Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
From the Institute of Criminology (Lsel, Farrington), Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom; and the Institute of Psychology (Lsel),
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Bavaria, Germany
Address correspondence to: Friedrich Lsel, PhD, Cambridge University, Institute of Criminology, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA,
United Kingdom. E-mail: fal23@cam.ac.uk.
0749-3797/$36.00
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.04.029
% violent
S9
Risk level
Group with the protective factor
Group without the protective factor
Figure 1. Interaction between a risk and a buffering protective factor in predicting youth violence
S10
Research Designs
Although studies have used cross-sectional or retrospective longitudinal designs to investigate direct and buffering protective factors,27,28 prospective longitudinal designs are preferable.23,29 For example, they can address
longer-lasting effects in development and are less biased
by confounded information on predictors and outcomes.
In any case, the search for direct protective effects requires a design that is sensitive to nonlinear relations
between the predictors and outcomes.
Such a method was developed in the Pittsburgh Youth
Study.22,28 Age cohorts were split approximately at the
25th and 75th percentile of their score distribution on
potential risk and protective factors. This trichotomization resulted in one quarter of boys at low risk, a middle
half, and one quarter of boys at high risk. The degree of
delinquency was trichotomized in the same way. A direct
protective effect was inferred when the desirable quarter
of scores in a variable promoted nondelinquency or suppressed serious delinquency in comparison with the middle half. A risk effect was indicated when the undesirable
quarter fostered serious delinquency or suppressed
nondelinquency.
Prospective longitudinal designs can be used not only
to study direct and buffering protective factors for a specifc outcome at one time but also to investigate change
processes of, for example, desistance or aggravation of
violent behavior. Of course, it is arguable whether the risk
and protective poles of a variable should be defned according to an empirical frequency distribution or on the
basis of a theoretic distinction. In both cases, the setting of
a cut-off point is arbitrary in principle but may be guided
by specifcity and sensitivity coeffcients in prediction
models.30
The investigation of buffering protective factors requires the analysis of moderator effects of the protective
variable on the relationship between a risk factor and
violence. The most widely used design compares two
groups. Both are characterized by the same risk factors or
degree of risk. One group shows the predicted undesirable outcome whereas the other (resilient) group does not
become violent.
Typical examples of such a design are studies on children who experienced child neglect, abuse, or other
trauma and developed positive versus negative behavioral outcomes.31 Variables that differentiate between the
two groups can be interpreted as having a buffering pro-
Issues of Causality
Even the most sophisticated longitudinal designs and
data analyses are limited in detecting causal effects.32
Therefore, research and practice must be sensitive to
issues of causality. In principle, risk factors and direct
protective/buffering protective factors indicate only correlations between time-sequenced variables and do not
necessarily show causal relationships.11,33 For example,
early antisocial behavior is a sound correlate/predictor
but not a cause of later youth violence.34
Accordingly, Kraemer and colleagues35 distinguish
among (correlative) risk factors; risk markers; and (truly)
causal risk factors.35 Risk markers are stable characteristics that may indicate an influence on the outcome but do
not have a causal impact by themselves (e.g., male gender
and violence). A causal risk factor can be assumed when
the change of the respective variable in a controlled intervention leads to a change in the outcome (e.g., less violence in participants of a social skills training group than
in an equivalent control group). In addition, one must
differentiate between more proximal and distal risks and
between the empirical factors and the underlying protective mechanisms that may form a causal explanation.20
However, there is not only one concept of causality36
and in felds where experimental manipulation is not
possible, causal inferences are often a matter of plausibility depending on the explicitness of hypotheses and differences in methodologic quality. Therefore, studies on
protective effects should fulfll similar methodologic criteria to those used in program evaluation.37 Murray et
al.38 have systematized such quality criteria for nonexperimental studies (e.g., a clear time sequence, control
for third variables, independent measurement). Accordwww.ajpmonline.org
ingly, research on protective factors should aim for wellcontrolled quasi-experimental designs and withinindividual analyses of change in prospective longitudinal
studies.39,40
Although criminology needs more RCTs,41 this
method is not the primary choice for the present topic.
Protective mechanisms and effects are part of the natural
life course of individuals. They often refer to serious life
risks (e.g., child neglect, growing up in poverty) that are
not subject to randomization and experimental manipulation. Some potential protective factors are also extremely diffcult to implement in experimental designs
(e.g., attachment to a caregiver).
