-
http://yvj.sagepub.com/Justice
Youth Violence and Juvenile
http://yvj.sagepub.com/content/4/4/291The online version of this
article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1541204006292656 2006 4: 291Youth Violence and
Juvenile Justice
Christopher J. SullivanEnvironment, and Peer Pressure
Early Adolescent Delinquency : Assessing the Role of Childhood
Problems, Family
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
can be found at:Youth Violence and Juvenile JusticeAdditional
services and information for
http://yvj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://yvj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://yvj.sagepub.com/content/4/4/291.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Aug 25, 2006Version of Record >>
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
291
EARLY ADOLESCENT DELINQUENCYAssessing the Role of Childhood
Problems,Family Environment, and Peer Pressure
Christopher J. SullivanUniversity of South Florida
Research has demonstrated a relationship between various types
of emotional and behav-ioral problems and delinquency. Still, some
aspects of this relationship are not as clear,particularly as
pertains to emotional and behavioral problems and delinquent
behavioracross a broader range of time in the context of other key
risk and protective factors. Athree-pronged analytic approach
examined the effects and function of key covariates ondelinquent
behavior in early adolescence. Childhood emotional and behavioral
problemshad a consistent, albeit modest, effect on delinquent
behavior in early adolescence. Peerinfluence was found to be the
strongest predictor of delinquent behavior, but family envi-ronment
demonstrated a protective effect nonetheless. Implications for
future research,theoretical elaboration, and policy initiatives are
discussed.
Keywords: delinquency; early adolescence; childhood emotional
and behavioralproblems; risk factors; protective factors
A good deal of recent research has demonstrated links among
various types of emo-tional and behavioral problems, substance
abuse, and delinquent behavior (Dembo &Schmeidler, 2003;
Huizinga, Loeber, Thornberry, & Cothern, 2000; Loeber, 1990;
Loeber& Farrington, 1998; Loeber, Farrington,
Stouthamer-Loeber, & Van Kammen, 1998;Stouthamer-Loeber &
Loeber, 2002; Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan, & Mericle,
2002;Wasserman, Ko, & McReynolds, 2004), and more attention is
being given to addressing theneeds of at-risk and justice-involved
youth holistically across multiple domains as a result.Still, these
findings have not been fully integrated into other criminological
literature. Lifecourse theories of delinquent behavior and
intervention models, for instance, place consid-erable weight on
the role of social influences such as the family. This study
examines therole of childhood emotional and behavioral problems in
predicting delinquency in the con-text of family and peer
influences. A study that utilizes propositions from the
criminologi-cal literature along with emotional health measures,
that uses longitudinal data, and that hasa sample of youth outside
of institutional settings is important in providing further
evidenceto answer questions about these youth, their families, and
their communities.
Authors Note: The author gratefully acknowledges the helpful
suggestions on earlier drafts of this work madeby John Cochran,
Jean M. McGloin, the editors, and anonymous reviewers.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, Vol. 4 No. 4, October 2006
291-313DOI: 10.1177/1541204006292656 2006 Sage Publications
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
In 1998, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) sug-gested that more research directed toward
delinquent youth should focus on developmentalissues in risk and
protection. This proposition requires that efforts are made to
follow youthfrom childhood through their adolescent development.
According to Farrington (1994), rel-ative to other methods, the
best information on risk factors and the development of
delin-quency has been garnered from prospective, longitudinal
studies. This method best allowsthe investigator to follow a
pattern of events as it unfolds during a youths early life and
laterdevelopment. Blumstein, Cohen, and Farrington (1988) suggest
that knowing sequences ofevents seems to be extremely important for
understanding the factors leading to the devel-opment of offending
(p. 71; for a contrary view, see Gottfredson & Hirschi,
1987).
Huizinga and colleagues (2000) highlight the importance of
understanding the overlapof problem behaviors in general
populations of youth and more frequently studied sub-groups, such
as detained youth or those who utilize mental health or drug
treatment services.They state,
Understanding the extent of overlap of these problem behaviors
requires studies basedon representative samples drawn from complete
populations of youth, where the exam-ination of overlap is not
limited to particular subgroups defined by official
delinquency,school issues, or mental health status. (p. 1)
Farrington (1994) suggests that delinquency prevention should be
well grounded in empir-ically identified risk and protective
factors. These markers, when properly identified earlyin childhood,
can be considered as signs of potential delinquent behavior and can
be usedto deliver services to youth who are in need of intervention
to reduce the likelihood that theywill offend later. In its
examination of emotional and behavioral and other risk and
protec-tive factors for delinquency, this study provides
information useful for prevention strategies.
Varying constellations of risk and protection ultimately demand
better integratedexplanations of the development of delinquent
behavior and appropriate matching of youthto treatment. Because it
appears that youth who are persistently delinquent (and later
crim-inal) often start offending in late childhood and early
adolescence (Patterson, DeBaryshe,& Ramsey, 1989) and that the
earlier that a youth starts offending, the longer he or she
willcontinue to do so (LeBlanc & Loeber, 1998; Loeber &
LeBlanc, 1990; Patterson & Yoerger,1993), it is essential to
study delinquent behavior prior to middle and late adolescence
anddevelop an understanding of factors that may be addressed to
prevent early onset.
Literature Review
Key Theoretical Perspectives
Although this study is not an explicit test of any theory, the
risk and protective factorsand the measures used to capture them
described below are loosely indicative of tenets fromimportant
recent theoretical integration in the criminological literature:
Farringtons inte-grated cognitive antisocial potential (ICAP)
theory and Catalano and Hawkins social devel-opment model (SDM).
Unsurprisingly, both theories are grounded in empirically
identifiedrisk and protective factors (Catalano et al., 2005;
Farrington, 2005), which is consistent withthe priorities of the
current study.
Farrington (1992, 1996, 2005) proposes a theory that accounts
for an individualspotential for delinquent behavior and analogous
activities (e.g., promiscuous sex). This
292 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
theory integrates components of other explanations of offending,
including control and learn-ing perspectives (Farrington, 2005).
Some of his suggested contributors to antisocial poten-tial are
represented in the current study. Specifically, Farrington (1992)
includes measuressuch as anger, disobedience, self-esteem,
impulsivity, and selfishness in his explanation ofantisocial and
delinquent behavior. For instance, Farrington (2005) indicates that
impulsive-ness contributes to antisocial potential, and this is a
central component of the emotional andbehavioral problem measure
utilized here. ICAP indicates the importance of antisocialmodels,
poor child rearing, and a lack of attachment in the development of
long-termantisocial potential. Each of these constructs is measured
in some capacity in the currentwork. For example, this studys
measure of family environment addresses aspects of parent-child
attachment and positive child rearing. Farrington (2005) suggests
that positive attach-ment and socialization reduce long-term
antisocial potential. Also related to ICAP, antisocialmodels are
partially assessed through the peer influence variable.
Like Farringtons ICAP, the SDM is an integrated, general theory
that seeks to explaina wide range of problem behaviors, including
both delinquency and substance use (Catalanoet al., 2005; Catalano
& Hawkins, 1996). This theory recognizes the context that
framessocial development and the salience of different institutions
at particular stages in the lifecourse. The SDM integrates control,
social learning, and differential association theories
ofdelinquency and suggests that there are separate paths to
antisocial and prosocial behavior.In particular, antisocial
behavior may develop in three instances: when sufficient bonds
arenot developed to positive caretakers, when one with strong bonds
perceives that there is ahigh benefit and low risk accompanying
delinquent behavior, and when one bonds to anti-social family or
peers, thereby creating a model for deviance. Although the current
workcannot fully examine the mechanisms of SDM, partial
confirmation or disconfirmation ofthe first and third propositions
can be derived from these analyses.
SDM also allows for exogenous individual differences that temper
the processes con-tributing to antisocial behavior (Catalano et
al., 2005). Several of the individual constitutionalfactors in SDM,
including difficult temperament, negative mood, early-onset
depression,aggressive behavior, and hyperactivity, are manifest in
the early emotional and behavioralproblem measure utilized here.
The tenets of SDM suggest that these factors will be mediatedby
social processes, however. This can be roughly assessed in the
current analysis.
Childhood Emotional and Behavioral Problems and Adolescent
Delinquency
Theoretical perspectives and extant empirical evidence suggest
that early emotional andbehavioral problems will influence
delinquent behavior at later developmental stages.
