Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 75
4
Adolescent Development
Adolescence is a distinct, yet transient, period of development between childhood and
adulthood characterized by increased experimentation and risk-taking, heightened sensitivity to
peers and other social influences, and the formation of personal identity. Although this
developmental period has been recognized for centuries by philosophers and educators (Scott
and Steinberg, 2010), the law has embraced this understanding only gradually and imperfectly,
especially in relation to offending by juveniles. This report brings a developmental perspective to
the century-old confusion about the purposes and proper design of a separate legal court for
adolescents and builds on advances in the science of adolescent development. This advancing
knowledge provides an empirical basis for a renewal of the juvenile justice system. The
framework for reform set forth in this report aims to enable juveniles to make a successful,
prosocial transition to adulthood, while holding them accountable for their wrongdoing, treating
them fairly and protecting society from further offending.
The purpose of this chapter is to summarize relevant aspects of the rapidly developing
knowledge of adolescent development most pertinent to the purposes, design, and operation of
the juvenile justice system and thereby lay the scientific foundation for the proposals for reform
set forth in the rest of the report. The first section reviews key cognitive and behavioral features
of the normal process of adolescent development, including poor self-control, sensitivity to peer
influence, and a tendency to be especially responsive to immediate rewards while failing to take
account of long-term consequences. The section then reviews brain imaging findings strongly
suggesting that adolescents lack these abilities because of biological immaturity of the brain.
The second section highlights aspects of the adolescent's social environment (the social
context in which ongoing neurobehavioral development occurs) that have been shown to affect
the probability that any given youth will offend, will desist during adolescence, or will continue
offending during adulthood. It also focuses on the impact of interventions designed to reduce
such offending.
THE SCIENCE OF NORMAL ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT
By definition, adolescence is a transitional period of normal development, distinct from
both childhood--when regulation of behavior is the responsibility of the parents--and
adulthood--when regulation of behavior is viewed as the responsibility of the individual (Casey
et al., 2010). This definition applies to all adolescents, regardless of ethnicity, culture, or
nationality, and it is not special to humans but observed across species as a period for acquiring
the basic skills needed to transition from dependence to relative independence from parental care
(Spear, 2010).
A key function of adolescence is developing an integrated sense of self, including
individuation, separation from parents, and personal identity (Collins and Steinberg, 2006). Age-
typical ways in which adolescents form their identities and develop adult skills include
experimentation and novelty seeking behavior that tests limits (Spear, 2010). These behaviors
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-1
OCR for page 76
are thought to serve a number of adaptive functions including socialization and procreation. In
testing limits and experimenting, however, the adolescent may engage in alcohol and drug use,
unsafe sex, and reckless driving (Crockett and Pope, 1993; Irwin and Millstein, 1986; Spear,
2010), despite the risks that this can pose to the individual and others (Institute of Medicine,
2011). Often these actions occur in the presence of peers and are exacerbated by their influence
(Gardner and Steinberg, 2005).
Research indicates that, for most youth, the period of risky experimentation does not
extend beyond adolescence, ceasing as identity becomes settled with maturity. Only a small
percentage of youth who engage in risky experimentation persist in their problem behavior into
adulthood (Moffitt, 1993; Snyder, 1998). Thus, it is not possible to predict enduring antisocial
traits on the basis of risky behavior during adolescence. Much adolescent involvement in illegal
activity is an extension of the kind of risk-taking that is part of the developmental process of
identity formation, and most adolescents mature out of these tendencies.
Evolutionary theorists (Ellis et al., 2011) have identified adaptive functions of adolescent
risky behavior, based on the recognition that the task of adolescence is to move from a childhood
state of dependence on parents to an emerging adult state characterized by acquiring
independence and self-identity, enabling procurement of additional resources, increasing the
probability of reproductive success, improving life circumstances, and exploring adult liberties
(Belsky et al., 1991; Csikszentmihalyi and Larson, 1987; Daly and Wilson, 1987; Meschke and
Silbereisen, 1997). Thus, adolescence by definition is a transient period of development that
involves disruption of an old, secure state in favor of an uncertain but exciting new state.
Antisocial behaviors, such as disobedience and law-breaking, serve the function of disrupting
ties to "old" parents and authority figures. Drug use, driving after drinking, and unprotected sex
are exemplars of exciting new states that the adolescent may explore, as he or she seeks the new
state of adulthood. The adolescent is primed to embrace exciting risk-taking behaviors and may
even need to fail at some of these behaviors in order to succeed eventually at the tasks required
of adults. The balance that parents and a justice system must find is how to encourage the
transition to adulthood while keeping adolescents, and society as a whole, safe.
Cognitive and Behavioral Adolescent Development
Current empirical evidence from the behavioral sciences suggests that adolescents differ
from adults and children in three important ways that lead to differences in behavior. First,
adolescents lack mature capacity for self-regulation in emotionally charged contexts, relative to
adults and children (Somerville et al., 2011a). Second, adolescents have a heightened sensitivity
to proximal external influences, such as peer pressure and immediate incentives, relative to
adults (Gardner and Steinberg, 2005; Figner et al., 2009). Third, adolescents show less ability to
make judgments and decisions that require future orientation (Steinberg, 2009). The combination
of these three cognitive patterns accounts for the tendency of adolescents to prefer and to engage
in risky behaviors that have a high probability of immediate reward but in parallel can lead to
harm to self or to others. The preference for risky behaviors rises by a third of a standard
deviation between ages 10 and 16, and then it declines by a half standard deviation by age 26.
Figure 4-1 depicts this pattern based on research by Steinberg (2009). One can conclude from
the body of behavioral and brain studies that adolescents clearly differ from adults in crucial
ways that suggest the need for a different response from the justice system. One can also
conclude that age 18 does not suddenly mark complete transition to adulthood. The most recent
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-2
OCR for page 77
empirical evidence for each of these three behavioral patterns is provided below, although they
are interrelated.
Self-Control
Lack of self-control, that is, the inability to control one's behavior and emotions in order
to optimize future gains, is the central hypothesized psychological process related to criminal
behavior, according to some theories of crime (e.g., Gottfredson and Hirshi, 1990). Studies of
self-control, measured in a variety of ways, show a gradual but steady increase through
adolescence, with gains continuing into late adolescence and young adulthood. Self-control,
mainly in boys, has been linked to positive adjustment in several domains (although with varying
magnitude of effects), including less aggressive and delinquent behavior (De Ridder et al., 2012;
Krueger et al., 1996).
These observations are supported by a wealth of behavioral evidence from laboratory
tasks requiring participants to override one response in order to achieve a correct one (Luna et
al., 2001; Somerville et al., 2011a). Similarly, self-report measures of lack of self-control as a
general trait of impulsiveness decline linearly between adolescence and adulthood (Galvan et al.,
2007; Steinberg et al., 2008). In emotionally charged contexts, the capacity for self-control is
challenged, especially in adolescents. For example, in a recent laboratory study that explicitly
tested the successful ability to inhibit responses to emotional relative to nonemotional stimuli,
Tottenham and colleagues (2011) showed that emotional control (e.g., suppressing a response to
an emotional cue) was slower to develop than other forms of self-control. Moreover, adolescent
males showed the greatest difficulty when having to suppress a response to an emotional cue.
Self-control in the context of positive social cues (such as happy faces) shows a similar lag in
development (Somerville et al., 2011a). These data together suggest that adolescent decision
making and judgment are compromised when made in emotionally charged situations, especially
for young men. The findings are consistent with observations that criminal acts by adolescents
often occur in emotionally charged situations, especially by young men.
