Smart et al. corresponded with the conclusions of Moffitt, both in the description of individual groups of adolescents with antisocial behavior and the distribution of boys and girls in individual groups.

Therefore, we used cluster analysis to identify the typology of adolescents based on their antisocial behavior with the aim of characterizing the types from the perspective of sociodemographic characteristics of the family and parent-child interactions. Based on the aforementioned studies, we expected to identify several groups of adolescents with a different kind of and different degree of seriousness of antisocial behavior, with the largest group to be made up of adolescents with a low level of antisocial behavior. As for adolescents with a high level of antisocial behavior, we expected unfavorable sociodemographic conditions of the family and with regard to upbringing: a low parental control, involvement, and warmth, and inconsistent upbringing.

This study focused on early adolescence (12 to 15 years of age) for the following two reasons: First, the studies on risk behavior of adolescents most often investigate middle adolescence (14 to 19 years of age); for example, only one fifth of Czech and Slovak studies was performed with children under 14 years of age (Blatný, Polišenská, Balaštíková, & Hrdlička, 2005). Second, it is just early adolescence that seems to be critical for the development of risk behavior. During this stage, all forms of risk behavior start to grow rapidly (Blatný et al., 2006; Craig & Harel, 2004; Gabhainn, 2004). In most cases, antisocial behavior gradually subsides with age and it usually disappears in adulthood (Moffitt, 1993; Moffitt et al., 2001; Morizot & LeBlanc, 2005). According to Smart et al. (2004), antisocial behavior subsides as early as at the age of 17 to 18 years.

Method

Sample

Participants were adolescents participating in multicenter international project that aims to assess risk and protective factors for psychosocial adjustment of children and youth. Stratified probability sampling of schools according to location and school type was conducted in order to identify a national probability sample of youth in the Czech Republic. Only general public schools were included in the study (i.e., schools with special education programs were left out). In our research no subgroup (e.g., adolescents from certain ethnic background) was oversampled, so no sampling weights were used in analysis.

The sample consisted of 12-year-old (seventh grade of elementary school), 14-year-old (ninth grade of elementary school), and 16-year-old (second grade of high school) students from schools in the capital of the Czech Republic, Prague, and in all 12 of the regional capitals. With the exception of Prague (population 1.2 million), the towns and cities ranged in size from 50,000 to 400.000 inhabitants. Proportion of adolescents from Prague and individual regional capitals in the sample reflects sizes of these towns. A total of 4,980 students from 150 schools participated in the study.

In the present study, data from merged 12-year-old and 14-year-old cohorts (3,023 persons) were used. Sample size after discarding incomplete (based on antisocial behavior scale) and inconsistently filled out questionnaires was 2,856 persons while 12-year-old cohort had 1,374 persons (54.4% girls) and 14-year-old cohort had 1,482 persons (53.0% girls). The cases with data missing for individual analyses were deleted, as their share did not exceed 5%, except for the education of a mother (14%) and a father (21%).

Other sociodemographic characteristics of the study sample are described in Table 1. Over 90% of adolescents reported that their mother or father had received high school education or higher and 85% percent of adolescents reported that both of their parents were employed. Over 24% of respondents reported coming from a single-parent family.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample.^a

	Total sample (n = 2.856)	Boys (46.3)	Girls (53.7)
Age, mean (SD)	13.5 (1.12)	13.6 (1.10)	13.5 (1.12)
Single-parent family	24.2	24.2	24.1
Mother’s education (high school or higher)	95.0	95.3	94.8
Father’s education (high school or higher)	93.8	93.1	94.4
Employment Status
Both parents employed	85.0	86.3	83.7
One parent employed	13.5	12.1	14.9
Both parents unemployed	1.5	1.6	1.4

Expressed as % within variable level, unless noted otherwise.

Instruments

The Social and Health Assessment (SAHA), developed by Weissberg et al. (1991) and Schwab-Stone et al. (1999) served as the basis for the survey. This survey includes both new scales developed specifically for the SAHA and scales available from the literature that have been used with the U.S. populations of similar ages and background to those in the original SAHA study (Schwab-Stone et al., 1995, 1999). The SAHA has also been applied in a number of cross-cultural settings (Vermeiren, Schwab-Stone, Leckman, Deboutte, & Ruchkin, 2003). The questionnaire was administered by trained administrators in the paper and pencil form in individual classrooms. In the present study, the following SAHA scales were used.

Antisocial behavior

The Antisocial Behavior Scale assess behavior problems of different severity (Schwab-Stone et al., 1999) on 19 items. In this scale (Cronbach’s α = .83), students were asked to report on a 5-point scale how many times they had been involved in each type of antisocial behavior during the past year (0 = zero times, 1 = once, 2 = twice, 3 = three to four times, 4 = five and more times). Items are described in Table 3.

Sociodemographic variables

The study focused on family sociodemographic characteristics that are most often reported as representing the risk of development of antisocial behavior in adolescents: education of parents, employment/unemployment of parents, and family structure. These variables were used to develop the following categories:

Parental education: university education, high school education, elementary education;

Parental employment: both parents are employed, one parent is unemployed, both parents are unemployed;

Family structure: two-parent family (married, remarried) and single-parent family (divorced, separated, widowed).