For these and other reasons, prospective longitudinal
designs are currently the method of choice in studying
protective factors. If this strategy leads to well-replicated
fndings, the particular factors could be manipulated experimentally as far as appropriate. Such a stepwise research strategy would not only make the best use of the
research on protective effects for violence prevention but
would also reduce the risk of implementing programs
that may be harmful.42
S11
S12
violence (e.g., aggressive behavior, serious offending, delinquency, antisocial behavior, gang involvement). The
focus of the search was on longitudinal studies published
between 1990 and 2009. More than a dozen databases
were searched (e.g., SSCI, MEDLINE, PsycINFO,
C2-Spectr) and articles in more than 30 journals.
Overall 112 studies met the inclusion criteria; relevant
older studies were added from previous reviews.11,54 The
available research turned out to be extremely heterogeneous with regard to research design, risk factors, protective factors, outcome measures, samples, data analyses,
follow-up periods, and other characteristics. Therefore,
the following discussion concentrates on potential protective factors that have at least been found in two longitudinal studies. If there were many more studies on a
specifc variable, space limits did not allow reporting all of
them. The fndings are categorized into individual, family, school, peer group, and neighborhood factors.
Social Cognitions
Theories of social learning, information processing, and
action suggest that social and self-related cognitions are
important risk factors for violence and other forms of
aggression.71,72 Some fndings also support protective effects of the desirable pole of such variables. In the Pittsburgh Youth Study, for example, attitudes toward family
and school had both risk and direct protective functions.73 The perceived risk of being caught had a similar
Temperament Factors
Impulsivity, hyperactivity, negative emotionality, sensationseeking, and risk-taking are predictors of violence,7,30,34,87 but
the opposite pole of these variables seems to predict desirable
development. Loeber and colleagues22 have shown that low
attention-defcit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) mostly operates as a direct protective factor reducing the development of
violence and theft. Early psychopathic temperament features and depressed mood had both risk effects and at
the opposite pole direct protective functions. Other
studies found buffering protective effects of an easy
temperament88 in the presence of various social risk
factors. For example, sociability, positive mood, low
irritability, and low impulsivity seem to have such a
buffering protective function.43,44,46,59,63,65
In the Dunedin study,74 children who abstained from
violence and other antisocial behavior exhibited the easwww.ajpmonline.org
iest temperament at the preschool age (e.g., low in emotional instability, restlessness, attention problems, and
roughness). Those on a persistent antisocial pathway, and
particularly those who became violent, had a more diffcult temperament in childhood than those with
adolescence-limited antisociality. Although boys who recovered from antisocial behavior had similar temperament diffculties at the preschool age as the persistently
deviant youngsters, their temperament improved later.
This fnding points to the potential of direct protective
changes in the phenotype of temperament (a disposition
that has a genetic component).
The characteristics of the easy child are similar to
Blocks89 concept of ego resiliency (flexible adaptation of
control to environmental demands). Whereas ego undercontrol (e.g., impulsiveness) is a risk factor for violence
and antisocial behavior,30,90 ego-resilience showed
buffering protective effects in children who were maltreated or came from otherwise disadvantaged backgrounds.31,44,59,78 Similar results were found for ego overcontrol (inhibition of action). However, the personality
facets of anxiety, shyness, and internalizing problems
seem to have two effects. They can protect against the
development of antisocial behavior in childhood and
youth,22,91 but they also may be risk factors for late-onset
criminality48 and hinder desistance in already violent
youngsters.22
Biological Factors
Numerous biological risk factors for violent behavior are
discussed in the literature (e.g., genetic factors, autonomic arousal, hormonal influences, neurotransmitter
processes, prenatal intoxication or perinatal complications). However, the causal function of biological variables is complex, and they often do not have main effects
but interact with social factors.20,21,55
On the genetic level, a functional polymorphism in the
promoter region of the monoamine oxidase A (MAO-A)
gene that is relevant for normal neurotransmitter function seems to have a buffering protective function. Caspi
et al.92 found linear relationships between the intensity of
child maltreatment in the family and later antisocial behavior of children. A differentiated analysis showed that
there was a less negative outcome of severe maltreatment
in children with high genetic MAO-A activity as compared to low MAO-A activity. Replication studies showed
mixed results93 or found a buffering effect in neglected or
abused Caucasians only and not in African-American
subsamples.94 A meta-analysis supports the interaction
of MAO-A and maltreatment,95 but it is not yet clear
whether the genetic disposition is as important as the
factual MAO-A activity in the brain.96,97
August 2012
S13
Family Factors
Characteristics of the parent child relationship, parenting behavior, parent attitudes, and the overall family climate are often closely inter-related. Therefore, protective
functions in one of these areas may be mediated by factors
in others. Family factors also do not have a unidirectional
impact on the child but are partially influenced by the
childs behavior110 and may even reflect an underlying
genetic transmission.111
S14
ParentChild Relationship
An emotionally positive parent child relationship and
secure bonding is a basic direct protective factor in child