Sensitivity to Social Influences
Adolescents are particularly sensitive to exogenous stimuli that relate to psychological
development in, and in interaction with, the social environment. Two important social influences
on adolescent behavior that are relevant to this report are incentives that have come to take on
basic reward properties (such as a smiling face and money) and peer influence.
Incentives. Incentives can modulate behavior by enhancing or diminishing the behavior.
Rewarding an individual for appropriate behavior can make him or her work harder and perform
better than when not rewarded. In contrast, behaviors can be diminished when they require not
responding to rewarding cues in the environment. Recent studies of adolescent development
show a change in sensitivity to reward-based cues, suggesting that they have a unique influence
on cognition during the adolescent years.
Empirical evidence for how adolescent behavior is differentially biased in external
motivational contexts comes from several experiments. Using a gambling task in which reward
feedback was provided during a decision or held until after the decision, Figner and colleagues
(2009) showed that adolescents made disproportionately more risky gambles compared with
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-3
OCR for page 78
adults, but only in the immediately rewarded condition. Steinberg and colleagues, using a similar
gambling task (Cauffman et al., 2010) and a delay discounting task (Steinberg et al., 2009), have
shown that this sensitivity to rewards and incentives actually peaks during adolescence, with a
steady increase from late childhood to adolescence and subsequent decline from late adolescence
to adulthood. More recently, Somerville and colleagues (2011) specifically tested how well
adolescents could suppress a response to a rewarding social cue relative to a nonrewarding cue.
Adolescents made more commission errors to the rewarding social cue than children or adults.
These findings reveal an increasing sensitivity to rewards that peaks between 13 and 17 and then
declines. Taken together, these studies suggest that during adolescence, motivational cues of
potential reward are particularly salient and can lead to risk-taking and otherwise suboptimal
choices.
Incentives can not only impair performance, but can also enhance it. Recent work by
Ernst and colleagues (Jazbec et al., 2006; Hardin et al., 2009) suggests that adolescents show
improved cognitive performance if an immediate incentive is at stake. They used an impulse
control task (antisaccade task) to measure cognitive performance and promised a financial
reward for accurate performance on some trials but not others. The results showed that promise
of a reward facilitated adolescent performance on the task more than it did for adults. These
findings suggest that immediate incentives can alter both desirable and undesirable behavior in
adolescents and may be used to positively alter behavior.
Peer Influence. Substantial empirical evidence shows that teens are more oriented toward peers
and conforming to peer views than are either adults or younger children (Steinberg and
Monahan, 2007). They are more likely than adults to engage in reckless driving (Simons-Morton
et al., 2005), substance abuse (Chassin et al., 2009b), and criminal offenses (Zimring, 1998) in
groups. The strongest experimental evidence of heightened peer influence in early adolescence
has come from Costanzo and Shaw (1966), who manipulated "peer" feedback to cognitive
judgment tasks and found an inverted U-shaped function of conformity to peers across
adolescence, with 13-year-olds demonstrating greater conformity with peers' judgments than
younger and older participants. Costanzo and Shaw (1967) found a complementary U-shaped
function for conformity to adult judgments. The decline of adult influence and growth of peer
influence during this period of life is consistent with an evolutionary perspective under which
individuals depart from parental protection and strive instead for reproductive success and peer
integration with puberty.
Peers can influence individual decision making even without direct interaction. To the
extent that an adolescent seeks favor with the peer group, she or he may try to emulate peer
behavior and attitudes. Prinstein and Wang (2005) found that adolescents tend to overestimate
the frequency and seriousness of problem behavior of their peers. Given the high sensation value
and salience of deviant talk in peer interactions (Dishion et al., 1996a), these overestimates may
be self-perpetuating (Gonzales and Dodge, 2010).
Recent empirical studies (Gardner and Steinberg, 2005; Chein et al., 2011) show that
adolescents' decisions and actions are influenced by the mere presence of peers. Specifically,
Gardner and Steinberg (2005) examined risk-taking in adolescents and adults during a simulated
driving task. Half the subjects performed the task alone, and the other half performed the task in
the presence of two friends. The adolescents, but not the adults, took a substantially greater
number of risks when observed by peers. Together, these findings suggest that adolescence is a
transient stage of development during which peer psychosocial influences have powerful effects
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-4
OCR for page 79
that can contribute to risk-taking.
Future Orientation and Reasoning
Adolescents are similar to adults in their reasoning and abstract thinking abilities (Hale,
1990; Kail, 1997; Keating, 2004; Kuhn, 2009; Overton, 1990). However, they lack a mature
ability to consider the long-term consequences of actions given a heightened sensitivity to
psychosocial influences and a lack of experience-based knowledge for making decisions
(Steinberg and Monahan, 2007; Steinberg et al., 2008). A converging literature of studies that
use a range of methodologies, from observation to interviews to questionnaires, has shown a lack
of mature future orientation abilities in adolescence (Greene, 1986; Nurmi, 1991; Cauffman and
Steinberg, 2000; Grisso et al., 2003). More recently, scientists have attempted to measure this
ability with controlled laboratory tasks in addition to self-report measures. Steinberg and
colleagues (2008) examined age differences in future orientation using both a self-report
measure and a delay-discounting paradigm. Delay-discounting tasks assess the preference of an
individual to choose between a smaller immediate reward versus a larger delayed reward. The
results showed that adolescents were less oriented to the future than adults on both measures.
One possible explanation for less future orientation in adolescence relative to adults is
that adolescents have been alive for a shorter amount of time and have had far fewer experiences
than adults to inform judgments and decisions about the future (Gardner, 1993). The limited
experiences of adolescents may also explain why they are more likely than adults to overestimate
their own understanding of a situation, underestimate the probability of negative outcomes and
make judgments based on incorrect or incomplete information (Quadrel et al., 1993, Zimring,
1998). Together these findings suggest that adolescents are less capable than adults of
envisioning the longer term consequences of their decisions and actions.
As youth often make decisions about experimentation with drugs and alcohol, risk-
taking, and criminal activity in situations involving peer pressure, emotions, and little time to
consider a decision thoroughly (Zimring, 1998), it is important to understand how decision
making differs across the period of development from childhood to adulthood. Indeed, the
deficiencies in adolescent decision making that have been documented so clearly in laboratory
experiments are probably magnified in actual social settings in which they cannot be studied
directly. A full account of adolescent decision making must include the examination of social
and emotional influences on these cognitive abilities (Piquero et al., 2011; Scott et al., 1995;
Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996).
Adolescent Brain Development
The last decade has provided evidence of significant changes in brain structure and
function during adolescence with a strong consensus among neuroscientists about the nature of
these changes (Steinberg, 2009). Much of this work has resulted from advances in magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) techniques that provide the opportunity to safely track the
development of brain structure, brain function, and brain connectivity in humans. Consistent
with the previously described behavioral findings that adolescents have poor self-control, are
easily influenced by their peers, and do not think through the consequences of some of their
actions, the brain imaging findings strongly suggest that adolescents lack these abilities because
of biological immaturity of the brain.
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-5
OCR for page 80
Structural Brain Development
Several studies have used MRI to map the developmental time course of the structural
changes in the normal brain. Even though the brain reaches approximately 90 percent of its adult
size by age 6, the gray and white matter subcomponents of the brain continue to undergo
dynamic changes throughout adolescence and well into young adulthood. Data from longitudinal
MRI studies indicate that increases in white matter are linear and continue well into young
adulthood, whereas gray matter volume shows an inverted U-shaped course, first increasing and
then decreasing during adolescence (Giedd, 2004; Gogtay et al., 2004; Sowell et al., 2003, 2004).