Parent-adolescent interactions

Interactions between parents and children (parenting aspects) were measured using Parent-Child Interactions Scale (Schwab-Stone et al., 1999) that determines four aspects of parenting—parental involvement (six items, Cronbach’s α = .68), parental warmth (five items, Cronbach’s α = .80), parental control (seven items, Cronbach’s α = .71), and inconsistency of parenting (five items, Cronbach’s α = .65). Adolescents evaluate parents’ behavior on a 4-point scale (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often). Level of individual parenting aspects is expressed as the mean score, where higher score indicates higher level of the characteristics.

Procedure and Data Analysis

The individual types classified according to antisocial behavior of adolescents were identified using cluster analysis. A nonhierarchical cluster analysis (k-means) was performed with items of antisocial behavior scale in SPSS software, version 15.0. Solution for four types of persons was selected as the most appropriate and best interpretable. The identified types were compared in terms of gender and age distribution using Pearson’s chi-square test. Subsequently, the types were compared in terms of sociodemographic variables using Pearson’s chi-square test and in terms of parenting aspects using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Results

Typology of Respondents Based on Their Antisocial Behavior

Cluster analysis based on antisocial behavior items was used to identify four types of persons that differed in the extent and manifestations of antisocial behavior. Table 2 shows the size of individual types and their percentage in the sample. Table 3 presents final cluster centers.

Table 2.

Results of Nonhierarchical Cluster Analysis (k Means) on Items of Antisocial Behavior Scale.

Type	N	Percent	Description of types
1	1,610	56.4	Adolescents without conduct problems
2	721	25.2	Adolescents with moderate aggressive behavior (started a fistfight)
3	46	1.6	Adolescents with high level of antisocial behavior
4	479	16.8	Adolescents with mild conduct problems (lied, started a fistfight, damaged property)

Table 3.

Final Cluster Centers of Four Types of Persons Identified on Items of Antisocial Behavior Scale.

During the past year:	Type 1	Type 2	Type 3	Type 4
Started a fistfighting or shoving match?	0.28	3.04	2.91	2.01
Shoplifted from a store?	009	0.17	2.24	0.52
Damage public or private property?	0.11	0.29	2.80	1.23
Lied to a teacher?	0.40	0.61	3.07	2.70
Stayed out without permission?	0.06	0.07	1.98	0.48
Lied to your parents or guardians?	0.41	0.45	3.02	2.62
Skipped school?	0.07	0.07	1.96	0.38
Hurt someone as badly so needed a doctor?	0.02	0.08	1.72	0.11
Carried a gun?	0.06	0.14	1.61	0.20
Had been involved in gang fight?	0.01	0.08	1.74	0.09
Had been arrested by the police?	0.01	0.02	1.24	0.04
Carried a blade, knife or gun to school?	0.11	0.36	2.09	0.57
Been suspended from school?	0.17	0.35	2.13	0.75
Been at school drunk?	0.06	0.09	2.30	0.34
Been high at school by marijuana?	0.05	0.08	2.63	0.35
Stole a motorcycle or car?	0.01	0.01	1.22	0.02
Pick-pocketed somebody?	0.01	0.04	1.37	0.11
Sold drugs to earn money?	0.01	0.02	2.22	0.11
Been in juvenile court?	0.01	0.03	1.89	0.12
Type size (%)	56.4	25.2	1.6	16.8

Type 1 represents persons without conduct problems. These persons responded to all items of Antisocial Behavior Scale in a way that suggested minimum degree of antisocial aspects in their behavior. Type 2 represents persons that have high score only in the following item of antisocial behavior scale: “During the past year, how many times have you started a fistfight or shoving match?” These are primarily boys from 12-year-old cohort. Type 3 represents persons who have high scores in all items of antisocial behavior scale. Finally, Type 4 persons have high scores in the following items: “During the past year, how many times have you lied to a teacher to cover up something you did?” and “During the past year, how many times have you lied to your parents or guardians about where you have been or who you were with?”

This typology was presented in the previous study (Sobotková et al., 2006), where it was validated based on the relation to substance use (cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and hard drugs): The higher level of antisocial behavior of the person, the more he or she reported the substance use.

The identified types were compared in terms of gender and distribution in age cohorts (Table 4).

Table 4.

Gender and Age Differences in Identified Types.

	Type 1	Type 2	Type 3	Type 4
Boys	42.4^a	37.2^a	2.7^a	17.7
Girls	68.4^a	15.0^a	0.7^a	15.9
12-year cohort	57.9	29.9^a	1.6	10.6^a
14-year cohort	54.9	20.9^a	1.6	22.5^a

Note. Table contains row percentages.

Absolute value of standardized residual greater than 1.96.