Variousdevelopmental studies have found early emotional and
behavioral health difficulties to be pre-dictive of later
delinquency and/or drug use (Dishion, Capaldi, & Yoerger, 1999;
Ellickson,Saner, & McGuigan, 1997; Farrington, 1992; Huizinga
et al., 2000; Loeber, 1990; Loeberet al., 1998; McCord, Widom,
& Crowell, 2003; ODonnell, Hawkins, & Abbott, 1995;Robins,
1978; Stouthamer-Loeber & Loeber, 2002; Tremblay et al., 1992;
Wasserman et al.,2003). Predictors in this domain include conduct
disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity dis-order (ADHD), major
depressive disorder, and oppositional defiant disorder (McCord et
al.,2003). Moffitts (1993) and Farringtons (1992, 1996, 2005) work
suggests that early behav-ioral problems will persist from
childhood to later developmental stages and delinquency willensue.
According to Wasserman and colleagues (2003), antisocial behavior
and emotional dif-ficulties in childhood often are markers of later
delinquent behavior. Stouthamer-Loeber andLoeber (2002) found that,
frequently, eventual persistent offenders exhibited symptoms of
dis-ruptive behavior disorder well in advance of their contact with
juvenile court. Also, Loeber
Sullivan / EARLY ADOLESCENT DELINQUENCY 293
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
and colleagues (1998) found that early externalizing problems
(e.g., ADHD) were related tolater delinquency. In her seminal work,
Robins (1978) indicated that the presence of childhoodbehavioral
problems was a robust predictor of later antisocial behavior.
Dishion and col-leagues (1999) similarly found that early
behavioral problems were a strong predictor of theonset of
substance use.
Perhaps the clearest antecedent to the current work related to
this proposition was con-ducted by Loeber (1990). He suggested a
number of different childhood psychological andbehavioral domains
believed to affect later delinquency. Loeber indicates that
hyperactivityand impulsivity, communication problems, negative
cognitions, disobedience, negativemood, and verbal conduct problems
are associated with delinquency at later developmentalstages. Many
of these domains are tapped by the emotional and behavioral problem
measureutilized in this study. Here, it is expected that youth
displaying childhood emotional andbehavioral problems will be more
likely to engage in delinquency in early adolescence.
Family Influence and Delinquent BehaviorThe situational context
and attributes of a youths family also play a role in delin-
quent behavior (Cantelon, 1994; Dishion et al., 1999; Loeber,
1982; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; Patterson &
Yoerger, 1993; Shader, 2001; Yoshikawa, 1994). Loeber
(1982)suggests that antisocial behavior results from an
interruption in appropriate child rearing.Loeber and
Stouthamer-Loeber (1986) performed a meta-analysis of studies
focusing onthe role of families in juvenile delinquency. Their
review found that lack of parental super-vision, parent-child
involvement, and parental rejection are strong predictors of
juveniledelinquency. In a review of risk factors and prevention
strategies, Yoshikawa (1994) statedthat there are well-established
findings indicating that hostile parenting and lack of super-vision
have direct effects and that family structure variables (e.g.,
number of parents in thefamily) have indirect effects on later
delinquent behavior. These findings have been echoedin other
studies of at-risk youth as well (Ayers et al., 1999; Farrington,
1994).
Poor parental discipline and supervision may also be a factor in
the development ofantisocial behavior in adolescence (Cantelon,
1994; Dishion et al., 1999; Loeber, Wylie-Weiher, & Smith,
1993; Mayer, 2001). Inconsistent parenting and permissiveness
havebeen identified as risk factors for drug use during early
adolescence as well (Block, Block,& Keyes, 1988; Dishion et
al., 1999). In a study that integrated three longitudinal data
sets,Smith, Wylie-Weiher, and Van Kammen (1993) found that youth
who reported weakattachment to their parents were significantly
more likely to report drug use. Levels of druguse were also higher
when parents reported low attachment to their children.
In a sample of inner-city youth, Gorman-Smith, Tolan, Zelli, and
Huesmann (1996)found that youth who were violent offenders came
from families with less discipline andcohesion than did those who
did not offend at all or committed nonviolent offenses. In
alongitudinal study, Henry, Tolan, and Gorman-Smith (2001) found
that youth from strug-gling families, which were typified by a lack
of cohesion and weak parenting skills, hadhigher levels of
delinquency. Brook, Brook, Arencibia-Mireles, Richter, and
Whiteman(2001) found that lack of parental identification, lack of
affection from the mother, andharsh discipline from the father were
significant predictors of marijuana use in adolescence.
Conversely, positive family environments may foster resilience
to early difficulties andproblem behaviors in youth. The family is
one place where protective factors are cultivated(Born, Chevalier,
& Humblet, 1997; Carr & Vandiver, 2001; Henry et al., 2001;
Howard &Johnson, 2000; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; McCord et
al., 2003; Oxford, Harachi,
294 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Catalano, & Abbott, 2000; Richman & Fraser, 2001; Smith,
Lizotte, Thornberry, & Krohn,1995; Stoiber & Good, 1998).
For instance, Oxford and colleagues (2000) conducted a
lon-gitudinal study of 905 youth and found that, even after
controlling for the effects of peer asso-ciation, youth from
prosocial families (rules, monitoring, and attachment) had a
lowerlikelihood of early onset of substance use. Born et al. (1997)
and Bender and Losel (1997)found that youth with higher levels of
social support (e.g., someone to help with homeworkor talk to) were
more apt to be resilient despite the presence of risk factors.
Smith and col-leagues (1995) found greater resilience among youth
with quality parental supervision, rela-tive to their peers who
were not well supervised. Family influence is measured positively
inthe current study, and, by extension, a negative relationship
with delinquency is expected.
Peer Influence and Delinquent BehaviorCertain classes of risk
factors are likely to take on different levels of salience at
certain
stages of a youths development (Ayers et al., 1999). Following
childhood, peer groupsbecome very important in contributing to the
behavior of youth. As youth age, they will nat-urally spend more
time outside the home with people other than their immediate
family. Oneconsistent finding in studies of delinquency is the
relationship between peer influence anddelinquent behavior
(Matsueda & Anderson, 1998; Matsueda & Heimer, 1987;
Shader, 2001;Warr & Stafford, 1991). In a study utilizing data
from the National Youth Survey (NYS),bonding to delinquent peers
was found to be a proximate cause of drug use (Elliott,
Huizinga,& Ageton, 1982). Indeed, Warr (2002) has called peer
influence the principal proximatecause of delinquency (p. 136).
Matsueda and Heimer (1987) found support for a differential
association explanationfor delinquent peers in their analysis of
data from the Richmond Youth Study. Later, how-ever, using data
from the NYS, Matsueda and Anderson (1998) found delinquency to be
afactor of both selection and influence of peers (i.e., the
variables had a nonrecursive rela-tionship), which is supportive of
the interactional theory (Thornberry, 1987). Also usingNYS data,
Warr and Stafford (1991) found that peer attitudes toward deviance
affect ayouths own attitudes and, in turn, behavior. Furthermore,
they found a strong, direct effectfor peer behavior on individual
delinquency. They concluded that although peer attitudesmatter,
their behavior is more important in predicting delinquency.
Dishion and colleagues (1999) found that association with
deviant peers was highlypredictive of the onset of substance use
(alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana). Williams andAyers (1999) also
indicate that peer associations were important predictors of
substance use.Henry and colleagues (2001) found that interaction
with violent peers increased the likeli-hood of a youth behaving in
a violent manner. The authors also found that peer
associationspartially mediated the effects of family risk factors
on delinquent behavior. Attachment tonegative or delinquent peer
groups led to an increased likelihood of later delinquent behav-ior
(ODonnell et al., 1995).
Understanding an individuals interaction with his or her peers
can provide a betterunderstanding of his or her drug use as well
(Kandel & Davies, 1991). For instance, peer influ-ence may
mediate earlier personality characteristics in causing drug use in
adolescence (Blocket al., 1988; Dishion et al., 1999). Oxford and
colleagues (2000) found that deviant peer asso-ciations had a
strong, positive relationship with delinquency. This research
suggests that indi-viduals select peer groups based on shared
predispositions to certain behavior and attitudes, butthese peers
have an important influence on later behavior as well. In this
work, it is expectedthat peer pressure will demonstrate a positive
relationship with delinquency and drug use.
Sullivan / EARLY ADOLESCENT DELINQUENCY 295
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Current Study
The extant research and theoretical propositions reviewed
earlier demonstrate a rela-tionship between emotional and
behavioral problems and delinquency. This relationshiphas been
supported using a number of different research methods in diverse
settings. Still,some aspects of this relationship are not as clear,
particularly the relationship betweenemotional and behavioral
problems and delinquent behavior across a broader range of timein
the context of other risk and protective factors important in
predicting delinquency.