These changes do not occur uniformly across development, but rather there are regional
differences in the brain's development (Thompson and Nelson, 2001; Amso and Casey, 2006;
Casey et al., 2010). In general, regions that involve primary functions, such as motor and sensory
systems, mature earliest compared with brain regions that integrate these primary functions for
goal-directed behavior (Gogtay et al., 2004; Sowell et al., 2004). Similar to sensorimotor regions,
subcortical regions involved in novelty and emotions (e.g., striatum, amygdala), mature before
the control region of the brain and show greater changes in males than in females during
adolescence (Caviness et al., 1996; Giedd et al., 1996a, 1996b; Reiss et al., 1996; Sowell et al.,
1999). These developmental and gender findings are important in the context of this report, given
the increase in criminal behavioral during the period of adolescence, especially in males
(Steffensmeier et al., 2005).
Functional Brain Development
The most influential method for studying human brain development is that of functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). This method allows for seeing what areas of the brain are
active when an individual is behaving by indexing changes in blood oxygen levels in the brain.
In the last decade, there has been an explosion of fMRI studies examining adolescent brain
development (Casey et al., 2008). This work challenges the traditional view that changes in
behavior during adolescence are due simply to immature cognitive control capacities and the
underlying neural substrates (e.g., prefrontal cortex). Instead, the latest studies suggest that much
of what distinguishes adolescents from children and adults is an imbalance among developing
brain systems (Casey et al., 2008; Steinberg et al., 2008). This imbalance model implies dual
systems: one that is involved in cognitive and behavioral control and one that is involved in
socioemotional processes. Accordingly, adolescents lack mature capacity for self-regulation
because the brain system that influences pleasure-seeking and emotional reactivity develops
more rapidly than the brain system that supports self-control.
Empirical evidence to support this view comes from three areas of work. First, prefrontal
circuitry implicated in self-regulation and planning behavior continues to develop into young
adulthood (Casey et al., 1997c, 2002; Luna et al., 2001; Bunge et al., 2002; Klingberg et al.,
2002; Bitan et al., 2006). This development is slow and linear in nature. Specifically,
adolescents tend to recruit prefrontal regions less efficiently than adults, and these areas become
more fine-tuned with age and experience (Casey et al., 1995; Durston et al., 2006; Brown et al.,
2005). For example, imaging studies using tasks in which children and adolescents are asked to
suppress a compelling response or to look away from a target have shown less focal prefrontal
recruitment than in adults (Casey et al., 1995; Luna et al., 2001; Durston et al., 2006). These
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-6
OCR for page 81
studies provide insights into the role of prefrontal circuitry in behavior regulation across
development, but they do not speak to the heightened sensitivity of adolescents to rewards and
emotional cues.
Several research teams (Ernst et al., 2005; Galvan et al., 2006; Geier et al., 2010; May
et al., 2004; Van Leijenhorst et al., 2010) have examined brain systems involved in reward to
address this issue. Their studies (Bjork et al., 2004) have shown enhanced sensitivity to rewards
in adolescents, relative to children and adults. For example, Van Leijenhorst and colleagues
(2010) showed exaggerated ventral striatal responses in adolescents during the anticipation and
receipt of a monetary reward. The magnitude of activity in this region is associated with real-
world behavior. Specifically, greater ventral striatal activity to rewards is predictive of risk-
taking tendencies (Galvan et al., 2007).
A second form of support for the imbalance model of adolescent development comes
from studies that directly examine how brain systems interact when self-control is required in a
motivational or emotional context. Incentives can both motivate (Hardin et al., 2009) and
interfere with (Somerville et al., 2011a) cognitive functioning in adolescents. Geier and
colleagues (2010) have shown enhancement of behavioral control by adolescents as compared
with adults when a financial reward was promised for accurate performance relative to when it
was not. Relative to adults, adolescents had exaggerated activation in the ventral striatum when
preparing and executing a response that would be reinforced and an increase in prefrontal
activity important for controlling the movements, suggesting a reward-related up-regulation in
control regions. In contrast, Somerville and colleagues (2011a) have shown that adolescents'
performance is worse than both children and adults when having to suppress a response to an
alluring social cue relative to a neutral one. This inverted-U pattern of performance is paralleled
by a similar inflection in ventral striatal activity and heightened prefrontal activity.
Perhaps the most compelling imaging findings supportive of the imbalance model are
those by Chein and colleagues (2011). They examined the neural basis of riskier driving
decisions by adolescents relative to adults in the presence of peers during a simulated driving
task. Adolescents, but not adults, showed heightened activity in reward-related circuitry,
including the ventral striatum, in the presence of peers. This activity was inversely correlated
with subjective ratings on resistance to peer influences. Individuals rating themselves low on this
scale showed more reward-related brain activity in the presence of peers. Not only are peers
influential but also positive exchanges with others may be powerful motivators (Baumeister and
Leary, 1995; Steinberg, 2008). Asynchronous development of brain systems appears to
correspond with a shift from thinking about self to thinking about others from early adolescence
to young adulthood (van den Bos et al., 2011). Together these studies suggest that in the heat of
the moment, as in the presence of peers or rewards, functionally mature reward centers of the
brain may hijack less mature control systems in adolescents.
Brain Connectivity
Although regional changes in brain structure and function are important in understanding
how behavior changes during adolescence, development in the connections between brain
regions with age and experience are equally important (Casey et al., 2005). There are two
relatively new approaches to indexing human brain connectivity. The first is that of diffusion
tensor imaging (DTI). DTI detects changes in white matter tracts related to myelination, the
process through which nerve fibers become sheathed in myelin, thereby improving the efficiency
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-7
OCR for page 82
of neural signaling. DTI-based connectivity studies of prefrontal white matter tracts suggest an
association between connection strength and self-regulation (Liston et al., 2006; Casey et al.,
2007; Asato et al., 2010). Combining DTI and fMRI, Casey and colleagues have linked
connection strength between prefrontal cortex and subcortical brain regions with the capacity to
effectively engage in self-control in both typically and atypically developing individuals (Casey
et al., 2007). A similar increase in number and strength of prefrontal connections to cortical and
subcortical regions from age 13 to young adulthood has been shown to be associated with
improvements in self-control by Hwang and colleagues (2010).
The second method, resting state fMRI, assesses the strength of functional connections
within a network by quantifying correlated spontaneous activity between brain regions at rest.
Resting state fMRI studies show that brain maturity involves connections between distal brain
regions increasing while connections between proximal or local brain regions simultaneously
decrease (Fair et al., 2007; Dosenbach et al., 2010). Together, these findings support the claim
that cognitive maturation occurs not in unitary structures but in the connectivity and interactions
between developing structures (Fair et al., 2007; Thomason et al., 2010; Uddin et al., 2010).
Thus, the relative immaturity of adolescent abilities will rely on specific immaturity of the
circuitry.
Overall the findings suggest that in emotionally charged situations with limited time to
react, as may be the case for most juvenile offenses, basic emotional circuits may drive
adolescent actions. In more neutral contexts, more top-down cortical circuits may have a greater
impact on decisions (Casey and Jones, 2010; Somerville et al., 2011a; Steinberg et al., 2009).
Pubertal Influences on Brain and Behavior
Puberty involves physical changes to the body initiated by gonad hormones to which the
adolescent must adjust. These hormones also impact brain and behavior by binding to
testosterone and estrogen receptors in brain. These hormonal and brain changes coincide with
increased sexual activity and interest (Sisk and Zehr, 2005) and with changes in arousal and the
salience of motivational stimuli (Friemel et al., 2010). Brain changes specifically associated with
puberty are consistent with broader brain and behavior patterns that occur during adolescence--
that is, poor self-control, heightened sensitivity to peer influence, and heightened responsivity to
immediate rewards.
Importantly, individual differences in the timing of puberty affect long-term outcomes.