Distribution of boys and girls in individual types differed (χ² = 241.91, df = 3, p < .01, Cramer’s V = .292). The biggest differences were observed in Type 1 (without conduct problems), where girls prevailed, and Type 2 (moderate aggressive behavior) where greater number of boys was found out.

Distribution of age cohorts in individual types differed as well (χ² = 85.05, df = 3, p < .01, Cramer’s V = .173). Differences were observed in Type 2 (moderate aggressive behavior), where members of 12-year-old cohort were represented more often, and Type 4 (mild conduct problems) that was characterized by higher occurrence of 14-year-old adolescents.

Family Context of Antisocial Behavior

First, the types were compared in terms of family structure (two-parent family vs. single-parent family), education of parents, and employment/unemployment of parents (Table 5). No statistically significant differences were found between the identified types in family structure (χ² = 6.61, df = 3, p = .085) and education of parents (for mother: χ² = 3.59, df = 6, p = .732; for father: χ² = 8.46, df = 6, p = .206). Significant difference was observed in employment of parents (χ² = 18.48, df = 6, p < .01; Cramer’s V = .058). As can be seen in Table 5, there are more adolescents in Type 3 with both parents unemployed than expected.

Table 5.

Description of Types According to Family Structure, Education, and Employment of Parents.

	Type 1	Type 2	Type 3	Type 4
Two-parent family	57.4	25.2	1.4	16.0
Single-parent family	53.4	25.1	2.2	19.3
University
Mother	57.0	25.7	1.5	15.8
Father	58.7	24.2	1.4	15.7
High school
Mother	56.1	24.3	1.4	18.2
Father	53.6	26.0	1.4	18.9
Elementary
Mother	53.3	27.9	0.8	18.0
Father	62.1	20.7	1.4	15.7
Both employed	57.0	24.5	1.5	17.0
One unemployed	54.4	29.1	2.2	14.3
Both unemployed	37.5	37.5	7.5^a	17.5

Note. Table contains row percentages.

Absolute value of standardized residual greater than 1.96.

On the other hand, the analysis showed significant differences in parenting aspects: inconsistency of parenting, parental involvement, parental control, and parental warmth (Table 6).

Table 6.

Comparison of Identified Types in Parent-Child Interactions Using One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).

	Inconsistency		Involvement		Control		Warmth
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Type 1	2.22^a	0.64	2.90^c	0.56	2.89^b	0.59	3.37^c	0.57
Type 2	2.37^b	0.64	2.84^c	0.55	2.92^b	0.59	3.28^d	0.59
Type 3	2.43^abc	0.77	2.41^a	0.62	2.59^a	0.79	2.70^a	0.72
Type 4	2.63^c	0.63	2.64^b	0.55	2.84^b	0.59	2.97^b	0.66
BG SS	66.57		34.10		6.06		72.37
WG SS	1165.78		870.28		990.54		1006.90
F (3, 2839)	54.04*		38.09*		5.79*		68.02*

Note. Mean values significantly differ (.05 level) from each other when they do not share the same superscript (based on Tukey-Kramer post hoc tests); BG SS = between-group sum of squares; WG SS = within-group sum of squares

.01 level of significance.

Three variables (involvement, control, and warmth) show similar tendency of responses—respondents with antisocial behavior most often reported that their parents were least interested in them and their lives, showed the least control of their school results and leisure time, and have the least affection for them. In the case of parental involvement, the second least degree of these characteristics was reported by adolescents with mild conduct problems and no differences between adolescents without conduct problems and adolescents with moderate aggressive behavior were found. In the case of parental control, no differences between adolescents with mild conduct problems, adolescents without conduct problems, and adolescents with moderate aggressive behavior were found. All identified types differed in parental warmth from each other.

The only parenting aspect that does not correspond with the general trend is inconsistency of parenting—the highest inconsistence of parenting was not reported by adolescents with antisocial behavior, but adolescents with mild conduct problems. Other types again comply with the identified tendency—the most consistent parenting was reported by adolescents without conduct problems while adolescents with moderate aggressive behavior and adolescents with antisocial behavior reported slightly lower consistency of parenting. Significant differences in parental inconsistence were found between adolescents with mild conduct problems, adolescents with moderate aggressive behavior, and adolescents without conduct problems.

Discussion

Four types of adolescents with various degree of antisocial behavior were identified. The most often observed type (56%) represents adolescents with low level of antisocial behavior: On average, these adolescents show any type of antisocial behavior less often than once a year. This type can be considered as adolescents without conduct problems. The second type (25%) is basically the same as the first type, but it shows higher incidence of physical fighting (“started a fistfight or shoving match”); on average, adolescents of this type started a fistfight more than 3 times during the past 12 months. The third type shows the highest level of all antisocial behaviors and represents less than 2% of the studied population. Adolescents of this cluster showed all types of antisocial behaviors at least once during the past 12 months (repeated fistfights, shoplifting, damage of property, lying, detained by the police, carrying a gun, reprimanded or were at school after alcohol or marijuana consumption). The fourth type (17%) is represented by adolescents with mild conduct problems (physical fighting, damage of property, and lying to parents and teacher in order to hide their contacts and activities).