development and has buffering protective effects in preventing a broad range of behavior problems in the presence of risk factors.112116 A close relationship with parents also promotes nonviolence and protects against the
aggravation of problems in youth.28,117 A positive relationship with at least one parent encourages social learning in a structured social environment, whereas early
deprivation may disrupt the brain development and neuronal functioning that are relevant for the regulation of
aggressive behavior.118 However, the protective effects of
stable positive emotional relationships do not appear to
be limited to early childhood and the core family. Studies
of children from multiple deprived backgrounds have
shown that a good bond to other reference people can
buffer risks and lead to nonviolent development.23,46 A
close relationship to a nondeviant partner also encourages the desistance of offenders in adulthood.119
Parenting Behavior
Numerous studies have shown linear relationships between parenting behavior and child aggression and violence. For example, in the Pittsburgh Youth Study parental reinforcement had a risk effect at its negative pole and
a direct protective effect at its positive pole. Intensive
supervision, high persistence of discipline, low physical
punishment, and strong involvement of the child in the
familys activities had mainly direct protective effects.22,28
Similar factors also seem to have a buffering protective
function in the presence of risks23 and in educational
contexts outside the family.120,121 Herrenkohl and colleagues85 showed that parental disapproval of antisocial
behavior predicted a low rate of violence in both physically abused and non-abused children.
Intensive supervision or frm parenting also improved
the behavior of children with conduct problems117 and
led to desistance from serious offending.22 An emotionally warm, attentive, accepting, norm-oriented, supervising, and structure-giving upbringing encourages the positive development of children.122 Such parenting
characteristics, together with parental stimulation, also
seem to have a buffering protective function in the presence of risk factors for antisocial development.115,116
tal stress had a buffering protective function that encouraged desistance from serious offending.22 The parents
own constructive coping with problems can be a model
for the child that contributes to the childs non-aggressive
development in a high-risk context.46,117 Interest and
positive parental attitudes toward the childs education
also had a direct protective effect against antisociality.22,44 Overall, early family factors seem to be more
relevant for promoting nonviolence and protecting
against violence in at-risk cases than for later desistance
from serious offending.22
In summary, research shows relatively consistent candidates for direct protective/buffering protective family
effects in the feld of youth violence. It suggests positive
influences of a close relationship with at least one parent,
parental acceptance, intensive supervision, high persistence of discipline, parental disapproval of antisocial behavior, low physical punishment, strong involvement in
family activities, above-average SES, low parental stress,
family models of constructive coping, and positive parental attitudes toward the childs education.
School Factors
Whereas negative school relationships and experiences
are important risk factors for serious and violent youth
offending,34 the positive side of the coin has a direct
protective/buffering protective function.85,121,123 The
main desirable influences of school factors derive from
the following areas: academic achievement, motivation,
school bonding, and class/school climate. Sound school
achievement or reaching higher education not only has a
direct protective effect22,44 but also has a buffering protective effect in the presence of other risks46 or against the
aggravation of criminality.28,124
Similar relationships were found for strong school motivation, commitment, and bonding to school.44,46 The
study of Herrenkohl et al.85 showed that good school
achievement had a buffering protective function against
violence and delinquency in a group that had been abused
as children. In the Dunedin study, the percentage of boys
leaving high school early was lowest for abstainers and
those who recovered from childhood antisociality.74 Although the desirable effects of good school achievement
and school bonding may be related to the buffering protective function of intelligence, this is not the main factor.46,61,65,79 In children from high-risk backgrounds,
sound school achievement and bonding to the school was
even more relevant for successful adjustment than was
high intelligence.67,68,125
The causal chains underlying the desirable effects of
school achievement and bonding are not fully clear. For
example, school success can be a source of self-effcacy
www.ajpmonline.org
that compensates for negative experiences in other contexts.64,126 A close relationship to the school and a successful school career may indicate strong bonding to society127 and open the door to noncriminal opportunities
in life.128 Similarly, academic and professional motivation, desirable work behavior, and job stability are important factors influencing desistance from criminality in
late adolescence and early adulthood.119,129 However,
various studies also question the independent causal role
of school factors in positive versus negative social
development.130 133
Longitudinal intervention studies on anti-bullying
programs have shown that intensive supervision, clear
behavior rules, consistent negative reinforcement of aggression, engagement of parents and teachers, and other
characteristics of a positive school/class climate are relevant for reducing violence at school.134 Most of these
studies address the prevalence of aggression in the school
context. However, as there are long-term predictive relationships between school bullying and later violence in
other contexts,135137 it can be assumed that factors that
reduce school bullying may have a direct protective and
buffering protective effect in regard to later violence.