Early puberty has been associated with poor outcomes in both sexes. These outcomes include
earlier use of alcohol and illegal substances, earlier sexual behavior, higher risk for mental health
problems, and increased risk for delinquency (Bratberg et al., 2007; Deardorff et al., 2005;
Waylen and Wolke, 2004; Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2003).
Early maturation creates particular risks for girls. Early puberty coupled with stressors
such as conflict with parents and involvement with delinquent and often older male peers is a
risk factor for delinquency unique to girls (Zahn et al., 2010). Using data from the National
Study of Adolescent Health, Haynie (2003) found that earlier puberty among girls was associated
with higher levels of delinquency and that conflict with parents, exposure to peer deviance, and
involvement in romantic relationships strengthened the link between puberty and delinquency."
Furthermore, early onset of puberty among girls continued to predict increased risk behavior into
adulthood (Zahn et al., 2010). Unfortunately, the paucity of studies specific to girls' delinquency
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-8
OCR for page 83
that include biological factors precludes any definitive conclusions at this time (Zahn et al.,
2010, p. 3)
THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT
From a developmental perspective, adolescent risk-taking and delinquent behavior can be
understood as resulting from the interaction between the normal developmental attributes of
adolescents described above and the environmental influences to which they are exposed during
this key stage of development. There are, of course, substantial individual differences among
adolescents, not only in their pace of maturation but also in the type and frequency of risky
behavior in which they engage. The likelihood of engaging in risky behavior is correlated with
brain activity in anticipation of immediate rewards regardless of age, is highest for adolescents as
a group, and varies among adolescents as well as among children and adults. To a large extent,
the differences within age groups can be linked to variations in social influences.
With specific reference to delinquency, self-reports indicate that most adolescents engage
in some form of delinquent behavior. However, many adolescents do not offend and, among
those who do offend, most desist and only a small fraction become persistent offenders who
commit crimes against persons or property as adults. (See Chapter 1 for a review of the research
on heterogeneity of juvenile offending.) Based on decades of research, behavioral and social
scientists have identified factors affecting the probability that a youth will offend initially and
continue offending during adulthood (Loeber and Farrington, 1998). More broadly, the literature
also addresses the factors that promote healthy development and forestall continued offending
(Howell, 1995a; Hawkins et al., 1998; Loeber and Farrington, 2000). These factors include the
biological characteristics of the individual, the ever-changing environment to which the
developing individual is exposed from gestation onward, and the interaction between biology
and environment. As noted in Chapter 1, this research suggests that interventions designed to
support strong families and otherwise foster a safe and supportive social environment can
contribute to healthy psychosocial development in adolescence. These investments can reduce
the risk that normal adolescent tendencies will lead to drug or alcohol problems, serious
delinquency, or other harmful behaviors.
The committee does not think it necessary to summarize the voluminous literature on
early child development and the etiology and prevention of delinquency for purposes of this
report. Instead, we focus on factors that bear most directly on adolescent involvement in criminal
activity and on the optimal design and operation of the juvenile justice system. With this limited
purpose in mind, we focus on the social context of adolescent development, including the
influence of families, peers, schools, and organized community activities. This knowledge sheds
light on why some youth get involved in crime and others do not (and why most desist but a few
become career criminals), and it also has important implications for designing interventions for
offenders that will reduce delinquency and facilitate successful transitions to adulthood.
Research on the particular influences that promote desistance from criminal activity in
adolescents who continue to offend is less well developed. A range of relevant studies point to
the importance of such factors as positive romantic relationships, successful work experiences,
psychosocial development, and the achievement of adult roles (Laub and Sampson, 2001;
Mulvey et al.,2004; Laub and Boonstoppel, 2012). However, considerable work still needs to be
done in this area regarding the mapping of the desistance process and identification of relevant
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-9
OCR for page 84
behavioral and psychological factors. (See Chapter 6 for a discussion of the implications of
desistance for sanctions and intervention.)
The scientific literature shows that three conditions are critically important to healthy
psychological development in adolescence (Steinberg et al., 2004). The first is the presence of a
parent or parent figure who is involved with the adolescent and concerned about his or her
successful development. This adult relates to the adolescent with a combination of warmth,
firmness, and encouragement of individuation--what is known as authoritative parenting. The
impact of parents and other adults during adolescence can be powerful and positive. A positive
relationship with a prosocial adult during this period is known to act as a protective factor against
exposure to external risks and the adverse impact of that exposure. Laird et al. (2003) found that
a positive parent-adolescent relationship in high school, indexed by parent and adolescent reports
of how much they enjoy being with each other, predicted declines in adolescent antisocial
behaviors over time, and that influence operated through increased parent-adolescent time
together, increased parental knowledge and monitoring of the adolescent's whereabouts, and
increased acceptance by the adolescent that parental monitoring is appropriate.
Second, healthy development is promoted by inclusion in a peer group that values and
models prosocial behavior and academic success (Brown et al., 2008). An antisocial peer group,
in contrast, can undermine healthy development; thus, weakening the influence of a delinquent
peer group is a major challenge for juvenile justice interventions. Third, activities that contribute
to autonomous decision making and critical thinking contribute to healthy development. Schools,
extracurricular activities, and work settings can provide opportunities for adolescents to learn to
think for themselves, develop self-reliance and self-efficacy, and improve reasoning skills. The
absence of these opportunities in these settings will undermine developmental progress.
These three dimensions of the adolescent's social environment provide the conditions
needed to make progress in accomplishing key developmental tasks and to allow them to acquire
skills essential to the transition to conventional adult roles. First, adolescents acquire basic
educational and vocational skills that allow them to function in the workplace. Second, they
acquire social skills that are the basis of intimate relationships and cooperation in groups.
Finally, through normal developmental processes, adolescents begin to set personal goals and to
make responsible choices without external supervision. The process of maturation is one of
reciprocal interaction between the individual and a social context that provides opportunity
structures facilitating normative development. If the adolescent's social context lacks these
opportunity structures, of course, it can undermine healthy development.
Parental Influences1
There is a vast literature on the parental and other family influences on child and
adolescent development. For purposes of this report, the most important aspect of parental
influence relates to parental behavior that can be modified or relied on, as appropriate, in
connection with juvenile justice interventions. Parental behavior can affect the occurrence of
delinquent behavior in three main ways: hostile and coercive family processes, parenting styles
1
The material on parental and peer influences was drawn from a paper prepared for the Academies' Board on
Children, Youth, and Families dated April 26, 2010 by a member of this committee, Kenneth Dodge, and Nancy
Gonzales, ASU Foundation Professor at Arizona State University. The material itself was edited, reorganized, and
integrated into the chapter's structure and subjected to scientific review. The paper can be found at
www.bocf.org/dodge_gonzales_pdf.
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-10
OCR for page 85
and practices, and family modeling and socialization about risky behaviors. These family factors
are not exhaustive of the broad array of family influences that have been implicated in the
prediction of adolescent risk-taking. Additional family characteristics, such as family
psychopathology, parents' socioeconomic status, maternal age at the birth of the child, ethnicity,
and family size and structure (intact versus nonintact) play contributing roles as well.
One of the most replicated findings in developmental research is that early physical
maltreatment predicts a range of difficulties for adolescents, including increased risk for
delinquent and dysregulated behavior (Bergen et al., 2004; Smith and Thornberry, 1995;
Swanston et al., 2003). Maltreatment is associated with earlier initiation of delinquent behaviors
(Rivera and Widom, 1990), more violent offenses (Lansford et al., 2002), and higher recidivism
(Chang et al., 2003). Numerous mechanisms account for the consistent link between early harsh
parental behavior and adolescent delinquency. The developmental model of antisocial behavior
of Patterson posits that behavioral undercontrol and high negative affectivity of a vulnerable
child underlie oppositional behavior that, in turn, incites negative affective responses and
restrictions from parents, producing an increasingly aversive parent-child exchanges (Patterson,
1982; Patterson et al., 1992.) Patterson (1982) coined the term "coercion cycle" to describe the
escalation in negativity that occurs between parents and children.