The types were compared in terms of distribution of gender and age cohorts. Type 1, adolescents without conduct problems, is more represented by girls, with no significant differences in age cohorts. Type 2, adolescents with increased frequency of physical fighting, is represented primarily by 12-year-old boys. Type 3, adolescents with high level of antisocial behaviors, has almost 4 times more boys than girls, with no differences in age cohorts. Type 4, adolescents with mild conduct problem, is represented mainly by 14-year-old adolescents, without significant differences in gender. Our findings correspond with other studies that confirmed that boys tend to behave more aggressively than girls (Crijnen, Achenbach, & Verhulst, 1997; Lier, Vitaro, Wanner, Vuijk, & Crijnen, 2005; Junger-Tas, Terlouw, & Klein, 1994; Moffitt et al., 2001) and that antisocial behaviors gradually increase during adolescence (Blatný et al., 2006; Currie et al., 2004; Loeber & Farrington, 1998; Smart et al., 2004).

This in-depth perspective on the composition of individual types enables us to provide their psychological description in more detail. The attention will be focused on Type 2 and Type 4 that can be considered as the transition from nonproblematic population to persons with significantly antisocial behavior.

Basically, Type 2 differs from Type 1 in the extent of physical fighting. At the same time, it is represented by more boys from younger age cohort. Langmeier et al. (1998) believe that early adolescence (11 to 15 years of age) is defined by emotional instability, impulsivity, and low self-control, while adolescents aged approximately 13 years show increasing intensity of various types of aggressive behaviors such as physical fighting or bullying (Craig & Harel, 2004). Based on the presented findings, behavior of Type 2 adolescents can be considered as nonproblematic. Although they show moderate aggressive behavior, there is a strong probability that this behavior has developmental character. A prospective detailed analysis of Type 2 adolescents could focus on various causes of physical fighting. It would be interesting to know whether this type could be subdivided according to the fact their fighting has really antisocial character or it is only an aggression resulting from decreased self-control conditioned developmentally.

Adolescents with mild conduct problems (Type 4) show balanced gender distribution, with greater number of 14-year-old adolescents. As they attend the last grade of elementary school, they are expected to show stronger desire to become more independent and less controlled by adults. Besides fights, the most typical antisocial behaviors include lying to parents and teachers. It is assumed that they are lying because they want to spend their time more freely and without influence and control of adult authorities (Allen, Hauser, Bell, & O’Connor, 1994). In this sense, lying does not have to be viewed as definitely negative antisocial behavior, but the effort to reduce the control by adults emancipate from them and assume the responsibility. However, lying in adolescents was found to be associated with externalizing problem behaviors and difficulties in social adjustment (Engels, Finkenauer, & van Kooten, 2006); therefore we consider this type as potentially risk group.

Significant risk from psychiatric, health, and social perspective is represented only by Type 3, adolescents with high level of all antisocial behaviors. From the psychiatric point of view the main problem is the comorbidity of antisocial behavior to other forms of psychopathology, both externalizing and internalizing. For example, Moffitt et al. (2001) found out, that almost 90% of their sample (N = 226) with lifetime diagnoses of conduct disorder had at least one other comorbid, diagnosable disorder, such as mental retardation, ADHD, depression, mania, eating disorders, alcohol dependence, anxiety disorders, and reading retardation. From health perspective, many studies confirmed the links between adolescent antisocial behavior and substance use (Adalbjarnardottir & Rafnsson, 2002; Kyasová, 2003; Sobotková, Blatný, Jelínek, Hrdlička, & Urbánek, 2009; Strand, 2002; Zucker & Gomberg, 1986). In terms of social development, early antisocial behavior may be a predictor of later delinquency (Loeber & Farrington, 2001).

Our findings on typology of antisocial behavior correspond with the studies by Moffitt et al. (2003) and Smart et al. (2004). More than half of adolescents show a low level of or no antisocial behavior at all. If we also included adolescents of the second type demonstrating moderate aggressive behavior among those with acceptable behavior, adolescents with a low degree of antisocial behavior would then represent 82%, which is similar to the findings reported in Smart et al.; in her study, adolescents with a low (or zero) degree of antisocial behavior represented 74% of the followed population. Also, the gender structure of the identified types is consistent with mentioned studies. Girls predominate in Type 1 (adolescents without conduct problems) and boys in Types 2 and 3 (adolescents with moderate aggressive behavior and adolescents with antisocial behavior).

Next step was to characterize the identified types in terms of family environment, both from the perspective of family sociodemographic characteristics and parent-child interactions.

The results did not prove our expectations that behavior of adolescents is strongly correlated with impaired structure or decreased socioeconomic status of family. The only significant difference between the types was observed in variable “employed/unemployed of parents”: Adolescents with high level of antisocial behavior had in more cases unemployed parents (both of them) than did adolescents of other types. Although statistically significant, the difference was relatively small (Cramer’s V = .058).

