The researchers then analyzed how well the youngest, middle, and oldest boys fit into these sequences (Loeber et al., 1993; Loeber et al., in press; Loeber, Keenan, and Zhang, 1997). Did the theoretical pathway models accurately mirror real life for individual boys? The most complete fit would be a temporal progression in the onset of behaviors from stage 1 to stage 2 to stage 3. However, it was recognized that many individuals would not progress the full length of the pathway. Others might skip stage 1, entering the pathway at stage 2 or stage 3. Boys who engaged in specific disruptive behaviors but reversed the temporal order of onset of the prescribed stages were described as not fitting any pathway sequence (e.g., stage 2, property damage, occurring prior to stage 1, minor covert behavior).

For the majority of subjects, the development of disruptive behavior fit the hypothesized pathways of authority conflict (up to age 12), covert behavior, and overt behavior. Those who did not follow the proposed pathway sequences because of reversals (e.g., stage 2 following stage 1 or stage 1 following stage 3) were more common among the oldest boys across the three pathways (8 to 31%) than middle boys (11 to 17%) or the youngest boys (4 to 10%). Therefore, overall, the majority of boys followed all or segments of the developmental sequences postulated in the pathways.

Experimenters Versus Persisters

Up to this point, researchers included all boys engaging in disruptive behavior without taking into account the possible persistence of such problem behavior. The researchers considered that their investigation of developmental pathways was possibly hampered by overinclusion of individuals who experimented with disruptive behavior for only a short time.

Childhood and adolescence are periods during which trying out new things frequently includes behaviors not considered positive or prosocial. Experimentation is considered normal for these age groups, and many youth test the waters of shoplifting, lying, truancy, or annoying their peers. Some youth undertake more serious transgressions. Optimally, experimentation allows youth to discover the negative consequences of their behavior and learn from their mistakes. However, this is not the case for those youth who make the transition from experimenting to persisting in problem behaviors.

In this study, persistence was defined as an endorsement, by either the boy or his primary caretaker, at more than one assessment of problem behavior within a stage of a given pathway. For example, if a mother reported at assessment A that her son often annoyed others and the boy reported at assessment C that he bullied others (which was also included under the category of minor aggression), the boy was identified as demonstrating persistent aggressive behavior within the overt pathway. The researchers defined experimenters as those boys whose problem behavior within a given stage did not persist or recur at any subsequent assessment phase.

To be categorized as either a persister or an experimenter, the subject had to fit one of the seven temporal sequences of at least one pathway. Nonfitters were not considered, with the exception of the analyses showing how well the pathway model accounts for serious delinquency. Figure 6 displays the decision tree followed to distinguish boys according to fit in a pathway, persistence, and advancement in single or multiple pathways.

The researchers hypothesized (Loeber, Keenan, and Zhang, 1997):

• Persisters will be more likely than experimenters to enter a pathway at its first stage.

• Experimenters will be more likely than persisters to enter a pathway at the second or third stage.

• Persisters will be much more likely than experimenters to follow the sequence of stages in a pathway, thereby developing different manifestations of disruptive behavior more predictably.

Point of Entry and Progressions Into Pathways

Analysis of the point of entry for boys in each of the three samples generally supported the hypothesis that boys entering a given developmental pathway
at the first stage were more likely to be persisters, while boys entering at the second or third stage were more likely to be experimenters.

Next, the researchers examined the extent to which persisters who had advanced to the highest stage in each pathway had gone through the preceding stages (Loeber et al., in press; Loeber, Keenan, and Zhang, 1997). These results are summarized in tables 2, 3, and 4 for each respective pathway and exclude experimenters because their behavior is inherently less predictable. Starting with boys who had advanced to authority avoidance (truancy, running away, and staying out late at night) as the last stage of the authority conflict pathway, the researchers questioned how many of these boys also displayed the onset of earlier stages in that pathway previously or concurrently. Table 2 shows that 75.4% and 80.0% of the persisters in the youngest and middle samples, respectively, with authority avoidance (stage 3) had gone through one or more of the preceding stages (e.g., stages 1 and 2, stage 1, or stage 2). The comparable figure for the oldest sample was 57%, indicating that almost half of them had advanced to authority avoidance without going through the intermediate stages. Therefore, the authority conflict pathway held best for the youngest and middle samples.

Turning to the boys who had advanced to the highest stage in the covert pathway (stage 3, moderate to serious delinquency), table 3 shows that almost all of the boys had gone through one or more of the lower stages (95.1 to 97.7%), with no major differences among the samples. Very few boys advanced to stage 3 in that pathway without going through one or more preceding stages.

Finally, table 4 shows similar data for persisters in the overt pathway. Here, the best fit was for boys in the youngest and oldest samples, with 100.0% and 97.6%, respectively, of the boys who displayed violent behavior having gone through one or more of the preceding stages. In comparison, the figure for boys in the middle sample was slightly lower (88.2%). The results show that, among persisters, the majority of violent boys engaged in less serious forms of aggression earlier in life.

These results lend substantial support for the existence of three developmental pathways, with the caveat that the support is stronger for authority conflict pathway in the youngest and middle samples than in the oldest sample.