Adolescent delinquency is strongly influenced by the type of caregiving that youth
receive prior to and during adolescence. Adolescents who are raised in homes characterized by
authoritative parenting (i.e., parenting that is warm but firm) are more mature and less likely to
engage in delinquent behavior (Baumrind, 1985; Steinberg, 2001). Dimensions of effective
parenting include parental nurturance; active interest and involvement in the life of the child;
clear, reasonable expectations and standards for appropriate behavior, with explicit rules and
consequences for transgressions; and effective monitoring or supervision of the child's activities
and peers.
Disengaged parenting raises the risk for adolescent problem behavior due to the absence
of emotional bonding or attachment to parents and a lack of supervision and consistent
behavioral control. Disengaged parents fail to provide a clear communication of parental values
and also undermine motivation for adolescents to attend and comply, thus weakening their
internalization of parental values and socialization (Baumrind, 1991; Grusec and Goodnow,
1994). Highly supportive and responsive caregiving, particularly when combined with clear and
consistent discipline, also facilitates the gradual increase in children's self-regulatory capacities
and decision-making abilities (Martin et al., 1981; Shaw et al., 1994, 1998). Consistent with this
view, recent research has shown that maltreatment that occurs during adolescence also has a
pronounced impact on increasing involvement in later delinquency and related problem
behaviors (Eckenrode et al., 2001; Stewart et al., 2008; Thornberry et al., 2010).
Evidence suggests that the parenting context begins to shape pathways to adolescent risk-
taking very early in development. Keenan and Shaw (2003) explain development of antisocial
behavior as the result of both individual deficits in the capacity to regulate emotions and
behaviors and a caregiving environment that exacerbates these deficits by not providing the
appropriate level of developmental guidance in important socialization processes. Contingent
and sensitive responding in infancy and early childhood provides a foundation for caregivers to
facilitate development of self-regulatory skills (Calking and Johnson, 1998; Martin et al., 1981;
Shaw et al., 1994, 1998), internalization of moral standards (Kochanska, 1995), and the
development of empathy (Eisenberg et al., 1996), and it also sets the stage for parents to have
greater impact in middle childhood and adolescence.
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-11
OCR for page 87
rebellion. Peers provide feedback so the adolescent can experience the consequences of trial
behaviors and develop a comfortable stable identity.
Prolonged exposure to peers during adolescence without authoritative adult supervision
can also have negative effects on development and behavior. The impact of the peer-centered
social context on deviance has been studied in a variety of settings.
Unstructured Settings. When the peer context is unstructured and attracted to risk-taking and
deviance, the result can be a dramatic increase in offending. High levels of informal contact with
peers without adult supervision during the middle school years have been found to predict
growth in antisocial behavior across time, primarily among adolescents who were initially at
least slightly antisocial (Pettit et al., 1999; Osgood et al., 1996). The interrelation between peer
influence and parental influence suggests, however, that the progression toward deviance often
starts even earlier. Dishion and colleagues (1995) found that ineffective parental monitoring and
supervision predicted which adolescents would gravitate toward deviant peer groups. Likewise,
Oxford and colleagues (2001) reported that parental rules and high levels of monitoring in Grade
5 reduced their children's association with deviant peers in middle school and subsequent drug
use. Thus, it appears that unsupervised contact with deviant peers is the catalyst for deviant
behavior, but the process starts earlier with lack of parental supervision.
Structured Interventions. Peer influences operate not only in naturally occurring peer groups but
also in groups that are assembled by adults for purposes of intervention. Aggregation of deviant
adolescents with other deviant adolescents is the single most common public policy response to
deviant behavior in education, juvenile justice, and mental health (Dodge et al., 2006). In
juvenile justice, it occurs in detention centers, training schools, boot camps, and wilderness
camps. Over the past decade, evidence has emerged that these well-intentioned interventions
have adverse effects on participants under some, but not all, conditions. A similar phenomenon
occurs in the child welfare field, where it has been shown that foster care youth living in group
settings are more likely to "cross over" into juvenile justice than other child welfare youth (Herz
et al., 2010). Adverse effects are most likely to occur when there is enhanced opportunity for
deviant peer group exposure, leading to learning and copying of deviant behavior, a pattern that
has been characterized as "deviancy training" (Dishion et al., 1999).
Deviancy training in intervention groups is relatively likely to occur when (1)
participants are of early adolescent age; (2) participants have begun a trajectory toward deviance
but are not extremely deviant; (3) participants are exposed to slightly older, slightly more deviant
peers; and (4) the setting is unstructured and allows for free interaction without well-trained adult
supervision (Dishion et al., 2006). This subject is explored further in Chapter 6.
Gangs. Participation in a gang is perhaps the most striking case of exposure to deviant peer
influences. Longitudinal studies have revealed convincingly that entering a gang is associated
with increases in deviant behavior and exiting a gang is associated with subsequent decreases in
deviant behavior (Battin et al., 1998; Gatti et al., 2005; Thornberry et al., 2003). Klein (2006) has
described the gang process as one of peer influence that is fueled by promotion of rivalry with
other gangs, group norms of loyalty and commitment to the deviant gang, and cohesiveness and
group identity. These processes contribute to criminal activity during gang membership.
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-13
OCR for page 88
Neighborhoods
Numerous studies have examined peer effects in neighborhood settings. Chase-
Lansdale and colleagues (1997) found that once family factors are controlled, neighborhood peer
effects on behavioral and academic outcomes persist but are modest. Experimental evidence on
the impact of peer group exposure in neighborhoods comes from the Moving To Opportunity
study, in which economically disadvantaged families were randomly assigned to move to new
neighborhoods through housing vouchers (Kling and Liebman, 2004; Sanbonmatsu et al., 2007).
As hypothesized by peer influence models, shortly after being assigned to move to less deviant
neighborhoods, boys displayed fewer violent and other problem behaviors relative to control
boys who stayed in neighborhoods of origin (Katz et al., 2001). The long-term findings are
perplexing, however. As expected, girls who had been assigned to live in neighborhoods in
which they were exposed to fewer deviant peers experienced fewer arrests for violent, property,
and other crimes and improvements in well-being on several measures (Kling and Liebman,
2004). However, boys who moved to less deviant neighborhoods experienced more arrests and
worse behavior than control boys (Kling et al., 2005). The most persuasive finding and
parsimonious explanation of this pattern (but admittedly post hoc by the authors) is one that is
consistent with the deviant peer influence hypothesis: girls in less deviant neighborhoods
participated more in team sports and structured after-school organizations, whereas boys in less
deviant neighborhoods returned to interact with peers from their old neighborhoods and spent
time with new peers who used drugs (Ludwig and Duncan, 2008; Orr et al., 2003).
Organized Community Activities
After-school youth development programs bring together peers for ostensibly positive
purposes, but they also may expose children to deviant peers (Lansford, 2006). Because a
disproportionate number of children who enroll in these programs come from disadvantaged
backgrounds and have histories of deviant behavior, these programs offer a test of the hypothesis
of deviant peer influences. Evaluation of a randomized controlled trial involving 18 centers
(called Community Learning Centers) for elementary school children revealed that program
children reported safer after-school experiences than control children, but school records
indicated that program children were suspended more frequently than controls and teachers
reported more behavior problems for treatment children. Among middle school students in
Community Learning Centers, experimental evidence is lacking, but analyses with statistical
controls indicated that participants in these programs later had higher rates of substance use, drug
dealing, and property destruction (James-Burdumy et al., 2005). Mahoney and colleagues (2001,
2004, 2005) have reached similar conclusions following analyses of publicly funded after-school
programs that aggregate deviant youths: participation in unstructured after-school programs
increases antisocial behavior, and the most likely cause is exposure to deviant peer influences.