As indicated in the study objectives above, this could be explained by the fact that the study was performed with pupils of general public schools without assessing schools with special education, including schools established under Counseling Centers and Reeducational Facilities. Conclusions on the relationship between antisocial behavior and sociodemographic characteristics of family are based primarily on studies of juvenile delinquents and adults with life-course-persistent antisocial behavior. However, antisocial behavior of these persons is rarely influenced by social and economic position of their family or its impaired structure only but only by its impaired functionality. A synergy of demographic factors and poor parenting occurs (Farington, 2005) and parents often have criminal history themselves (Ruchkin, 2003). Antisocial behavior thus can become a family variable in which both heritability and shared environment play important roles (Ruchkin, 2003; Wambolt & Wambolt, 2000). It seems that sociodemographic risk factors such as single-parent family do not play an extremely significant role in general population and can be compensated by good parenting.

Another explanation based on broader sociopsychological and sociological perspective comes into consideration. After social and economic changes in 1989 and transition from totalitarian political regime and planned economy to democracy and market economy, Czech society did not differ significantly in terms of economic position of various parts of population before and after the regime change (Mareš, 2004). Thanks to functional system of social welfare—which is today criticized for its excessive generosity—there are no extremely socially weak classes in the Czech Republic. In future, it would be desirable to study the effect of the planned economy measures and their impact on social and economic position of risk population groups such as single-parent families or families with low social and economic status.

As far as the sample of this study is concerned, antisocial behavior of adolescents is primarily influenced by parent-child interaction. Our findings support the existing body of research literature into the importance of quality of relationships within the family and parenting practices as a protective factor of antisocial behavior (Griffin, Botvin, Scheier, Diaz, & Miller, 2000; Jessor, van den Bos, Vanderryn et al., 1995; McElhaney, Allen, Stephenson, & Hare, 2009). Analysis of responses of adolescents with high level of antisocial behavior indicates that, in comparison with their peers, they do not see their parents as persons who are less interested in them, who less control their behavior, and who are less warm to them. Therefore, these adolescents try to meet their needs in peer groups, which often become the source of problem and antisocial behavior. The related study (Sobotková et al., 2009) indicated that increasing degree of antisocial behavior of adolescents is related to more intensive contact with peers who tend to use substances and show delinquent behavior.

The least consistent parenting is experienced by adolescents who lie to parents and teachers. We believe that such behavior can be explained just by parenting ambiguity. Typical features of inconsistent parenting include unclearly defined limits and rules and uncertain parental feedback. Behaviors that are sometimes appreciated are in other situations neglected or criticized. Rules defined by parents are vague or full of contradiction: Certain type of behavior is permitted in one situation and prohibited in other. Adolescents reared in this way can have problems to realize the seriousness of lying and saying half-truths. They can perceive lying as an unimportant neglect. Inconsistency of parenting seems to be another condition of lying in adolescence besides cold and ignorant relationships in family (Finkenauer, Engels, & Meeus, 2002).

Type 2 (adolescents with moderate aggressive behavior) was considered as basically nonproblematic, as it differs from Type 1 (adolescents without conduct problems) only in the degree of physical fighting, while the extent of their aggressive behavior was explained by developmental processes. This interpretation is supported also by the observation that adolescents with moderate aggressive behavior report the same degree of parental involvement and control as adolescents without conduct problems, with only slightly lower parental warmth and slightly higher inconsistence of parenting. Lower parental warmth can be explained by the fact that increased aggression of adolescents’ behavior evokes negative behavior in parents that can in turn influence antisocial behavior in adolescence (Narusyte et al., 2007).

Conclusion

Cluster analysis of items of Antisocial Behavior Scale identified the following four types: adolescents without conduct problems, adolescents with moderate aggressive behavior, adolescents with high level of antisocial behavior, and adolescents with mild conduct problems. Significant risk from psychiatric, health and social perspective is represented only by adolescents with high level of antisocial behavior. The types were compared in terms of sociodemographic characteristics of family and parent-child interactions. Unemployment of both parents was the only identified risk factor of the development of antisocial behavior in adolescents. Antisocial behaviors are primarily influenced by parenting aspects such as less parental involvement, control, and warmth, and less consistent parenting leads to more intensive antisocial behaviors in adolescents. It seems that sociodemographic risk factors such as single-parent family do not play an extremely significant role in general population and can be compensated by good parenting.

Directions for Further Research

The future research should focus on detailed analysis of parent-adolescent interactions and consider some other factors affecting antisocial behavior, such as peer group effects or ways of spending leisure time. Also mutual interactions of the aforementioned factors should be studied. Further personal characteristics of adolescents should also be considered that may affect their parents’ relationship to them (personality, internalized psychopathology) and thus influence, directly or indirectly, the incidence and degree of antisocial behavior.

Limitations

When evaluating the results it should be taken into account that this study was performed with adolescents from larger towns and cities (regional capitals) only. The previous study that focused on the prevalence of antisocial behavior in general population of Czech adolescents from urban areas (Blatný et al., 2006) however did not suggest that antisocial behavior of adolescents living in larger towns differs from results obtained from general Czech adolescent population (Currie et al., 2004). Of course, it would be useful to replicate the analysis with the sample that would include also adolescents living in small towns and villages.