This study uses a longitudinal framework to assess the role of
childhood emotional andbehavioral problems relative to the effects
of family environment and peer influences. To thatend, this study
assesses whether these childhood difficulties predict delinquency
in early ado-lescence and whether family and peers have important
roles at that stage. In doing so, it looksfurther both at the
relative effects of these risk or protective factors and the manner
in whichthey function in delinquent outcomes. Typically, studies
have not examined these influencestogether, and when they do, they
tend to use cross-sectional approaches that exclude
childhoodinfluences (Loeber & LeBlanc, 1990). Expanded
examination of that developmental period isessential for
theoretical elaboration, particularly in life course criminology.
The main objec-tive of this article is to explore emotional and
behavioral problems and delinquency in a broadpopulation in the
context of other potentially important risk and protective factors
acrosschildhood and early adolescence. This study brings together
the suggestions on furtherresearch made by the OJJDP (1998) and
Huizinga et al. (2000) to examine the pattern of rela-tionships in
these risk and protective factors and what they might mean for
intervention.
This work derives hypotheses from extant empirical findings on
risk and protective fac-tors along with the two key theoretical
perspectives discussed earlier (ICAP and SDM). Thesehypotheses
involve (a) a set of direct effects on early adolescent behavior
and (b) a set of indi-rect effects where early emotional and
behavioral problems are mediated by the family envi-ronment and
peer relationships. In terms of direct effects, first, consistent
with ICAP andpartially consistent with SDM, childhood emotional and
behavioral problems were expectedto have a positive effect on
delinquent behavior in early adolescence. Second, again
consistentwith these theories and extant findings, it was expected
that positive home environment wouldhave a negative relationship
with delinquent behavior. Third, negative peer influences
wereexpected to demonstrate a positive relationship with delinquent
behavior. With respect to indi-rect relationships, the SDM in
particular posits fully mediated paths for early emotional
andbehavioral problems, which are analogous to their individual
constitutional factors, to delin-quency. Essentially, these factors
should be mediated by interactions with and/or encourage-ment from
antisocial or prosocial others, either in familial or peer
relationships. Here, it wasexpected that a positive home
environment would mitigate early emotional and behavioralproblems
and negative peer relationships would be a mediator in the opposite
direction. Inessence, this sets up a rough relative assessment of
the two theoretical perspectives. The ICAPsuggests a direct effect
for emotional and behavioral problems on subsequent delinquency,and
the SDM indicates that these factors would be mediated by social
processes.
Method
Data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1979 (NLSY
79) Child &Young Adult were utilized to assess the hypotheses
presented above. Data were collectedprospectively using two sources
of information (mother and youth interviews) during
296 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
several waves. Four separate instruments were included in the
NLSY 79: Two were targetedto child interviewees, one to mothers,
and another to young adults. Distinct child and youngadult
interviews allowed for the inclusion of age-appropriate questions
addressing issuessuch as delinquency and employment (Center for
Human Resource Research, 2002).
Sample
The sample for this study is made up of children of the women
included in the origi-nal NLSY 79 study, which was a study of a
nationally representative panel sample of 12,686men and women ages
14 to 21 first interviewed in 1979 (Center for Human
ResourceResearch, 2002). At the start of the NLSY 79 child study
(1986), members of the originalcohort were between the ages of 21
and 28 (n = 5,418), which provided a pool of womenwith children. As
these women aged into their childbearing years, the pool of
available childinterview respondents increased. The sample for this
study comprised youth between theages of 4 and 6 at the first two
measurement periods (1986 and 1988). This group was thenfollowed to
the 1992 and 1994 measurement windows. Based on these selection
criteria, atotal of 1,389 youth had complete data on the variables
used in the current work.
Data Collection
This study utilizes data from two separate instruments: (a)
child self-administeredsupplement and (b) supplemental mother
interview (Center for Human ResourceResearch, 2002). Each
instrument taps a number of domains relevant to the social
andemotional development of these children and sociodemographics
and measures of problembehavior. Importantly, these instruments
were designed to be developmentally appropriatefor the time period
in which the youth or his or her mother was completing them.
Beginning in 1988, a self-report instrument was administered to
youth between theages of 10 and 14. This was a confidential
questionnaire that included age-appropriate itemsfor youth at this
stage of development. It asked questions regarding substance use,
delin-quency, and peer associations that were too sensitive to
pursue in the other child interview-ing formats (Center for Human
Resource Research, 1998a). At each wave prior to the childreaching
age 15, the mother of the respondent completed an instrument
designed to supple-ment the information collected from her child or
as a proxy interview for very young children(Center for Human
Resource Research, 1998b). Mothers were asked to provide
informationabout the childs health and education and to respond to
a variety of standardized assessmentinstruments, for example, the
Behavioral Problem Index (BPI) and measures of motor skillsand
social development.
Measures
The key dependent and independent study measures for delinquent
behavior andemotional and behavioral problems were self-reported
property, personal, drug, and statusoffenses and the maternally
assessed BPI, respectively. Family influences were measuredin the
mother supplement, whereas peer influences were tapped in the late
childhood self-reports. The NLSY 79 Child & Young Adult adapted
many items and validated scalesdrawn from previous longitudinal
studies of youth and families such as the National YouthStudy and
the National Household Survey of Drug Abuse (Center for Human
ResourceResearch, 2002). Full item descriptions of the measures are
displayed in the appendix.
Sullivan / EARLY ADOLESCENT DELINQUENCY 297
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
The primary outcome measure for this study was self-reported
delinquent behaviorin early adolescence. This outcome was tapped
with a battery of items in the child self-report surveys. For
example, youth were asked whether they engaged in particular
prop-erty (e.g., stole from a store), personal (hurt someone bad
enough to require a doctor),or status offenses (skipped a day of
school) in the prior year. The child self-report instru-ment also
contained questions regarding substance use (e.g., marijuana,
alcohol). The vari-able used here is an additive delinquency score
based on yes or no responses to severaloffenses ( = .67).
The key independent variable in these analyses centered on a
youths emotional andbehavioral problems as measured between the
ages of 4 and 6 in the mother supplement.These measures do not
represent diagnostic categories but rather address a broad range
ofpotential symptoms of emotional and/or behavioral difficulties.
The BPI was originallydeveloped by Peterson and Zill (1986) and
comprises a wide array of items related to ayouths mood, behavior,
and attitudes (Center for Human Resource Research, 2002).
Theoverall index covers six empirically developed subscales: (a)
antisocial (e.g., He/She bul-lies or is cruel or mean to others),
(b) anxiety/depression (He/She has sudden changes inmood or
feeling), (c) dependent (He/She clings to adults), (d) headstrong
(He/Sheargues too much), (e) hyperactivity (He/She is easily
confused, seems to be in a fog),and (f) conflicts (He/She is not
liked by other children). The variable used here consistsof the
summary, standardized BPI measure ( = .80). Certainly, although
parental assess-ments may reflect certain biases and expectations
unrelated to actual behavior, evidence hassuggested that parental
reports of emotional and behavioral problems in childhood may
bequite valid. Glascoe and Dworkin (1995), for instance, reviewed a
number of studies thatrelied on parental reports of developmental
problems and found that, overall, clinical accu-racy was enhanced
when this information was utilized by health care
professionals.
Important family-related items were drawn from the mother
supplementary inter-view as well. Mothers were asked to respond to
a number of items from the HomeObservation for Measurement of the
Environment, Short-Form (HOME-SF), which con-tained questions on
parental discipline, supervision, relationship to the child, and
activitypatterns with children (Bradley & Caldwell, 1979,
1984). The HOME-SF is a measure ofthe nature and quality of a
youths home environment (Center for Human ResourceResearch, 2002).
Several subscales are represented in the overall HOME-SF score,
includ-ing (a) stimulation through toys, games, materials; (b)
pride, affection, and warmth; (c)stimulation of academic behavior;
(d) modeling and encouragement of social maturity; and(e) physical
punishment. The various items were recoded to dichotomies (by NLSY
79staff) before calculation of the summary score, which is used
here. The HOME-SF hasdemonstrated validity and reliability in
previous studies (Bradley & Caldwell, 1979).
A set of five questions in the child self-report examined
whether youth were pres-sured by their peers to behave in a
delinquent manner. Examples of late childhood peerinfluence
measures include feel pressure from your friends to skip school and
feel pres-sure from your friends to try marijuana or other drugs.