A summary of protective school factors against youth
violence has to take into account that these variables are a
mix of individual reactions to school and more- or lessobjective school characteristics. Overall, there is evidence
for desirable effects of good school achievement, bonding
to school, strong work motivation, reaching higher education, support and supervision by teachers, clear rules,
and other positive features of the school and class climate.
More research that disentangles individual and social
school-related factors is needed.
Peer Factors
Juvenile violence is often a group phenomenon and having deviant peers is strongly correlated with delinquent
behavior.138 140 However, Farrington et al.141 found that
delinquent peers did not predict a boys delinquency
within individuals, although this variable did predict between individuals. They concluded that peer delinquency
was not a cause of delinquency but a marker reflecting
group offending, unlike family factors, which did predict
within individuals.
Deviant peers can both model and reinforce violence.
Peer antisociality is an important predictor of serious and
violent juvenile offending for youth gangs.22,34,142 However, peers also can have a protective function.143145
Having a nondeviant good friend or being a member of a
peer group who disapprove of antisocial behavior has a
direct protective effect against youth violence and delinquency.22,44,74,85 Close relationships to nondeviant peers
August 2012
S15
S16
complex relationships and discrepancies among correlations on the aggregate and individual levels (the ecological fallacy) make it diffcult to disentangle and replicate
pure desirable neighborhood effects when other factors
are well controlled. Stouthamer-Loeber and colleagues,28
for example, found only risk effects and no protective
influence of community variables.
More-recent results from the Pittsburgh Youth Study
revealed that living in a good neighborhood mainly had a
direct protective effect and housing quality had both risk
and direct protective functions.22 Other analyses of the
Pittsburgh data support the potential effects of desirable
neighborhood characteristics on specifc subgroups. Lynam et al.160 found that living in a nondeprived neighborhood buffered to some degree the undesirable impact of
impulsivity on juvenile offending. According to Wikstrm and Loeber,159 advantaged neighborhoods protected against late-onset offending in relatively welladjusted adolescents.
In a study of younger children, Kupersmidt and colleagues161 found a buffering protective effect of living in
middle-class neighborhoods on the aggressive behavior
of black children from low-income, single-parent homes.
However, in these middle-SES neighborhoods, children
from low-income, white, single-parent families were rejected more often by their peers, and this rejection could
become a risk factor for later violence. These fndings
suggest that the same neighborhood may be buffering
protective for one family type but not for another. Studies
on the interaction of child maltreatment, violence in the
neighborhood, and child behavior point in the same direction.162,163 Other research reported main risk versus
direct protective effects of community violence on the
aggressive behavior of juveniles.156
Although social disadvantage is partially reproduced
when people move to better neighborhoods, some experiments that improved housing or supported at-risk families in moving to better neighborhoods revealed direct
protective/buffering protective effects.164 As there are interactions of these effects with desirable individual and
family characteristics, it is not a single neighborhood
characteristic but the accumulation of desirable compared to undesirable features and subjective experiences
that are primarily relevant for a childs resilience.165
Neighborhood poverty, for example, is not a risk per se
but can be associated with good cohesion and positive
experiences that may buffer the detrimental effects of
socioeconomic deprivation.158,166,167 Informal social
control and social trust/cohesion seem to be key neighborhood characteristics that promote nonviolence in various cultures.157 Because of the complex multilevel relationships, the protective effects of community and
neighborhood factors are most diffcult to prove. How-
DoseResponse Relationships
In predictions of serious and violent youth offending,
most single risks show relatively low correlations with the
outcome.30,34 The probability and intensity of antisocial
behavior increase strongly as a function of accumulated
risks.34,76,168 The single factors may be less or more independent from each other or causally related in such a way
that one factor may trigger another as in a cascade.11,54,165
Their cumulative effects are often additive but they also
can be multiplicative or exponential.54,169
Similar but inverse doseresponse relationships are
also relevant for direct and buffering protective factors.11,54,165 There is not much research on this issue, but
all available results point in the same direction. In a study
of groups of physically abused children, non-abused children, and children at risk of abuse, Herrenkohl et al.85
found that an increased number of protective factors
predicted low rates of violence and delinquency. With
regard to delinquency as an outcome, Smith and colleagues170 found that the percentage of non-offenders
increased with the number of desirable (direct protective)
factors to which the youngsters had been exposed.