Another important limitation arises from the fact that we used self-reporting questionnaire to obtain necessary data. Although test of consistency of responses was performed with the relevant data, it is impossible to capture every single distortion of data caused by using self-reporting method. So the data gathered from adolescents could be biased, for example, by their tendency to exaggerate their negative behavior to make themselves more interesting. Future studies, therefore, should use also information from additional sources such as parents and teachers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by grant from “The Programm for the Support of the Targeted Research and Development, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic”.

Author Biographies

Veronika Sobotková, PhD (1978), is interested in risk and protective factors of development in childhood and adolescence, well-being, and child oncopsychology. She works as postdoctoral fellow at the Institute of Psychology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. She publishes journal articles particularly about antisocial behavior of children and adolescents.

Marek Blatný’s research focuses on risk and protective factors of development in childhood and adolescence, personality stability and change, human development, and child oncopsychology. Currently, he is a director of Institute of Psychology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. He is an author of many professional publications.

Martin Jelínek, PhD, is interested in research methods and statistics, adaptive testing, and item response theory. He works as researcher at Institute of Psychology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.

Michal Hrdlicˇka, MD, is a senior consultant of Department of Child Psychiatry, Charles University Second Faculty of Medicine. He is interesting in eating disorders, child autism, and pediatric psychopharmacology. He is author of many professional publications.

References

Adalbjarnardottir

Rafnsson

F. D.

(2002). Adolescent antisocial behavior and substance use. Longitudinal analysis. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 227-240.

Allen

J. P.

Hauser

S. T.

Bell

K. L.

O’Connor

T. G.

(1994) Longitudinal assessment of autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-family interactions as predictors of adolescent ego development and self-esteem. Child Development, 65, 179-194.

Blatný

Hrdlička

Sobotková

Jelínek

Květon

Vobořil

(2006). Prevalence antisociálního chování v obecné populaci českých adolescentů z městských oblastí [Prevalence of antisocial behaviors in Czech urban youth]. Československá psychologie, 50, 297-310.

Blatný

Polišenská

V. A.

Balaštíková

Hrdlička

(2005). Problematika rizikového chování vývoje dětí a dospívajících: hlavní témata a implikace pro další výzkum [Problems of risk development of children and adolescents: main themes and implications for future research]. Československá psychologie, 49(6), 524-539.

Bonino

Cattelino

Ciairano

(2005). Adolescents and risk. Behaviors, functions, and protective factors. New York, NY: Springer.

Borecka-Biernat

(2005). Společensko—rodinná podmíněnost agresivní strategie jednání v obtížné společenské situaci u mládeže [Societal and familiar conditionality of aggressive acting strategy in difficult societal situation in youth]. Československá psychologie, 49, 496-504.

Collins

W. A.

Laursen

(2004). Parent relationships and influences. In Lerner

R. M.

Steinberg

L. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 331-362). New York, NY: John Wiley.

Craig

W. M.

Harel

(2004). Bullying, physical fighting, and victimization. In Currie

Roberts

Morgan

Smith

Settertobulte

Samdal

Barnekow Rasmussen

(Eds.), Young people’s health in context. Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) Study: International report from the 2001/2002 Survey (pp. 133-144). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

Crijnen

A. A. M.

Achenbach

T. M.

Verhulst

F. C.

(1997). Coprarisons of problems reported by parents of children in 12 cultures: Total problems, externalizing, and internalizing. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 1269-1277.

10.

Currie

Roberts

Morgan

Smith

Settertobulte

Samdal

Barnekow Rasmussen

(Eds.). (2004). Young people’s health in context. Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) Study: International report from the 2001/2002 survey. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

11.

DiClemente

R. J.

Hansen

W. B.

Ponton

L. E.

(Eds.). (1996). Handbook of adolescent health risk behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.

12.

Dryfoos

(1990). Adolescents at Risk. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

13.

Engels

R. C. M. E.

Finkenauer

van Kooten

D. C.

(2006). Lying behavior, family functioning and adjustment in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 949-958.

14.

Farrington

D. P.

(2005). Childhood origins of antisocial behavior. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 12, 177-190.

15.

Farrington

D. P.

(2009). Conduct disorder, aggression and delinquency. In Lerner

R. M.

Steinberg

L. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 683-722). New York, NY: John Wiley.

16.

Farrington

D. P.

Gundry

West

D. J.

(1975). The familiar transmission of criminality. Medical Science and Law, 15, 177-186.

17.

Finkenauer

Engels

R. C. M. E.

Meeus

(2002). Keeping secrets from parents: Advantages and disadvantages of secrecy in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 123-136.

18.

Fridrich

Flannery

(1995). The effects of ethnicity and acculturation on early adolescent delinquency. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 4, 69-87.

19.

Gabhainn

S. N.

(2004). Summary. In Currie

Roberts

Morgan

Smith

Settertobulte

Samdal

Barnekow Rasmussen

(Eds.), Young people’s health in context. Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) Study: International report from the 2001/2002 survey (p. 161). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

20.