It is misleading to characterize all peer group activities as harmful, however. Mahoney
and Stattin (2000) reported that participation in highly structured activities with peers that are led
by an adult and that meet regularly (such as sports, music, scouts, church) is associated with a
lower level of antisocial outcomes, although selection effects account for these outcomes as well
as participation. But a randomized controlled trial of participation in Boys and Girls Clubs
(which meet regularly with trained adult leaders who follow structured curricula in addition to
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-14
OCR for page 89
affording structured fun activities) found that participants showed higher levels of social
competence than controls (St. Pierre et al., 2001).
School Influences
Adolescents spend more time in school than any other place except home: at least 7 hours
a day, 5 days a week, for 180 days a year. Schools are therefore an important context in which
the psychosocial capacities discussed earlier in this chapter are developing. School is also the
major setting for the development and expression of academic competence and for attainment of
the assets needed for a successful transition to young adulthood.
We focus on three specific topics that are important for understanding adolescent
development and schooling in relation to juvenile justice: school transitions (to middle school
and high school) the academic achievement gap; and school discipline.
School Transitions
Students undergo two, possibly three, school transitions during the adolescent years--
from elementary school to middle school, from middle school to high school and, for many, from
high school to some form of postsecondary education. At each transition, schools become larger,
more bureaucratic, impersonal, competitive, and discipline-oriented, as well as more focused on
public displays of ability. Research on these transitions sheds light on the degree to which there
is a match between the developmental needs of adolescents and the opportunities afforded them
in school settings (Eccles et al., 1993; Eccles and Roesser, 2009; Simmons and Blyth, 1987).
Much of the research suggests that there is more mismatch than match, which partly explains
why school transitions can be challenging for many students.
The school transition literature is also compatible with what is known about successful
schools from the school effectiveness literature. That literature attempts to identify the features
of schools that predict good student achievement over and above students' background
characteristics as well as the features of schools that are especially effective for low-income
and/or poorly performing students (Lee, 2000; Rutter and Maugham, 2002). At the secondary
level, the most effective schools have teachers who communicate high academic expectations for
students in a supportive and safe environment as well as strong leaders who focus on academic
outcomes. Effective schools are also smaller, in part because they allow more opportunities for
students to establish close relationships with teachers. Unfortunately, the characteristics of
secondary schools often are at odds with the developmental challenges of adolescence, which
include the need for close peer relationships, autonomy, support from adults other than one's
parents, identity negotiation, and academic self-efficacy. Stage-environment mismatch during
secondary school transitions can undermine students' self-confidence, feelings of belonging, and
motivation to do well in school, factors which can, in turn, contribute to poor school
performance.
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-15
OCR for page 90
Achievement Disparities
About 75 percent of American students graduate from high school in four years (National
Research Council, 2011); most never become involved with the juvenile justice system. Thus,
secondary schools are doing a reasonably good job of providing students with the skills, values,
and motivation to successfully transition to adult roles.
What about the 25 percent who fail to achieve on-time high school graduation? Many of
these students encountered school failure early in their academic careers, and these difficulties
were magnified by the middle school and high school transitions and by attendance at low-
performing schools. Many of these students are also ethnic minority members. One of the most
consistent findings in the education literature is the achievement gap between different
racial/ethnic groups in American schools. On just about every standardized measure of academic
achievement and just about every indicator of educational attainment, African American and
Latino students are doing more poorly than their white (and Asian descent) counterparts. For
example, at eighth grade, they lag considerably behind whites in mathematics achievement and
reading (Vanneman et al., 2009). On average only about 50 percent of African American and
Latino youth are graduating from high school on time (National Research Council, 2011).
The achievement gap between different racial/ethnic groups is partly explained by
differential opportunity and preparation for high school. Among the educational practices widely
used by secondary schools to address the achievement gap are academic tracking and high-stakes
testing. Although motivated by good intentions, neither of these practices has been successful in
reducing the achievement gap, and neither seems to be well informed by the science of
adolescent development. Very importantly, both practices also appear to disadvantage ethnic
minority adolescents.
Academic Tracking. Academic tracking, also known as ability grouping, describes teaching
practices in which students who are similar in ability are grouped together for instruction. By the
time students transition to high school, academic tracking in some form is nearly universal
(Lucas, 1999). Tracking patterns also mirror the achievement gap, with white and Asian
students more likely to be in the high-ability tracks and Latino and African American youth more
likely to be placed in the low-ability tracks. Some have argued that tracking frequently operates
to perpetuate racial inequality and social stratification in American society (Oakes, 2005;
Gamoran, 1992).
Tracking remains controversial as a way to organize instruction because it is clear that the
main beneficiaries of tracking are the high-ability youth placed in high-track classes (Oakes,
2005; Eccles and Roeser, 2009). In contrast, being in a low (e.g., vocational) track is often
related to decelerated academic growth. Students in low-track streams also experience the stigma
of being designated as low ability: diminished self-esteem, lower aspirations, and more negative
attitudes about school.
Tracking also has an impact on students' peer group affiliations. Tracking inhibits the
formation of cross-ethnic friendships, an important social competency (Hallinan and Williams,
1989; Hamm et al., 2005; Moody, 2001). In addition, by restricting peer exposure to same-
ability classmates, tracking can also contribute to deviant behavior. As discussed previously,
disengaged students in the low tracks are more likely to affiliate with similarly disengaged peers
and engage in risky or deviant behavior.
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-16
OCR for page 91
High-stakes testing. Since passage in 2001, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act mandates
annual testing in reading and mathematics of all students, with federal funding and other rewards
contingent on performing at a certain level. Some states have added other forms of high-stakes
testing, such as high school exit exams, which impact individual students more directly.
Requiring schools to regularly assess student progress can help various stakeholders--
including parents--put pressure on schools and school districts to do a better job of providing
quality education. In practice, however, NCLB and other forms of high-stakes testing have been
controversial (Advancement Project, 2010; National Research Council, 2001; Posner, 2004).
Whatever else may be said, however, it is clear that the act's testing requirements particularly
impact low-performing students and students of color. Failure to pass the high school exit
exam--a particular challenge for African American and Latino youth--greatly increases the
odds of school dropout (Jacob, 2001), a major risk factor for involvement in the juvenile justice
system.
School Discipline
Schools have an obligation to maintain a safe and orderly learning environment and to
discipline students who undermine these goals. Since the 1990s, one of the main approaches to
school discipline has been "zero tolerance." Zero tolerance is a label given to a collection of
school discipline policies that began when Congress passed the Gun-Free Schools Act in 1994.
That legislation required states to enact laws mandating expulsion of students found with
firearms on school property. Most states and school districts responded to the federal mandate
by adopting so-called zero-tolerance policies requiring expulsion or suspension of students not
only for possessing firearms but also for possessing other weapons, possessing drugs, or
committing any serious violations on or off school. Surveillance of students also increased with
the implementation of school resource officer programs; the installation of hardware, such as
metal detectors and cameras; and more intrusive searches. Thus far, however, the research on the
impact of these practices on school safety has been mixed--ranging from reports that they
enhanced school security to findings that they actually led to more school disorder (Theriot,
2009). The connection between school-based arrests and referral to the juvenile justice system is
also less established (see Chapter 3).
What is clear is that rates of suspension and expulsion have increased dramatically. For
example, the U.S. Department of Education reported that there were 250,000 more students
suspended from school in 2006-2007 than there were four years earlier, and the number of
expelled students increased by 15 percent (Advancement Project, 2010). In large urban school
districts, such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston, increased suspension and
expulsion rates greatly exceed the national averages.