An additive peer pressure scorewas derived from yes or no responses
to these questions ( = .80).
Three sociodemographic controls were included in these analyses
to adjust for fac-tors often associated with variability in
delinquency. Dummy variables for Hispanic andBlack youth account
for race influences in contrast to the White category. A gender
vari-able is also included as a control in multivariate analysis.
Lastly, because these youth mayhave been interviewed at slightly
different time periods, a control for age at the early ado-lescence
measurement window is included (range = 9-12 years).
298 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Analytic Strategy
The main analytic method employed here was censored regression
with maximum like-lihood estimation using LISREL 8.71 (Jreskog
& Srbom, 1996). This regression approachwas used because the
distribution of the early adolescent delinquency score was heavily
influ-enced by zero values (55%), representing no delinquent
behavior during the time window (fora discussion of the use of
censored regression with crime measures, see Osgood, Finken,
&McMorris, 2002). As a result, use of ordinary least squares
regression was inappropriate andcould result in biased parameter
estimates (Breen, 1996; Jreskog, 2004).
Two complementary strategies were utilized to further
investigate the relationshipsamong childhood emotional and
behavioral problems, family environment, and peer pres-sure in
their effects on early adolescent delinquency. The first was formal
inference-basedrecursive modeling (FIRM), which looks for
predictive splits in independent variables rel-ative to a given
outcome (Hawkins, 2001). A dichotomous early adolescent
delinquencyvariable was used as an outcome, and childhood emotional
and behavioral problems, fam-ily environment, and peer pressure
were used as predictors to examine their single andinteractive
effects on delinquent behavior. This approach is sometimes referred
to as tree-modeling and has been utilized in forms slightly
different from FIRM in the past (e.g.,Breiman, Friedman, Olshen,
& Stone, 1984).
A second complementary approach examined the key relationships
outlined here ina two-step path analysis. Here, the early
adolescent covariates (family and peer influence)were specified as
mediators (Baron & Kenny, 1986) to provide a cursory assessment
oftheir potential relationships with both childhood problems and
early adolescent delin-quency and, by extension, sought to assess
some tenets of recent theoretical integration.This provided a
better sense of how the covariates in the regression models
functionedtogether in their relationship with delinquent behavior.
Again, maximum likelihood esti-mation with LISREL 8.71 was used for
the path analysis.
Results
Table 1 presents the descriptives statistics and bivariate
correlations for measuresincluded in the multivariate analyses.
Overall, males make up about half of the sample(48%), and Black and
Hispanic youth compose 56% together. The mean age of youth atthe
second measurement period is 11 (SD = 0.92). In the bivariate and
multivariate analy-ses, the BPI and HOME-SF are normalized. The
corresponding mean raw scores (notshown) are 10.07 (SD = 5.7) and
19.34 (SD = 4.2), respectively. For the BPI, this suggeststhat, on
average, mothers responded affirmatively to 10 of the 28 emotional
and/or behav-ioral problem items. The HOME-SF raw score ranged from
0 to 27, so the mean of 19 sug-gests that youth in this sample
lived in fairly positive home environments.
The mean scores for the peer pressure and delinquency measures
demonstrate theoverall low prevalence of these problems in this
general population. Both demonstrate that,on average, youth
reported experiencing less than one type of peer pressure (M =
0.32, SD =0.91) and engaging in less than one delinquent behavior
(M = 0.87, SD = 1.33). Again, amodeling approach was selected with
this reality in mind. Row 8 in the correlation matrixdemonstrates
that, with the exception of the Hispanic dummy variable, each of
the itemsselected for multivariate analysis demonstrates a
significant correlation with delinquentbehavior in this sample.
Sullivan / EARLY ADOLESCENT DELINQUENCY 299
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Table 2 shows three censored regressions of early adolescent
delinquency on impor-tant sociodemographic controls and childhood
emotional and behavioral problems.1 InStep 2, early adolescent home
environment was added to the model, and in Step 3, peerinfluence
was included.
Looking first at the control variables, gender and age are
statistically significant andconsistent across the three
specifications. Coefficients for the gender variable suggest
thatbeing male is associated with an increased score on early
adolescent delinquency.2 Not sur-prisingly, as one moves across
years from age 9 to 12, there is an attendant increase in
300 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
TABLE 1Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations for Key
Study Variables
Emotional andBehavioral HOME-SF Peer
Male (1) Black (2) Hispanic (3) Age (4) Problems (5) Score (6)
Pressure (7) Delinquency (8)
(1) 1.00(2) .03 1.00(3) .01 .38* 1.00(4) .01 .02 .04 1.00(5)
.07* .01 .01 .00 1.00(6) .06* .27* .05* .06* .17* 1.00(7) .05 .05
.02 .10* .06* .09* 1.00(8) .12* .05* .01 .15* .11* .18* .38* 1.00M
0.48 0.36 0.20 11.03 106.96 198.73 0.32 0.87SD 0.50 0.48 0.40 0.92
14.04 36.72 0.91 1.33
NOTE: N = 1,389. HOME-SF = Home Observation for Measurement of
the Environment, Short-Form.*p < .05.
TABLE 2Censored Regression of Early Adolescent Delinquency on
Key Covariates
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Covariates Coefficient SE Coefficient SE Coefficient SE
RaceBlack 0.478 0.165* 0.225 0.171 0.144 0.159Hispanic 0.218
0.197 0.058 0.198 0.012 0.184White (reference)
GenderMale 0.689 0.147* 0.644 0.146* 0.557 0.135*
Age at early adolescent 0.444 0.082* 0.417 0.081* 0.323
0.076*measurement
Childhoodemotional and 0.017 0.005* 0.013 0.005* 0.010
0.005*behavioral problems
Early adolescenthome 0.010 0.002* 0.008 0.002*environment
Early adolescentpeer pressure 0.757 0.069*Intercept 7.537 1.079*
4.697 1.218* 3.701 1.131*Pseudo R2 .064 .086 .218
NOTE: N = 1,389.*p < .05.
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
delinquent behavior as well. For race, Black was a significant
predictor of early adolescentdelinquency in the initial model only.
There, being part of that racial subgroup was asso-ciated with a
0.478 unit increase in the delinquency score relative to White
youth. Neitherdummy variable for race was statistically significant
in the final two models.
Childhood emotional and behavioral problems, as measured by the
BPI, were a con-sistent, significant predictor of early adolescent
delinquency, net of statistical controls forkey sociodemographics,
family environment, and peer influence. In the full model,
forinstance, an increase of one reported problem on the BPI
predicts a 0.010 unit change inthe early adolescent delinquency
score.
An increase in the positive home environment measure was
associated with adecrease in the delinquency score (0.010, p <
.05). Importantly, this effect remains at Stage3, suggesting that
the family has a protective effect on delinquency, net of other key
covari-ates, most notably peer influence. That said, relative to
other covariates, peer pressure inearly adolescence exerts a
substantial impact on delinquent behavior. This is evident in
thepredicted 0.757 increase in the delinquency score for each
additional positive response onthe peer pressure composite. It is
also evident from the results of the FIRM analysis (notshown)where
the only significant split in the dichotomous early adolescent
delinquencyoutcome was determined by the presence or absence of
peer pressure. This indicates thatonce a split was made between
those who experienced peer pressures and those who didnot, little
could be added to determine delinquent behavior in the FIRM
approach.
Figure 1 presents a path model of delinquent behavior in early
adolescence as a func-tion of emotional and behavioral problems,
family environment, and peer pressure fordelinquent behavior. The
model was specified to account for (a) paths from each of thethree
covariates to delinquent behavior and (b) effects for childhood
emotional and behav-ioral problems on family environment and peer
pressures in early adolescence, whichallows for indirect
relationships between the BPI and delinquency.
The Model 2 is significant, which suggests less than good fit.
As a fit index, however,the 2 has been found to be overly sensitive
to sample size in some cases (Hu & Bentler,1999). As a result,
other measures of fit across three subcategories are presented to
holisti-cally assess the fit of this model (Hu & Bentler,
1999). The root mean square error of approx-imation (0.07) and
standardized root mean square residual (0.03) suggest good fit
whenexamined in concert. Similarly, values of the adjusted goodness
of fit index (0.97), normedfit index (0.97), and comparative fit
index (0.98) denote adequate fit. Together, these fiveindices
assess absolute, parsimonious, and incremental model fit (Hu &
Bentler, 1999).