Gecková

(1998). Rodinné prostredie a výchovne problémové správanie adolescentov [Family environment and educationally problem behavior of adolescents]. Psychológia a patopsychológia dieťaťa, 33, 320-329.

21.

Gecková

Pudelský

Tuinstra

(2000). Kontakty s rovesníkmi, sociálna sieť a sociálna podpora z pohladu adolescentov [Peer contacts, social network, and social support from adolescents’ point of view]. Psychológia a patopsychológia dieťaťa, 35, 121-136.

22.

Gecková

Pudelský

Van Dijk

(2001). Vplyv percipovanej sociálnej opory na zdravie a socio-ekonomické rozdiely v sociálnej opore adolescentov [Influence of perceived social support on health and socio-economic differences in social support in adolescents]. Československá psychologie, 45, 7-18.

23.

Conger

R. D.

Cadoret

R. J.

Neiderhiser

J. M.

(1996). The developmental interface between nature and nurture: A mutual influence model of child antisocial behavior and parent behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 574-589.

24.

Granic

Dishion

T. J.

Hollenstein

(2006). The family ecology of adolescence: A dynamics systems perspective on normative development. In Adams

G. R.

Berzonsky

M. D.

(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 60-91). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

25.

Griffin

K. W.

Botvin

G. J.

Scheier

L. M.

Diaz

Miller

N. L.

(2000). Parenting practices as predictors of substance use, delinquency, and aggression among urban minority youth: Moderating effects of family structure and gender. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 14, 174-184.

26.

Havighurst

R. J.

(1953). Human development and education. New York, NY: Longman.

27.

Hughes

Parkinson

Vargo

(1989). Witnessing spousal violence and experiencing physical abuse : A “double whammy”? Journal of Family Violence, 4, 197-209.

28.

Jessor

S. L.

(1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of youth. New York, NY: Academic Press.

29.

Jessor

van den Bos

Vanderryn

Costa

F. M.

Turbin

M. S.

(1995). Protective factors in adolescent problem behavior: Moderator effects and developmental change. Developmental Psychology, 31, 923-933.

30.

Junger-Tas

Terlouw

Klein

(1994). Delinquent behavior among people in the western world. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Kugler Publications.

31.

Kandel

D. B.

Rosenbaum

Chen

(1994). Impact of maternal drug use and life experiences on preadolescent children born to teenage mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 325-340.

32.

Kyasová

(2003). Kouření cigaret a další formy rizikového chování adolescentů [Smoking cigarettes and other forms of risk behavior of adolescents]. Československá psychologie, 47, 56-64.

33.

Langmeier

Langmeierová

Krejčířová

(1998). Vývojová psychologie s úvodem do vývojové neurofyziologie [Developmental psychology including introduction to developmental neurophysiology]. Praha, Czech Republic: H&H.

34.

Loeber

Farrington

D. P.

(2000). Young children who commit crime: Epidemiology, developmental origins, risk factors, early interventions and policy implications. Developmental Psychology, 12, 737-762.

35.

Macek

(2003). Identita jako proces: vývojový přístup a styly sebedefinování [Identity as process: Developmental approach and self-definition styles]. In Čermák

Hřebíčková

Macek

(Eds.), Agrese, identita, osobnost (pp. 180-200). Brno, Czech Republic: PsÚ AV ČR, Tišnov: Sdružení SCAN.

36.

Macek

(2004). Adolescenti a jejich rodiče: důležitost vzájemné percepce pro sebehodnocení dospívajících [Adolescents and their parents: Importance of mutual perception for adolescents’ self-esteem]. Pedagogika, 4, 342-354.

37.

Mareš

(2004). Chudoba v České republice v datech (šetření sociální situace domácností). Dílčí studie projeku o možnostech monitorování chudoby v ČR [Poverty in the Czech republic in statistics (Survey of the Social Situation of Households). A partial study of the project on poverty monitoring in the Czech Republic]. Praha, Czech Republic: VÚPSV.

38.

McElhaney

K. B.

Allen

J. P.

Stephenson

J. C.

Hare

A. L.

(2009). Attachment and autonomy during adolescence. In Lerner

Steinberg

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 358-403). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

39.

Moffitt

T. E.

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

40.

Moffitt

T. E.

(2003). Life-course persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial behavior: A 10-year research review and a research agenda. In Lahey

Moffitt

T. E.

(Eds.), The causes of conduct disorder and serious juvenile delinquency (pp. 49-75). New York, NY: Guilford.

41.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

(2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 355-375.

42.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

Rutter

Silva

(2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

43.

Morizot

LeBlanc

(2005). Searching for a developmental typology of personality and its relations to antisocial behavior: A longitudinal study of a representative sample of men. Journal of Personality, 73, 139-182.

44.

Narusyte

Andershed

Neiderhiser

J. M.

Liechtenstein

(2007). Aggression as a mediator of genetic contributions to the association between negative parent-child relationships and adolescent antisocial behavior. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 16, 128-137.