Wikstrm and Loeber159 formed an overall risk vs
direct protective score by summing the undesirable versus desirable poles of variables such as high vs low impulsivity, weak vs strong parental supervision, high vs low
school motivation, many vs few peers, positive vs negative perception of antisocial behavior, and low vs high
levels of guilt. Youth with a high score at the direct protective end had the lowest rate of serious juvenile offending and were also least vulnerable to the additional effects
of living in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
Stattin et al.63 revealed doseresponse buffering protective effects in the presence of accumulated risks. The
authors followed up a large sample of Swedish conscripts
in offcial registers from ages 18 through 36 years. Risk
variables were recorded for the home background (e.g.,
divorce or fathers alcohol problems) and behavioral development (e.g., contact with the police, substance
abuse). Personal resources such as intellectual capacity,
emotional control, and social maturity were measured as
potential buffering protective factors. Approximately one
third of the young men received criminal convictions
during the follow-up period. Both behavioral risks and
home-background risks correlated positively with convictions and also (negatively) with personal resources.
However, among people with high behavioral risk, those
with no pronounced personal resources were convicted
www.ajpmonline.org
S17
August 2012
Behavior
problems
S18
Discussion
The frst part of this article provided a conceptual framework for the research on direct protective and buffering
protective factors against the onset, persistence, or aggravation of youth violence. It showed that there are conceptual and methodologic diffculties that make work on this
topic more complicated than the prevailing risk-oriented
research. In principle, direct and buffering protective factors belong to the same pool of variables as risk factors.
However, they have effects at one of their poles that not
only reflect the absence of risk but also actively increase
the probability of a desirable development (no onset,
continuation, or aggravation of violence). Direct protective factors require the analysis of linear and nonlinear
main effects on the behavioral outcome. Buffering protective factors are moderators that reduce or nullify the
negative impact of risk factors on the outcome and therefore often require the analysis of interaction effects. The
introduction to the four empirical studies in this supplement describes the methods for the analysis of direct
protective effects in more detail.26
The second part of this article contained a brief narrative
review of research that demonstrated the necessity of the
systematic work in the four studies. The current discussion
revealed a number of factors that are candidates for having
direct protective/buffering protective effects against the onset, continuation, or aggravation of youth violence. The
most-promising variables are summarized in Table 1.
Many of these variables have risk effects at their undesirable poles, but these were not the topic of this article.
Some factors seem to have both direct protective effects
and buffering effects; however, there are too few studies
that directly analyze both types of effects using the same
sample, variables, and defnitions of the outcome. This is
also the case for differential effects on the onset of or
desistance from violence. Some variables may have opposite effects in different phases or patterns of development.
Anxiousneurotic personality characteristics and social
Family factors
Close relationship to at least one parent
Intensive parental supervision
Parental disapproval of aggressive behavior
Low physical punishment
Intensive involvement in family activities
Above-average SES of the family
Family models of constructive coping
Positive parental attitudes toward the childs education
School factors
Good school achievement
Bonding to school
Strong work motivation
Reaching higher education
Support and supervision by teachers
Clear classroom rules
Positive school climate
Peer factors
Nondeviant good friends
Peer groups who disapprove of aggression
Involvement in religious groups
Being socially isolated
Neighborhood factors
Nondeprived neighborhood
Nonviolent neighborhood
Cohesion and informal social control
ADHD, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder; MAO-A, monoamine
oxidase A
S19
1518
References
1. Lahey BB, Miller TL, Gordon RA, Riley AW. Developmental epidemiology of the disruptive disorders. In: Quay HC, Hogan AE, eds.
Handbook of disruptive behavior disorders. New York NY: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum, 1999:23 48.
2. Farrington DP. Antisocial personality from childhood to adulthood.
Psychologist 1991;4:389 94.