The standardized path coefficients displayed in Figure 1 are all
statistically significantand are a reasonable facsimile of the
results for censored regression presented in Table 2.The
standardized coefficients allow for a clearer assessment of
relative strength of the pre-dictors, however. For instance, the
peer influence path ( = .37) clearly has the strongestrelationship
with delinquency. Also of import is the effect of the emotional and
behavioralproblem variable, which maintains a significant, modest
effect ( = .06) even after account-ing for potential paths through
family and peer covariates. The fact that the child emotionaland
behavioral problem measure has significant relationships with
family ( = .18) andpeer influences ( = .06) in early adolescence
suggests partially mediated relationships.
Figure 2 illustrates the component relationships active in the
previous path model.First, Figure 2a shows the standardized effect
of childhood emotional and behavioral prob-lems on early adolescent
delinquency ( = .10). Figure 2b adds a mediator path to
familyinfluence from emotional and behavioral problems. The direct
effect of emotional andbehavioral problem on delinquency remains
significant but is slightly reduced ( = .07) in
Sullivan / EARLY ADOLESCENT DELINQUENCY 301
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
accounting for the path through the family environment variable.
Similarly, Figure 2c showsthe mediation effect of peer pressure.
Again, emotional and behavioral problems is a statis-tically
significant predictor ( = .08) of delinquency in early adolescence
and is only par-tially mediated by peer pressure, which is
indicated by a small indirect effect (.02). Overall,emotional and
behavioral problems at ages 4 to 6 predict delinquent behavior
several yearslater, even after accounting for the mediating effects
of other important covariates.
Discussion
Each of the key variables outlined earlier had a significant
effect on delinquentbehavior in early adolescence. By extension,
the findings precipitate some discussionregarding current knowledge
and potential delinquency prevention programs. Each findingis
presented in turn before the results of the path analysis are
incorporated into the discus-sion relative to those points.
Following that, specific theoretical implications relevant
toFarringtons (2005) ICAP and Catalano and Hawkins (1996) SDM are
briefly presented.
First, childhood emotional and behavioral problems had a
significant effect on delin-quency in early adolescence, even after
controlling for more proximate influences. Thissuggests that, in
general, childhood problems cannot be ignored if a youth is
expected todevelop in a prosocial way.3 The fact that the BPI is
administered several years prior to theoutcome and still holds sway
suggests the importance of early parental recognition of
theseproblems and active pursuit of remedies. At the same time, the
rather modest effect indi-cates that the overall childhood BPI
measure is not as strong as might be expected if bothgeneral
emotional and behavioral problems and delinquency reflect a
persistent, underly-ing orientation to imprudent behavior that
manifests itself in different ways at differentdevelopmental stages
(e.g., Farrington, 1992; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).
302 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
.14*
.37*.06*
.06*
.18*
Emotional and Behavioral Problems
ChildhoodPeer Influence
Early Adolescence
Delinquency Early Adolescence
Family Environment Early Adolescence
Figure 1. Path Model With Standardized Coefficients for
Delinquency and KeyCovariates
NOTE: 2 = 8.31, 1 df, p < .01, root mean square error of
approximation = 0.07.
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Second, the protective effect of the family in early adolescence
indicates that thehome environment remains salient in attenuating
delinquent behavior at this stage. Thisresult supports the belief
of treatment researchers regarding the importance of the familyin
treatment efforts aimed at multiproblem youth. Assessing youth for
early emotional andbehavioral problems, coupled with
family-centered approaches to delinquency prevention,is supported
by these findings. The findings presented here suggest that both
individualsand their social environments conspire to foster deviant
behavior in youth. It is essentialthat the families of high-risk
youth understand the problems that their children face and the
Sullivan / EARLY ADOLESCENT DELINQUENCY 303
Emotional and Behavioral Problems
Childhood
DelinquencyEarly Adolescence
Peer Influence Early Adolescence
.06*
.08*
.38*
C
Emotional and Behavioral Problems
Childhood
DelinquencyEarly Adolescence
Family Environment Early Adolescence
.18*
.07*
.17*
B
Emotional and Behavioral Problems
ChildhoodDelinquencyEarly
Adolescence.10*
A
Figure 2. A: Emotional and Behavioral Problems and Delinquency;
B: Emotionaland Behavioral Problems, Family Environment, and
Delinquency; C:Emotional and Behavioral Problems, Peer Influence,
and Delinquency
*p < .05.
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
potential results. High-risk families should not simply be
singled out (and potentially stig-matized) but rather must be
educated to recognize and respond to the emergence of prob-lem
behavior in their children. These families should be informed that
many youth exhibitthese behaviors at early developmental stages and
that there are viable solutions shouldthey choose to engage
them.
Youth with these problems often come from families with a number
of deficits (e.g.,financial, disciplinary) that must be addressed.
It is difficult, if not impossible, for socialservice agencies to
intervene in the lives of at-risk and delinquent youth without
coopera-tion and involvement from families. This can be witnessed
in the shift to comprehensivemulti-systemic therapy (Henggeler,
1997) and functional family therapy (Sexton &Alexander, 2000),
approaches that are now recognized as best practice models for
treatingmultiproblem youth. Problem behavior cannot be fully
addressed without dealing with therelationship between the
individual and their immediate social environment. A family-based
approach is essential to any success that researchers and
practitioners hope to havein addressing the difficulties of
multiproblem youth.
Third, although the previous two points are important, peer
influence is the most pow-erful correlate of delinquent behavior in
the model specified here. This is reflective ofWarrs (2002) summary
of peers as a central influence on offending and suggests
thatalthough early identification and family-centered treatment are
essential, ensuring thatyouth do not choose deviant friends or are
not unduly influenced by their peers becomes achallenge in early
adolescence. The positive influence of the family must extend
outside thehome to ensure that parents are aware of the potential
role of their childs friends in delin-quent behavior. Also,
family-centered modalities for delinquency prevention must
includeapproaches for instilling sustainable mechanisms directed at
coping with and diffusing peerpressure. Fostering this type of
resilience is the basic premise behind drug educationprograms such
as D.A.R.E., which have produced less-than-hoped-for results
(Dukes,Ullman, & Stein, 1996; Rosenbaum & Hanson, 1998; for
contrasting findings in an analo-gous program, see Esbensen,
Osgood, Taylor, Peterson, and Freng, 2001) but may workbetter as
part of a package of intervention directed more specifically toward
at-risk youth.
Results of the path analysis suggest that variables in this
model do a reasonable jobof predicting delinquency in early
adolescence. In addition to supporting the overall con-clusions of
the regression analysis, they suggest some functional features of
the relation-ships between these variables and delinquency. For
instance, childhood emotional andbehavioral problems have a
relationship with later family and peer influences on delin-quency.
This lends some support to theories that emphasize interactions
between a youthsearly behavior and familial influence on
delinquency (e.g., Thornberry, 1987) and the con-struction of peer
pressure effects that suggests that they are mutually reinforced by
youthwith similar profiles as opposed to dissemination from
delinquent youth to nondelinquentyouth (e.g., Glueck & Glueck,
1950). These findings also support some research suggest-ing that
parental efficacy maintains a significant effect on delinquency,
despite individualand peer influences (Perrone, Sullivan, Pratt,
& Margaryan, 2004). At the same time, thisruns contrary to the
notion advanced by some that parental behavior toward children
playslittle role in the development of later difficulties (e.g.,
Harris, 1998). Again, this suggestsa need to consider solutions
across multiple domains rather than focusing simply on
theindividual, family, peer group, or community.
Assessing difficulties in childhood is important, but once a
youth reaches adoles-cence, his or her peers must be accounted for
as well. The observed strength of the peerinfluence variable
suggests that youth who are coming into the juvenile justice system
and
304 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
treatment settings in early adolescence should be asked as much
about their friends behav-ior as their own behavior and family
strengths or difficulties. In the strictest empirical sense,maybe
more time should be devoted to peer relationships as opposed to
individual or fam-ily risks and strengths. Unfortunately, at that
point a good deal of problematic behavior mayhave already occurred,
and, as a result, it sensible to try to set youth on a prosocial
courseas soon as possible (Loeber & Farrington, 1998).
Knowledge of peer influences is clearlyimportant in adolescence but
cannot help in prospective prevention. It is essential to
under-stand childhood emotional and behavioral problems and the
family environment in devel-oping strategies for addressing the
needs of at-risk youth. At a certain point, influencesoutside of
the home must be checked and accounted for as well.