Rate of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Among Persisters and Experimenters

Boys who persistently engage in disruptive behaviors are likely to come to the attention of a variety of youth service providers. Of particular interest to educators and mental health practitioners are boys who have difficulty at home, in school, and in the community due to attention deficit and hyperactivity problems. The researchers focused on boys who met the criteria established by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Third Edition, Revised (American Psychiatric Association, 1985) for a diagnosis of ADHD based on their mothers' reports at assessment A of current behavior problems.

In addition to the middle and oldest boys, the inclusion of the youngest boys in this analysis was essential. Research indicates that the influence of ADHD on disruptive pathways can be better assessed in a younger sample than an older one because symptom scores for ADHD tend to decrease as children age (Hart et al., 1995). Furthermore, boys with ADHD are considered to be at increased risk for involvement in delinquency.

A total of 86 (17%) of the youngest sample, 63 (12%) of the middle sample, and 47 (9%) of the oldest sample met the criteria for ADHD, indicating that prevalence of this diagnosis appeared to decline with increasing age. The percentage of boys with a diagnosis of ADHD is presented for each of the three pathways in figures 7-9 (authority conflict pathway, covert pathway, and overt pathway, respectively). In the figures, the boys are broken out by age group and three other factors: no display of behavior characteristic of a given pathway, experimentation in a pathway behavior, or persistence at stage 1 or the combined stages 2 and 3.

There is considerable similarity across these figures. First, the youngest boys displayed the highest percentages of ADHD in virtually every category, with the middle boys typically coming in second. Boys of the same age with no pathway behaviors generally had lower prevalence rates of ADHD than boys who experimented with various disruptive behaviors. Significant increases existed between experimenters and persisters of the same age and pathway. Distinctions between stage 1 and stage 2 or 3 persisters were generally not significant in terms of ADHDrates. The highest rates of ADHD were found among the youngest boys persisting in either the covert pathway or the overt pathway; approximately one-third met the criteria for a diagnosis of ADHD. A lower rate of ADHD was observed for the youngest boys persisting in the authority conflict pathway.

The results clearly demonstrated that ADHD boys were at risk to become experimenters, and even more so to become persisters, in one or more of the developmental pathways. This relationship was strongest among the youngest boys.

Distribution of Experimenters and Persisters in Single and Multiple Pathways

So far, the analysis has focused on a boy's fitting temporal sequences in a particular single pathway. However, as displayed in figure 10 (below), a boy might also become involved in multiple pathways, including dual pathways (overt/covert, overt/authority conflict, and covert/authority conflict) and triple pathways incorporating overt, covert, and authority conflict behaviors. From a developmental standpoint, it is important to know if a boy's onset and progression in a single pathway increases the likelihood of his entering a second or third pathway.

It is interesting to consider how age influences the distribution of experimenters and persisters in the developmental pathways for disruptive and delinquent behavior. The decision tree presented in figure 6 (above) was developed for categorizing youth who fit a pathway sequence as experimenters versus persisters at stage 1 only or at stage 2 or 3 in single, dual, or triple pathways; the researchers employed this decision tree to assign youth to these seven categories.

Figure 11 displays the seven categories for each of the three age groups. The youngest boys were most likely to be experimenters (38%), to persist only in stage 1 behaviors (19%), or to persist at stage 2 or 3 behaviors in one path (30%). In contrast, the oldest boys were least likely to be experimenters (28%), to persist only in stage 1 behaviors (10%), or to persist at stage 2 or 3 behaviors in one path (18%). The youngest boys, who had less time to diversify, were not often categorized in dual (11%) or triple (2%) pathways. With increasing age, the boys were more likely to persist in the more serious behaviors of multiple pathways. Most notably, the oldest boys were nine times more likely, and the middle boys six times more likely, to be in the triple authority conflict/covert/overt pathway than the youngest boys.

As boys age, they appear to continue to penetrate further in the developmental pathways. Many seem to become more persistent at increasingly serious and diversified types of disruptive and delinquent behaviors.

To what extent is a boy's escalation in one pathway associated with escalation in another? To explore this issue, the researchers combined the middle and oldest samples and closely examined boys who best fit the normative sequence of the pathway. The following are highlights of the findings from youth in more than one pathway:

• Most of the boys who advanced to at least stage 2 in one pathway also had an onset of one or more behaviors in another pathway.

• Boys who reached more serious stages in the overt pathway were likely to advance in the covert pathway as well. For example, 80% of boys who escalated to violence in the overt pathway also progressed to serious delinquency in the covert pathway. In contrast, many boys who engaged in covert behaviors did not engage in any stages of the overt pathway.

• Among boys who had escalated to moderate and serious delinquency (stage 3) in the covert pathway, only about one-fifth also progressed to violence (stage 3) in the overt pathway.

Therefore, boys involved in advanced stages of disruptive behaviors were more likely than not to branch out into multiple pathways. One of the strongest predictable occurrences was that violent boys would also engage in serious nonviolent forms of delinquency.

Previous

Contents

Next