45.

Patterson

G. R.

Reid

J. B.

Dishion

T. J.

(1992). Antisocial boys. A social interactional approach. Eugene: Oregon Social Learning Center.

46.

Robins

L. N.

Regier

D. A.

(1991). Psychiatric disorders in America. New York, NY: Free Press.

47.

Ruchkin

Koposov

Vermeiren

Schwab-Stone

(2003). Psychopathology and age at onset of conduct problems in juvenile delinquents. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 64, 913-920.

48.

Schoeppe

Haggard

E. A.

Havighurst

R. J.

(1953). Some factors affecting sixteen-year-olds’ success in five developmental tasks. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48(1), 42-52.

49.

Schwab-Stone

M. E.

Avers

T. S.

Kasprow

Voyce

Barone

Shriver

Weissberg

R. P.

(1995). No safe haven: A study of violence exposure in an urban community. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 1343-1352.

50.

Schwab-Stone

M. E.

Chen

Greenberger

Silver

Lichtman

Voyce

(1999). No Safe Haven II: The effects of violence exposure on urban youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 359-367.

51.

Silbereisen

R. K.

Eyferth

Rudinger

(1986). Development as action in context. Problem behavior and normal youth development. New York, NY/Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

52.

Silbereisen

R. K.

Noack

(1988). On the constructive role of problem behavior in adolescence. In Bolger

Caspi

Downey

Moorhouse

(Eds.), Person and context: Developmental processes (pp. 153-180). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

53.

Smart

Vassallo

Sanson

Dussuyer

(2004). Patterns of antisocial behavior from early adolescence to late adolescence: Trends & Issues in crime and criminal justice series (No. 290). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.

54.

Sobotková

Blatný

Hrdlička

(2007). Antisociální chování dospívajících a vztahy s vrstevníky: rád se s tebou podělím o ukradené cédéčko [Antisocial behavior of adolescents and relationships with peers: I like to share with you the stolen CD]. In Sborník prací filosofické fakulty brněnské univerzity, Řada psychologická, P11 (pp. 65-72). Brno, Czech Republic: Masarykova univerzita.

55.

Sobotková

Blatný

Hrdlička

Vobořil

Květon

Jelínek

Urbánek

(2006). Antisociální chování dospívajících a jeho souvislosti s kvalitou školního prostředí [Antisocial behavior of adolescents and its relationships to the quality of school environment]. In Blatný

Vobořil

Květon

Jelínek

Sobotková

(Eds.), Sociální procesy a osobnost 2005: sborník příspěvků (pp. 339-346). Brno, Czech Republic: PsÚ AV ČR.

56.

Sobotková

Blatný

Jelínek

Hrdlička

Urbánek

(2009). Typologie antisociálního chování v rané adolescenci a jeho vztah k dalším formám rizikového chování [Typology of antisocial behavior in early adolescence and its relation to further forms of risk behavior]. Československá psychologie, 53, 428-440.

57.

Štěchová

Večerka

Holas

(2000). Rodinné zázemí dětí s poruchami chování [Family background of children with conduct problems]. Kriminalistika, 33, 140-148.

58.

Strand

P. S.

(2002). Treating antisocial behavior: A context for substance abuse prevention. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 707-728.

59.

Thompson

K. L.

Gullone

(2008). Prosocial and antisocial behaviors in adolescents: An investigation into associations with attachment and empathy. Anthrozoos, 21, 123-137.

60.

Trentacosta

C. J.

Hyde

L. W.

Shaw

D. S.

Cheong

J. W.

(2009). Adolescent dispositions for antisocial behavior in context: The role of neighborhood dangerousness and parental knowledge. Journal of abnormal psychology, 118, 564-575.

61.

van Lier

P. A. C.

Vitaro

Wanner

Vuijk

Crijnen

A. M.

(2005). Gender differences in developmental links among antisocial behavior, Friend’s antisocial behavior, and peer rejection in childhood: Results from two cultures. Child Development, 76, 841-855.

62.

Vermeiren

Schwab-Stone

Leckman

P. E.

Deboutte

Ruchkin

(2003). Violence exposure and substance abuse: Findings from three countries. Pediatrics, 11, 535-540.

63.

Vieno

Nation

Pastore

Santinello

(2009). Parenting and antisocial behavior: A model of the relationship between adolescent self-disclosure, parental closeness, parental control, and adolescent antisocial behavior. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1509-1519.

64.

Wambolt

M. Z.

Wambolt

F. W.

(2000). Role of the family in the onset and outcome of childhood disorders: Selected research findings. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 1212-1219.

65.

Weissberg

R. P.

Voyce

C. K.

Kasprow

W. J.

Arthur

M. W.

Shriver

T. P.

(1991). The social and health assessment. Chicago, IL: Authors.

66.

Zucker

R. A.

Gomberg

E. S. L.

(1986). Etiology of alcoholism reconsidered: The case for a biopsychosocial process. American Psychologist, 41, 783-793.