The main focus of this work was on empirically identified risk
and protective factorsfor early-onset delinquency. Important
theoretical propositions have emerged from similarstudies in recent
years. The integration of existing theoretical perspectives and
empiricallyidentified risk factors has contributed to the general
frameworks laid out by Farrington(1992, 1996, 2005) and Catalano
and Hawkins (1996; see also Catalano et al., 2005). Someof the
propositions of the ICAP theory and SDM were examined in a glancing
mannerhere. With respect to Farringtons (2005) theory, this work
suggests that positive child rear-ing, attachment, and appropriate
socialization are important to development of antisocialpotential,
at least as it ultimately appears in the form of delinquent
behavior. Impulsivitywas a part of the BPI, which, consistent with
one tenet of the ICAP theory, had a positiverelationship with
delinquency. Second, the negative relationship between home
environ-ment and delinquency indicates that the family holds an
important influence on the devel-opment of antisocial potential,
even when accounting for other key influences. Third,although it is
difficult to determine whether deviant peers acted as a situational
or social-izing influence (which is a distinction made in
Farringtons model), the importance ofdeviant peers was reaffirmed
here.
SDM propositions were manifest in the emotional and behavioral
problem, familyenvironment, and peer influence measures utilized
here as well. With one exception,propositions of the SDM were
generally supported. Positive family environments con-tributed to a
lower likelihood of delinquent behavior, and peer influences
suggested a pos-itive relationship between deviant peers and
delinquency. Again, although the mechanismscould not be fully
specified and tested, the basic tenets and influences suggested by
theSDM were supported. Still, the SDM suggests that exogenous
individual influences andstructural characteristics (e.g., race,
gender) are fully mediated by social developmentprocesses. These
analyses identified only partial mediation of the BPI measure,
which con-tradicts one of the propositions of SDM (see also
Catalano et al., 2005). This suggestssome necessary elaboration of
SDM with respect to the proposed indirect relationshipsbetween
individual constitutional factors and delinquency and lends some
credence to thedirect path specified in Farringtons (1992, 1996,
2005) work.
Limitations
Despite some advantages in the data and analytic approach used
here, this study hassome attendant limitations that must be
acknowledged and addressed in future work. First,future research
should break down the general measure of emotional and behavioral
prob-lems to examine different subtypes of difficulties (e.g.,
internalizing vs. externalizingproblems). This will aid in better
understanding the effects of these problems on delin-quency and
their interaction with other risk and protective factors.
Delinquent outcomes
Sullivan / EARLY ADOLESCENT DELINQUENCY 305
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
require some disaggregation as well. Second, although gender and
race were included ascontrols for assessing general effects of
emotional and behavioral problems, families, andpeers, future
research must continue to look closely at the effects of a youths
risk and pro-tective factor profile in the contexts of race (e.g.,
Williams & Ayers, 1999) and gender(e.g., Moffitt, Caspi,
Rutter, & Silva, 2001). These differences have clear
implications forcompetent intervention with different subgroups of
at-risk youth.
Third, although Huizinga and colleagues (2000) make an important
point regardingthe need for study of general population youth, this
comes with the difficulty of interpret-ing substantive significance
against statistical significance. This study utilized a fairlylarge
sample, and as a result some small relationships may have reached
statistical signif-icance despite the need for caution in
interpreting their substantive significance. On bal-ance, however,
to the extent that this work is confirmatory of some existing
theoreticalperspectives and empirical findings, it would appear
that these factors are of some sub-stantive import. Nevertheless,
further replication across samples is essential in findingresults
that can be distilled into actionable policy and program ideas.
Fourth, further work must be done to ensure the proper
specification of modelsinvolving childhood emotional and behavioral
problems and later delinquency. This studyinvestigated a rather
simple model, and future analyses should certainly incorporate
otherpotential influences, both within and across developmental
stages, on delinquent behavior.For instance, although childhood
emotional and behavioral problems are treated as anexogenous
variable in this analysis, there are clearly some family and
biological influencespreceding difficulties at age 4 to 6 that
should be incorporated in further iterations of thisline of
research. Also, this study specified family and peer relationships
as potential medi-ators of early emotional and behavioral problems
and found that they did not, in fact, fullyaccount for the
relationship between emotional and behavioral problems and
delinquency.Further research should specify these influences as
potential moderators in an attempt todiscern how the primary
variable (emotional and behavioral problems) acts at different
lev-els of the intermediary variable (family, peer influences) in
predicting delinquent behavior(Baron & Kenny, 1986). For
instance, relative to peers, some theoretical perspectives
andattendant empirical investigations pose clear mechanisms by
which these influences affectdelinquent behavior (e.g., Matsueda
& Anderson, 1998; Warr & Stafford, 1991). The mea-sures
used here did not fully allow for that level of explication. More
work must identifyand test these mechanisms in both theoretical and
applied contexts.
Conclusions
This study presents some interesting findings in spite of these
limitations. The long-range predictive value of assessing emotional
and behavioral problems in children is affirmed,although the
magnitude of the effect is fairly small. Still, positive family
environments maymitigate the likelihood of later delinquency and
present a desirable avenue for intervention asa result. At the same
time, it is essential to recognize that peer influences on
delinquent behav-ior are quite striking and should be kept in mind
in comprehensively addressing the issues ofat-risk youth. Indeed,
once a youth is at the stage where his or her behavior can get him
or herin legal trouble, peer influences are quite important.
Overall, this work demonstrates theimportance of considering a
number of domains of risk and protection in potentially
predict-ing, explaining, and preventing delinquent behavior in
early adolescence and, by extension,reducing the likelihood of
sustained patterns of offending over the life course. This notion
isclearly at work in the research on longitudinal risk factors for
delinquency and the theories
306 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
emerging from those findings (e.g., Catalano & Hawkins,
1996; Farrington, 1992). More workmust be done in assessing those
emerging, integrated theoretical perspectives.
Certainly, as has been pointed out in Moffitt (1997) and Laub
and Sampson (2003),there is some noise at work in trying to study
multiproblem youth in the general popula-tion and posit risk and
protective factors related to delinquency. Indeed, this may be
man-ifest in the rather modest observed effect for emotional and
behavioral problems. Findingsfrom these studies can be useful if
viewed in their proper context, however. Identificationand
intervention will, of course, never be perfect, but a general goal
should be to fosterhealthy agents of socialization while attempting
to identify at-risk youth and develop mul-tifaceted approaches to
help set them on a more positive course.
This work contributes to an understanding of the etiology of
juvenile delinquency inindicating a long-term influence of early
emotional and behavioral problems on delinquencyin a general
population sample. It also exposed some other key influences on
delinquencythat must be addressed in prevention and treatment
programs and supports Warrs (2002)position that discussion of
parents versus peers in theoretical arguments and
empiricalassessments is oversimplified. It also provided a cursory
examination of two emerging theo-retical perspectives.
Nevertheless, a considerable amount of work remains both in
identify-ing and further explicating the relationship between these
problems and developingresponses that are palatable to multiple
stakeholders. Yet a solid research base and set of bestpractice
interventions are emerging to help separate the promising from the
pedestrian interms of theory, policy, and programming to promote
positive youth development.
APPENDIXItems in Additive Scores and Standardized Measures
Delinquency (EA)Ever smoked cigarettesEver drank alcoholmore
than a sipEver used marijuanaHurt someone bad enough for
doctorStole from a storeIntentionally damaged school
propertySkipped a full day of schoolStayed out all night w/out
parental permission
Emotional and Behavioral Problems, Behavioral Problem Index
(C)He/She has sudden changes in mood or feeling.He/She cheats or
tells lies.He/She argues too much.He/She is disobedient at
school.He/She has difficulty concentrating, cannot pay attention
for long.He/She is easily confused, seems to be in a fog.He/She
bullies or is cruel or mean to others.He/She is disobedient at
home.He/She has trouble getting along with other children.He/She is
impulsive, or acts without thinking.He/She is not liked by other
children.He/She is restless or overly active, cannot sit
still.He/She is withdrawn, does not get involved with others.He/She
breaks things on purpose or deliberately destroys his/her own or
anothers things.
Sullivan / EARLY ADOLESCENT DELINQUENCY 307
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
APPENDIX (continued)He/She has trouble getting along with
teachers.He/She clings to adults.He/She cries too much.He/She
demands a lot of attention.He/She is too dependent on others.He/She
feels or complains that no one loves him/her.He/She is rather high
strung, tense and nervous.He/She is too fearful or anxious.He/She
feels worthless or inferior.He/She does not seem to feel sorry
after he/she misbehaves.He/She is stubborn, sullen, or
irritable.He/She has a very strong temper and loses it
easily.He/She is unhappy, sad, or depressed.He/She has a lot of
difficulty getting his/her mind off certain thoughts
(obsessions).