Zero-tolerance policies fall disproportionately on racial/ethnic minority youth,
particularly African American youth. Across the K-12 spectrum, the American Psychological
Association task force (2008) found that African American students were about three times more
likely to be suspended from school than whites, whereas Latinos and Native Americans were
about 1.5 times more likely to be suspended than whites. Even after controlling for structural
factors, such as poverty, or individual characteristics, such as academic achievement or the
severity of school infractions, racial differences in suspensions and expulsions persist (Gregory
et al., 2010). More recently, the Department of Education released data based on approximately
85 percent of the nation's students that showed that African American students are more than 3.5
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-17
OCR for page 92
times more likely to be suspended or expelled than their white peers (U.S Department of
Education, 2012), and over 70 percent of students involved in school-related arrests or referred to
law enforcement are Hispanic or African American. Texas data also confirmed the large numbers
of students being suspended and expelled (15 percent of nearly 1 million students) and that only
a small percentage (3 percent) of these actions were in response to conduct for which state law
mandated suspensions and expulsion; the rest were made at the discretion of school officials
primarily in response to violations of local schools' conduct codes (Fabelo et al., 2012). The
study also showed that suspension or expulsion greatly increased a student's risk of being held
back a grade, dropping out, or landing in the juvenile justice system (Fabelo et al., 2011).
How effective are zero-tolerance policies in reducing school misbehavior and providing a
safer learning environment for students? The American Psychological Association Zero
Tolerance Task Force (2008) reviewed the evidence and concluded that zero tolerance policies
were not effective. Mandated punishment for particular offenses--a hallmark of zero tolerance--
did not appear to increase the consistency of school discipline policies. There was no evidence
that zero tolerance created a school climate more conducive to learning for students who remain,
and zero tolerance did not have the intended deterrence effect on individual student behavior.
Zero tolerance as a philosophy of school discipline creates a discipline gap that closely
mirrors the racial achievement gap. Suspensions and expulsions increase the disconnection
between youth and their schools, causing them to be less invested in school rules and coursework
and less motivated to achieve academic success. The disproportionate suspension and expulsion
of minority students raises issues of fundamental fairness and increases the likelihood that they
will be targets of school-based arrests for even relatively minor offenses. For these reasons,
school reformers have called for restoring discipline responsibilities to educators, decreasing
reliance on school resource officers, and mandating alternatives to harsh discipline (New York
Civil Liberties Union and Annenberg Institute for School Reform, 2009).
Experiences with Racial Discrimination
One of the major challenges faced by racial and ethnic minority groups in the United
States is the experience of discrimination. By discrimination we mean negative or harmful
behavior toward a person because of their membership in a particular racial/ethnic group (Jones,
1997). Our focus is the perception of bias and harmful treatment because of one's race rather
than actual (documented) discrimination in the legal sense. Despite the economic, political, and
social gains of the past 50 years for people of color, experiences with racial discrimination
continue to be quite prevalent in contemporary America. Survey data reveal that at least two-
thirds of African Americans report that they have been discriminated against in the last year
(Broman et al., 2000; Pager and Shepherd, 2008) and that middle-class samples are just as likely
to be targets of racial discrimination as their economically disadvantaged counterparts (Cose,
1993; Feagin, 1991).
Personal interactions experienced as racially discriminatory are part of everyday life for
youth of color. Many studies now document that reported discrimination is common among
ethnic minority youth in schools and in other public spaces (Kessler et al., 1999; Rosenbloom
and Way, 2004). Among the most prevalent kinds of unfair treatment reported by ethnic minority
youth are receiving a lower grade than deserved from teachers, being the recipient of unusually
harsh discipline from authority figures, such as school administrators and police officers, and
being accused of behaving suspiciously in public places (Fisher et al., 2000). In criminology
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-18
OCR for page 93
research, a few studies have focused on adolescents' perception of unfair treatment by police
officers in particular. Net of actual police contact, African American youth perceive a high
degree of police-instigated discrimination, especially when they live in more racially integrated
neighborhoods (Stewart et al., 2009) or attend more racially integrated high schools (Hagan et
al., 2005). Thus, regular contact with a more privileged racial group (whites) can heighten black
youth's awareness of and sensitivity to perceived police discrimination. More recently, the
research has zeroed in on how a youth's experiences help to shape and form perceptions about
the police. Lee and colleagues in two different studies showed that youth with a stronger sense
of ethnic identity perceived more police discrimination but also reported more positive beliefs
about police legitimacy (Lee et al., 2010, 2011).
Consequences of Perceived Discrimination
Discrimination can take its toll on the mental, physical, social, and academic well-being
of youth. Its adverse effects have been examined in three different developmental domains:
health, academic achievement, and antisocial behavior.
Mental and physical health. Adolescents who perceive or experience repeated discrimination
report elevated levels of depression, more general psychological distress, and lower self-worth
(Huynh and Fuligni, 2010; Prelow et al., 2004; Simons et al., 2002). In addition to these mental
health challenges, new programs of research are documenting that these kinds of race-based
discrimination experiences are also linked to long-term physical health problems, such as
hypertension and heart disease--the very diseases that disproportionately affect African
Americans (Mays et al., 2007). If stressful enough, perceived or actual discrimination
experiences are thought to set in motion a series of physiological responses (e.g., elevated blood
pressure and heart rate) that eventually result in disease.
Academic achievement. Perceived discrimination also affects academic outcomes. Several
studies have now documented that as reports of unfair race-based treatment by teachers increase,
adolescents' grades decline (Berkel et al., 2010; DeGarmo and Martinez, 2006; Neblett et al.,
2006). Studies of mediating mechanisms suggest that multiple perceived discrimination
experiences undermine the motivation to do well in school (Wong et al., 2003), and it promotes
the perception of a school climate that is unresponsive to the needs of ethnic minority youth
(Benner and Graham, 2011). Low motivation and perceived negative school climate are both
known predictors of academic decline. The growing literature on racial disparities in the use of
punishment in schools (Losen, 2011) suggests that perceived unfair treatment by teachers is
likely to be increasing among ethnic minority youth and contributing to academic
disengagement.
Antisocial behavior. Third, and most germane to the focus of this report, there is a small but
growing empirical literature documenting relations among perceived discrimination,
externalizing symptoms, and antisocial behavior. For some adolescents of color, repeated
experiences with perceived discrimination are correlated with attitudes and behaviors that
suggest a weakened commitment to conventional rules and values. For example, in cross-
sectional studies, personal experiences with unfair treatment due to race were significantly
correlated with teacher reports of externalizing behavior for Latino youth (Vega et al., 1995),
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-19
OCR for page 94
substance abuse for American Indian youth (Whitbeck et al., 2001) and delinquent behavior for
Chinese American youth (Deng et al., 2010). Among black youth, with whom most of the
discrimination research has been conducted, perceived unfair treatment has been linked to anger
and a hostile view of relationships (Simons et al., 2003) as well as self-reported delinquency
(DuBois et al., 2002b; Prelow et al., 2004; Simons et al., 2006). In one particularly rigorous
analysis of longitudinal data covering five years, reported personal experiences with
discrimination predicted increases in self-reported delinquency by black youth (Martin et al.,
2011). However, the reverse set of relations (delinquency predicting increases in reported
discrimination) was not found.
Why is perceived discrimination predictive of delinquent behavior? Although research
on mediating mechanisms is limited, the general belief is that cumulative experiences with
perceived discrimination by authority figures in the larger society can lead adolescents to
question whether members of their racial/ethnic groups are treated fairly and respectfully by
society's institutions and whether, in fact, outgroup members who represent those institutions
can be trusted (Smith, 2010; Benner and Graham, in press). To the degree that society's
institutions are untrustworthy, aggressive actions may be perceived as both necessary and
legitimate to defend oneself.