3. Robins LN, Price RK. Adult disorders predicted by childhood conduct problems: results from the NIMH epidemiologic catchment area
project. Psychiatry 1991;54:116 32.
4. Bender D, Lsel F. Working with violent children in German youth
services: results of a survey. In: Hagell A, Dent RJ, eds. Children who
commit acts of serious interpersonal violence. London, UK: Jessica
Kingsley, 2006:167 85.
5. Cohen M, Piquero A. New evidence on the monetary value of saving
a high risk youth. J Quant Criminol 2009;25(1):25 49.
6. Muntz R, Hutchings J, Edwards RT, Hounsome B, OCilleachair A.
Economic evaluation of treatments for children with severe behavioural problems. J Ment Health Policy Econ 2004;7(4):177 89.
7. Farrington DP, Welsh B. Saving children from a life of crime: early
risk factors and effective interventions. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2007.
8. Lsel F, Beelmann A. Effects of child skills training in preventing
antisocial behavior: a systematic review of randomized evaluations.
Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 2003;587(1):84 109.
9. Loeber R, Farrington DP, eds. Serious & violent juvenile offenders:
risk factors and successful interventions. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage,
1998.
10. Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M. Development of juvenile aggression
and violence. Some common misconceptions and controversies. Am
Psychol 1998;53(2):24259.
11. Lsel F, Bender D. Protective factors and resilience. In: Farrington
DP, Coid JW, eds. Early prevention of adult antisocial behaviour.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003:130 204.
12. Mofftt TE, Caspi A, Harrington H, Milne BJ. Males on the lifecourse-persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways:
follow-up at age 26 years. Dev Psychopathol 2002;14(1):179 207.
S20
35. Kraemer HC, Lowe KK, Kupfer DJ. To your health: how to understand what research tells us about risk. New York NY: Oxford University Press, 2005.
36. Bunge M. Causality. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1959.
37. Lsel F. Doing evaluation in criminology: balancing scientifc and
practical demands. In: RD King RD, Wincup E, eds. Doing research
on crime and justice. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,
2007:14170.
38. Murray J, Farrington DP, Eisner MP. Drawing conclusions about
causes from systematic reviews of risk factors: the Cambridge Quality
Checklists. J Exp Criminol 2009;5(1):123.
39. Farrington DP. Studying changes within individuals: the causes of
offending. In: Rutter M, ed. Studies of psychosocial risk: the power of
longitudinal data. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
1988:158 83.
40. Farrington DP. Criminological psychology in the twenty frst century.
Crim Behav Ment Health 2004;14(3):152 66.
41. Farrington DP, Welsh BC. A half-century of randomized experiments
on crime and justice. In: Tonry MH, ed. Crime and justice: a review of
research. Vol. 34. Chicago IL.: University of Chicago Press, 2006:
55132.
42. McCord J. Cures that harm: unanticipated outcomes of crime prevention programs. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 2003;587:16 30.
43. Garmezy N. Stress resistant children: the search for protective factors.
In: Stevenson JE, ed. Recent research in developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Book Supplement
(vol. 4). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, 1985:21333.
44. Farrington DP. Protective factors in the development of juvenile
delinquency and adult crime. In: 6th Scientifc Meeting of the Society
for Research in Child and Adolescent Psychopathology. London,
England; 1994.
45. Luthar SS, Zigler E. Vulnerability and competencea review of research on resilience in childhood. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1991;
61(1):6 22.
46. Werner EE, Smith RS. Overcoming the odds: high risk children from
birth to adulthood. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992.
47. Windle RC, Windle M. Longitudinal patterns of physical aggression:
associations with adult social, psychiatric, and personality functioning and testosterone levels. Dev Psychopathol 1995;7(3):563 85.
48. Zara G, Farrington DP. Childhood and adolescent predictors of late
onset criminal careers. J Youth Adolesc 2009;38:287300.
49. White A, Heilbrun K. The classifcation of overcontrolled hostility:
comparison of two diagnostic methods. Crim Behav Ment Health
1995;5:106 23.
50. Loeber R, Pardini D, Homish DL, et al. The prediction of violence and
homicide in young men. J Consult Clin Psychol 2005;73:1074 88.
51. Lsel F, Bliesener T. Resilience in adolescence: a study on the generalizability of protective factors. In: Hurrelmann K, Lsel F, eds. Health
hazards in adolescence. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1990:299 320.