Family Influence, HOME-SF (EA)About how many books does your
child have?About how often is your child expected to make his or
her own bed?About how often is your child expected to clean his/her
own room?About how often is your child expected to pick up after
himself/herself?About how often is your child expected to help keep
shared living areas clean and straight?About how often is your
child expected to do routine chores (e.g., wash dishes)?About how
often is your child expected to help manage his/her own time (e.g.,
get up on time)?Is there a musical instrument that your child can
use here at the home?Does your family get a daily newspaper?About
how often does your child read for enjoyment?Does your family
encourage your child to start and keep doing hobbies?Does your
child get any special lessons or belong to any organized activities
(e.g., sports, drama)?How often has any family member taken or
arranged to take your child to any time of museum
within the past year?How often has a family member taken or
arranged to take your child to any type of musical or the
atrical performance within the past year?How often does your
whole family get together with relatives or friends?About how often
does your child spend time with his/her father, stepfather, or
father-figure?About how often does your child spend time with
his/her father, stepfather, or father-figure in
outdoor activities?How often does your child eat a meal with
both mother and father?When your family watches TV together, do
your or your childs father (or stepfather, father figure)
discuss TV programs with him/her?How many times have you had to
spank your child in the past week?How many times in the past week,
if any, have you had to spank your child?How many times in the past
week have you grounded your child?How many times in the past week
have you taken away TV or some other privilege?How many times in
the past week have you taken away his or her allowance?How many
times in the past week have you taken away TV or some other
privilege?
Peer Influence (EA)Feel pressure to try cigarettesFeel pressure
to try mar/drugsFeel pressure to drink alcoholFeel pressure to skip
schoolFeel pressure to commit crime
NOTE: HOME-SF = Home Observation for Measurement of the
Environment, Short-Form.
308 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
NOTES
1. The models were also run with a natural log transformed
version of the delinquency scoreto better ensure that the
assumptions of censored-normal regression were met (Osgood, Finken,
&McMorris, 2002). Substantive conclusions based on parameter
estimates from these models wereidentical to those presented.
2. The censored regression model, in fact, estimates an
underlying, noncensored latent vari-able (y*; Breen, 1996). The
interpretation of individual coefficient estimates is made with
that under-lying variable in mind.
3. Certainly, an argument can be made that, to the extent that
maternal appraisals manifest ina youths beliefs about himself or
herself and resultant behavior, these early assessments may
actu-ally be a causal factor in delinquent behavior (e.g.,
Matsueda, 1992). This perspective, although notthe focus of the
current work, certainly warrants attention in discussion of the
relative merits ofchildhood assessment (both parent and teacher)
and intervention, particularly in the context of poten-tial false
positives that inevitably emerge with such approaches.
REFERENCES
Ayers, C. D., Williams, J. H., Hawkins, J. D., Peterson, P. L.,
Catalano, R. F., & Abbott, R. D. (1999).Assessing correlates of
onset, escalation, de-escalation, and desistance of delinquent
behaviors.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 277-306.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psycho-logical research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personalityand Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bender, D., & Losel, F. (1997). Protective and risk effects
of peer relationship and social support onantisocial behaviour in
adolescents from multi-problem milieus. Journal of Adolescence,
20,661-678.
Block, J., Block, J. H., & Keyes, S. (1988). Longitudinally
foretelling drug usage in adolescence:Early childhood personality
and environmental precursors. Child Development, 59, 336-355.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Farrington, D. P. (1988).
Longitudinal research and criminal careers:Further clarifications.
Criminology, 26, 57-74.
Born, M., Chevalier, V., & Humblet, I. (1997). Resilience,
desistance and delinquent career of ado-lescent offenders. Journal
of Adolescence, 20, 679-694.
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1979). Home environment
and locus of control. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology, 3,
107-111.
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1984). The relation of
infants home environments to achieve-ment test performance in first
grade: A follow-up study. Child Development, 55, 803-809.
Breen, R. (1996). Regression models: Censored, sample-selected,
and truncated data. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J.
(1984). Classification and regressiontrees. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Brook, J. S., Brook, D. W., Arencibia-Mireles, O., Richter, L.,
& Whiteman, M. (2001). Risk factors foradolescent marijuana use
across cultures and across time. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology,162, 357-374.
Cantelon, S. L. (1994). Family strengthening for high-risk
youth. Washington, DC: Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Carr, M. B., & Vandiver, T. A. (2001). Risk and protective
factors among youth offenders. Adolescence,36, 409-426.
Sullivan / EARLY ADOLESCENT DELINQUENCY 309
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social
development model: A theory of antisocialbehavior. In J. D. Hawkins
(Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp.
149-197).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Catalano, R. F., Park, J., Harachi, T. W., Haggerty, K. P.,
Abbott, R. D., & Hawkins, J. D. (2005).Mediating the effects of
poverty, gender, individual characteristics, and external
constraints onantisocial behavior: A test of the social development
model and implications for develop-mental life course theory. In D.
P. Farrington (Ed.), Integrated developmental &
life-coursetheories of offending (pp. 93-123). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Center for Human Resource Research. (1998a). NLSY79 child
self-administered supplement.Columbus, OH: Author.
Center for Human Resource Research. (1998b). NLSY79 mother
supplement. Columbus, OH: Author.Center for Human Resource
Research. (2002). NLSY79 child & young adult data users
guide.
Columbus, OH: Author.Dembo, R., & Schmeidler, J. (2003). A
classification of high-risk youths. Crime & Delinquency,
49,
201-230.Dishion, T. J., Capaldi, D. M., & Yoerger, K.
(1999). Late childhood antecedents to progressions in
male adolescent substance use: An ecological analysis of risk
and protection. Journal ofAdolescent Research, 14, 175-205.
Dukes, R. L., Ullman, J. B., & Stein, J. A. (1996).
Three-year follow-up of drug abuse resistance edu-cation
(D.A.R.E.). Evaluation Review, 20, 49-66.
Ellickson, P. L., Saner, H., & McGuigan, K. A. (1997).
Profiles of violent youth: Substance use andother concurrent
problems. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 985-991.
Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1982).
Explaining delinquency and drug use. Boulder,CO: Behavioral
Research Institute.
Esbensen, F. A., Osgood, D. W., Taylor, T. J., Peterson, D.,
& Freng, A. (2001). How great is G.R.E.A.T.?Results from a
longitudinal quasi-experimental design. Criminology & Public
Policy, 1, 87-115.
Farrington, D. P. (1992). Explaining the beginning, progress,
and ending of antisocial behavior frombirth to adulthood. In J.
McCord (Ed.), Facts, frameworks, and forecasts: Advances in
crimi-nological theory (pp. 253-286). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Farrington, D. P. (1994). Early developmental prevention of
juvenile delinquency. Criminal Behaviourand Mental Health, 4,
209-227.
Farrington, D. P. (1996). The explanation and prevention of
youthful offending. In J. D. Hawkins(Ed.), Delinquency and crime:
Current theories (pp. 68-148). Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Farrington, D. P. (2005). The integrated cognitive antisocial
potential (ICAP) theory. In D. P.Farrington (Ed.), Integrated
developmental & life-course theories of offending (pp.
73-92).New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Glascoe, F. P., & Dworkin, P. H. (1995). The role of parents
in detection of developmental and behav-ioral problems. Pediatrics,
95, 829-836.
Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile
delinquency. New York: Commonwealth Fund.Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan,
P. H., Zelli, A., & Huesmann, L. R. (1996). The relation of
family function-
ing to violence among inner-city minority youths. Journal of
Family Psychology, 10, 115-129.Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi,
T. (1987). The methodological adequacy of longitudinal research
on
crime. Criminology, 25, 581-614.Gottfredson, M. R., &
Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University
Press.Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children
turn out the way they do. New York: Free
Press.
310 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Hawkins, D. M. (2001). FIRM: Formal inference-based recursive
modeling. In M. du Toit & S. duToit (Eds.), Interactive LISREL:
Users guide (pp. 413-436). Chicago: Scientific
SoftwareInternational.
Henggeler, S. W. (1997). Treating serious anti-social behavior
in youth: The MST approach.Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Henry, D. B., Tolan, P. H., & Gorman-Smith, D. (2001).