Although not linked to the developmental literature on perceived discrimination,
criminology research indicates that adolescents of color often do not trust the legal system,
endorsing the belief that they and members of their racial/ethnic group will not be treated fairly.
For example, Woolard and colleagues (2008) studied anticipated legal system injustice in a
sample of adolescents from multiple ethnic groups, half of whom had become involved in the
juvenile justice system. These researchers reported that black youth were particularly likely to
report that they expected to be treated more unfairly than others by the legal system if they were
accused of a crime, helped less by their lawyer, more likely to be found guilty, and punished
more harshly. The race differences were more striking among youth who had not been involved
with the justice system, suggesting that there may be a shared consensus within the African
American community that people from their racial group should expect to be treated less fairly in
the justice system than members of other racial/ethnic groups, particularly whites. Anticipated
legal injustice, we suggest, can be traced backed to more widespread experience with perceived
discrimination in the larger society.
Racial Identity and Racial Socialization as Buffers
Not all ethnic minority youth who perceive or experience discrimination suffer the
negative consequences described above. A strong racial identity and parental socialization about
race appear to buffer some of those negative developmental outcomes Regarding racial identity,
a number of studies document that feeling connected to one's racial group (centrality) and
awareness of societal views about one's racial group (public regard) reduces the adverse mental
health consequences of perceived discrimination (Sellers and Shelton, 2003; Sellers et al., 2006).
As briefly described earlier, a strong ethnic identity can also result in more positive beliefs about
police legitimacy even when there is perceived discrimination (Lee, et al., 2010, 2011). Indeed,
the development of a strong racial identity has positive consequences in just about every
developmental domain in which it has been studied. Concerning parental socialization, when
parents teach their offspring to expect unfair treatment (preparation for bias) and at the same
time instill pride in racial group membership, adolescents are able to thrive academically and
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-20
OCR for page 95
emotionally despite perceived discrimination (Hughes et al., 2006). Studies of racial identity and
racial socialization processes underscore the resilience of ethnic minority youth and the ways in
which their unique experiences contribute to healthy development.
These buffers notwithstanding, the literature on perceived discrimination during
adolescence shows that efforts must be made to increase awareness among teachers, juvenile
justice personnel, police officers, merchants, and other authority figures of the adverse
consequences of perceived discrimination. Consciousness-raising about the ways in which adult
authority figures contribute to perceptions of unfair treatment is also needed. For example, it is
known that racial stereotypes are often precursors of unfair treatment and that these stereotypes
can be activated outside conscious awareness. (See Chapter 8 for a description of research by
Graham and Lowery (2004) that involved police and juvenile probationer officers). Just because
stereotypes are unconscious does not mean that they cannot be changed. This awareness should
be part of any long-term strategies aimed at reducing differential treatment of ethnic minority
youth that is biased or perceived to be biased, and the well-documented negative consequences
of such treatment.
SUMMARY
Although knowledge of behavioral and brain development in adolescence is advancing, it
is still an emerging area of investigation. There is clear behavioral evidence that adolescence is
characterized by poor self-control, increased risk-taking, emotional dysregulation, and
susceptibility to peer and environmental influences. In recent years, an impressive body of
neuroscience research has identified likely neural correlates of these behavioral phenomena, and
the inference that brain immaturity underlies these characteristic features of adolescent behavior
is reasonable and intuitive. Nonetheless, it is important to note that research on developmental
neuroscience is still in a relatively early stage and has some important limitations. For example,
few studies measure both neurobiological immaturity and psychological immaturity concurrently
in the same individuals (Somerville et al., 2011a), across a variety of legally relevant
psychological capacities, and across a broad age range (Steinberg, 2009). Many of the existing
studies are speculative and correlative, providing an enticing invitation for further investigation.
However, the committee concludes that the basic contribution of the fast-developing body of
brain development research is that it has provided plausible and informative neurobiological
grounding for well-documented behavioral differences between adolescents and adults, and that
these differences are sufficiently well established to provide a sound basis for juvenile justice
policy making and for consideration in developing juvenile justice interventions.
The research summarized here has identified the developmental forces and settings
through which peers influence adolescent risk-taking, suggesting that some risk-taking is
normative, biologically driven, and, to a certain degree, an inevitable outcome of increased
salience and time spent with peers during adolescence. Evidence also shows that two peer
conditions, in particular, can serve as a catalyst for risk-taking and other forms of deviant
behavior--unsupervised peer groups and peer groups constituted by a greater number of deviant
peers--the latter often occurring as a result of well-intentioned policies and practices for
managing youth. The literature highlights the influence of peers' behaviors and attitudes on an
adolescent, most likely through processes of deviancy training, modeling, and reinforcement. A
relative gap in the literature concerns the way in which qualities of adolescent peer relationships
(e.g., reciprocation, mutual support) affect development.
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-21
OCR for page 96
Moreover, peer influences do not operate independently but remain interconnected with
family and school influences in complex ways. Family and peer influences operate sequentially,
competitively, or in a compensatory fashion at different stages of development and parental
factors can contribute to deviant peer involvement (Dick et al., 2009) However, even during
adolescence, the family can provide a source of supervision, guidance, and protection. Hawkins
and colleagues (1992) have proposed that strong bonds between an adolescent and his or her
parents reduce the likelihood of problem behaviors and substance use because they tend to
reduce the salience and value of peer influences, and vice versa. Efforts of parents to monitor,
structure, and limit peer activities are also important to delay or reduce exposure to risky peer
contexts, which may be especially important during early adolescence, when youth are most
vulnerable to heightened reward processing coupled with a still immature self-regulatory system.
School transitions, attendance at low performing schools and school discipline practices
are critical contextual factors influencing poor school performance, a major risk factor for
involvement in juvenile crime. Schools can promote adaptive student outcomes by adopting
best practices of highly functioning schools identified by the school effectiveness literature and
giving greater attention to the disparities in school achievement and discipline practices.
Many studies document that interactions perceived as racially discriminatory are common
among ethnic minority youth in schools and in other public spaces, and that perceived
discrimination adversely affects the mental, physical, social, and academic well-being of youth.
A strong racial identity and parental socialization about race can buffer the adverse effects that
either actual or perceived discrimination can have on a young person. Teachers, juvenile justice
personnel, and other authority figures should be part of long-term strategies aimed at reducing
interactions with minority youth that are perceived as discriminatory or unfair.
Given the pivotal influences during adolescent development, and particularly in the
risk of juvenile offending, it is clear that preventive interventions, including those undertaken by
the juvenile justice system, must take into account interactions with peers and adults and attempt
to shape them in positive rather than negative ways.
The concordant evidence from both behavioral science and neuroscience research
shows that there are changes in both behavior and brain development during adolescence that are
transient rather than persistent. Most criminal conduct in adolescence is driven by developmental
influences that will change with maturity. Moreover, offending during this period does not
predict who will reoffend during adolescence or will offend as an adult. The sensitivity of
adolescents to environmental influences, such as rewards, peers, adversity, and discrimination,
has important implications for the design of preventive interventions, including those that occur
in the juvenile justice system. Family members, teachers, and other adults aiming to promote
healthy and successful adolescent development, including juvenile justice agencies, should focus
on rewards and immediate consequences while creating avenues for developing self-control and
self-confidence.
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-22
OCR for page 97
FIGURE 4-1 Age differences in preference for risky behaviors (e.g., unprotected sex,
shoplifting, smoking).
Source: Steinberg (2009).
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs 4-23