52. Achenbach TM, McConaughy SH, Howell CT. Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of cross-informant
correlations for situational specifcity. Psychol Bull 1987;101(2):
21332.
53. Loeber R, Keenan K, Zhang Q. Boys experimentation and persistence
in developmental pathways toward serious delinquency. J Child Fam
Studies 1997;6(3):32157.
54. Loeber T, Slot W, Stouthamer-Loeber M. A three-dimensional cumulative developmental model of serious delinquency. In: Wikstrom
P-OH, Sampson RJ, eds. The explanation of crime: context, mechanisms and development. Leiden: Cambridge University Press,
2006:15394.
55. Loeber R, Pardini DA, Stouthamer-Loeber M, Raine A. Do cognitive,
physiological, and psychosocial risk and promotive factors predict
desistance from delinquency in males? Dev Psychopathol 2007;
19:867 87.
www.ajpmonline.org
August 2012
S21
S22
www.ajpmonline.org
August 2012
S23
160. Lynam DR, Caspi A, Mofftt TE, Wikstrom PO, Loeber R, Novak S.
The interaction between impulsivity and neighborhood context on
offending: the effects of impulsivity are stronger in poorer neighborhoods. J Abnorm Psychol 2000;109(4):56374.
161. Kupersmidt JB, Griesler PC, DeRosier ME, Patterson CJ, Davis PW.
Childhood aggression and peer relations in the context of family and
neighborhood factors. Child Dev 1995;66(2):360 75.
162. Lynch M, Cicchetti D. Trauma, mental representation, and the organization of memory for mother-referent material. Dev Psychopathol
1998;10(4):739 59.
163. Richters JE, Martinez PE. Violent communities, family choices, and
childrens chances: an algorithm for improving the odds. Dev Psychopathol 1993;5:609 27.
164. Sampson RJ. Moving to inequality: neighborhood effects and experiments meet social structure. Am J Sociol 2008;114(1):189 231.
165. Jaffee SR, Caspi A, Mofftt TE, Polo-Tomas M, Taylor A. Individual,
family, and neighborhood factors distinguish resilient from nonresilient maltreated children: a cumulative stressors model. Child
Abuse Negl 2007;31(3):23153.
166. Garbarino J, Kostelny K. Child maltreatment as a community problem. Child Abuse Negl 1992;16(4):455 64.
167. Wilson WJ. When work disappears: the world of the new urban poor.
New York NY: Knopf, 1996.
168. Farrington DP. Early prediction of violent and non-violent youthful
offending. Eur J Crim Policy Res 1997;5(2):51 66.
169. Masten AS, Best KM, Garmezy N. Resilience and development: contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Dev
Psychopathol 1990;2(4):425 44.
170. Smith C, Lizotte AJ, Thornberry TP, Krohn MD. Resilient youth:
identifying factors that prevent high-risk youth from engaging in
delinquency and drug use. In: Hagan J, ed. Delinquency and disrepute
in the life course. Greenwich CT: JAI Press, 1995:217 47.
171. Sameroff AJ, Bartko WT, Baldwin C, Seifer R. Family and social
influences on the development of child competence. In: Lewis M,
Feiring C, eds. Families, risk, and competence. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 1998:161 85.
172. Crosnoe R, Erickson KG, Dornbusch SM. Protective functions of
family relationships and school factors on the deviant behavior of
adolescent boys and girls. Youth Soc 2002;33(4):515 44.
173. Fagan AA, Van Horn ML, Hawkins JD, Arthur MW. Gender similarities and differences in the association between risk and protective
factors and self-reported serious delinquency. Prev Sci 2007;
8(2):11524.
174. Hart JL, OToole SK, Price-Sharps JL, Shaffer TW. The risk and
protective factors of violent juvenile offending. Youth Violence Juvenile Justice 2007;5(4):367 84.
175. Arthur MW, Hawkins JD, Pollard JA, Catalano RF, Baglioni AJ.
Measuring risk and protective factors for substance use, delinquency,
and other adolescent problem behaviorsthe Communities That
Care youth survey. Eval Rev 2002;26(6):575 601.
176. Farrington DP, Ohlin LE, Wilson JQ.Understanding and controlling crime:
toward a new research strategy. New York NY: Springer-Verlag, 1986.
177. Lsel F, Bender D. Child social skills training in prevention of antisocial development and crime. In: Farrington DP, Welsh BC, eds. Handbook of crime prevention. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012:
10229.