Longitudinal family and peer group effectson violence and
nonviolent delinquency. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30,
172-186.
Howard, S., & Johnson, B. (2000). Resilient and
non-resilient behaviour in adolescents. Canberra:Australian
Institute of Criminology.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis:Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Huizinga, D., Loeber, R., Thornberry, T. P., & Cothern, L.
(2000). Co-occurrence of delinquency andother problem behaviors.
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
DelinquencyPrevention.
Jreskog, K. G. (2004). Multivariate censored regression.
Retrieved May 30, 2005, from http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel
Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8.0: Users
reference guide. Chicago: ScientificSoftware International.
Kandel, D., & Davies, M. (1991). Friendship networks,
intimacy, and illicit drug use in young adult-hood: A comparison of
two competing theories. Criminology, 29, 441-467.
Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings,
divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
LeBlanc, M., & Loeber, R. (1998). Developmental criminology
updated. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crimeand justice (Vol. 23, pp.
115-198). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Loeber, R. (1982). The stability of antisocial and delinquent
child behavior: A review. ChildDevelopment, 53, 1431-1446.
Loeber, R. (1990). Development and risk factors of juvenile
antisocial behavior and delinquency.Clinical Psychology Review, 10,
1-41.
Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Never too early,
never too late: Risk factors and successfulinterventions for
serious and violent juvenile offenders. Studies on Crime and
CrimePrevention, 7, 7-30.
Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Van
Kammen, W. B. (1998). Antisocial behav-ior and mental health
problems: Explanatory factors in childhood and adolescence.
Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Loeber, R., & LeBlanc, M. (1990). Toward a developmental
criminology. In M. Tonry & N. Morris(Eds.), Crime and justice
(Vol. 12, pp. 375-473). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors
as correlates and predictors of juvenileconduct problems and
delinquency. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice:
Anannual review of research (Vol. 7, pp. 29-149). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Loeber, R., Wylie-Weiher, A., & Smith, C. (1993). The
relationship between family interaction anddelinquency and
substance use. In D. Huizinga, R. Loeber, & T. P. Thornberry
(Eds. ), Urbandelinquency and substance abuse: Technical report
(pp. 91-97). Washington, DC: Office ofJuvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development
of competence in favorable and unfa-vorable environments: Lessons
from research on successful children. American Psychologist,53,
205-220.
Matsueda, R. L. (1992). Reflected appraisals, parental labeling,
and delinquency: Specifying a sym-bolic interactionist theory.
American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1577-1611.
Sullivan / EARLY ADOLESCENT DELINQUENCY 311
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Matsueda, R. L., & Anderson, K. (1998). The dynamics of
delinquent peers and delinquent behavior.Criminology, 36,
269-308.
Matsueda, R. L., & Heimer, K. (1987). Race, family
structure, and delinquency: A test of differen-tial association and
social control theories. American Sociological Review, 52,
826-840.
Mayer, G. R. (2001). Antisocial behavior: Its causes and
prevention within our schools. Educationand Treatment of Children,
24, 414-429.
McCord, J., Widom, C. S., & Crowell, N. A. (Eds.). (2003).
Juvenile crime, juvenile justice.Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescent-limited and
life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: a develop-mental
taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.
Moffitt, T. E. (1997). Adolescence-limited and
life-course-persistent offending: A complementarypair of
developmental theories. In T. Thornberry (Ed.), Developmental
theories of crime anddelinquency (pp. 11-54). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A.
(2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour:Conduct disorder,
delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study.
Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.
ODonnell, J., Hawkins, J. D., & Abbott, R. D. (1995).
Predicting serious delinquency and substanceuse among aggressive
boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63,
529-537.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1998).
Mental health disorders and sub-stance abuse problems among
juveniles. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice
andDelinquency Prevention.
Osgood, D. W., Finken, L. W., & McMorris, B. (2002).
Analyzing multiple-item measures of crimeand deviance II: Tobit
regression analysis of transformed scores. Journal of
QuantitativeCriminology, 18, 319-347.
Oxford, M. L., Harachi, T. W., Catalano, R. F., & Abbott, R.
D. (2000). Preadolescent predictors ofsubstance initiation: A test
of both the direct and mediated effect of family social control
fac-tors on deviant peer association and substance initiation.
American Journal of Drug andAlcohol Abuse, 27, 599-616.
Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A
developmental perspective on antiso-cial behavior. American
Psychologist, 44, 329-335.
Patterson, G. R., & Yoerger, K. (1993). Developmental models
for delinquent behavior. InS. Hodgins (Ed.), Mental disorder and
crime (pp. 140-172). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Perrone, D., Sullivan, C. J., Pratt, T. C., & Margaryan, S.
(2004). Parental efficacy, self-control, anddelinquency: 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.
Peterson, J. L., & Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption,
parent-child relationships, and behavior prob-lems in children.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 295-307.
Richman, J. M., & Fraser, M. W. (2001). Resilience in
childhood: The role of risk and protection. InJ. M. Richman &
M. W. Fraser (Eds.), The context of youth violence: Resilience,
risk, and pro-tection (pp. 1-12). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Robins, L. N. (1978). Sturdy childhood predictors of adult
antisocial behaviour: Replications fromlongitudinal studies.
Psychological Medicine, 8, 611-622.
Rosenbaum, D. P., & Hanson, G. S. (1998). Assessing the
effects of school-based drug education: Asix-year multilevel
analysis of Project D.A.R.E. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency,35, 381-412.
Sexton, A., & Alexander, J. F. (2000). Functional family
therapy. Washington, DC: Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Shader, M. (2001). Risk factors for delinquency: An overview.
Washington, DC: Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency
Prevention.
312 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
-
Smith, C., Lizotte, A. J., Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D.
(1995). Resilient youth: Identifying factorsthat prevent high-risk
youth from engaging in delinquency and drug use. In J. Hagan
(Ed.),Delinquency and disrepute in the life-course (pp. 217-247).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Smith, C., Wylie-Weiher, A., & Van Kammen, W. B. (1993).
Family attachment and delinquency. InD. Huizinga, R. Loeber, &
T. P. Thornberry (Eds.), Urban delinquency and substance
abuse:Technical report (pp. 81-88). Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.
Stoiber, K. C., & Good, B. (1998). Risk and resilience
factors linked to problem behavior amongurban, culturally diverse
adolescents. School Psychology Review, 27, 380-397.
Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Loeber, R. (2002). Lost
opportunities for intervention: Undetected markersfor the
development of serious juvenile delinquency. Criminal Behaviour and
Mental Health,12, 69-82.
Teplin, L., Abram, K. M., McClelland, G. M., Dulcan, M. K.,
& Mericle, A. A. (2002). Psychiatricdisorders in youth in
juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59,
1133-1143.
Thornberry, T. P. (1987). Toward an interactional theory of
delinquency. Criminology, 25, 863-891.Tremblay, R. E., Masse, B.,
Perron, D., LeBlanc, M., Schwartzman, A. E., & Ledingham, J. E.
(1992).
Early disruptive behavior, poor school achievement, delinquent
behavior, and delinquent per-sonality: Longitudinal analyses.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 64-72.
Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of
criminal conduct. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
Warr, M., & Stafford, M. (1991). The influence of delinquent
peers: What they think or what theydo? Criminology, 29,
851-866.
Wasserman, G. A., Keenan, K., Tremblay, R. E., Cole, J. D.,
Herrenkohl, T. I., Loeber, R., et al.(2003). Risk and protective
factors of child delinquency. Washington, DC: Office of
JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.
Wasserman, G. A., Ko, S. J., & McReynolds, L. S. (2004).
Assessing the mental health status ofyouth in juvenile justice
settings. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
DelinquencyPrevention.
Williams, J. H., & Ayers, C. D. (1999). Racial differences
in risk factors for delinquency and sub-stance use among
adolescents. Social Work Research, 23, 241-257.
Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection:
Effects of early family support and edu-cation on chronic
delinquency and its risks. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 28-54.
Christopher J. Sullivan is an assistant professor in the
University of South FloridasDepartment of Criminology. He completed
his doctorate at Rutgers University in 2005.His research interests
include the etiology of juvenile delinquency and data collectionand
analytic methods. His recent work has appeared in Criminology and
BehavioralSciences & the Law.
Sullivan / EARLY ADOLESCENT DELINQUENCY 313
at University of Bucharest on November 5,
2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict >
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false
/DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict >
/GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict >
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false
/DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict >
/AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S.
Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown
/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 /Description >>>
setdistillerparams> setpagedevice