See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233382167

Juvenile delinquency: Analysis of risk and protective factors using

quantitative and qualitative methods

Article · January 2008

CITATIONS READS

39 7,698

3 authors:

Celeste Simões Margarida Gaspar de Matos

University of Lisbon University of Lisbon
196 PUBLICATIONS   1,048 CITATIONS    842 PUBLICATIONS   12,725 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

joan manuel batista-foguet

Universitat Ramon Llull
102 PUBLICATIONS   3,029 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bullying e cyber bullying View project

Compositional data analysis methods and applications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Margarida Gaspar de Matos on 10 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal
Copyright © 2008 Romanian Association for Cognitive Science. All rights reserved.
ISSN: 1224-8398
Volume XII, No. 4 (December), 389-408

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY: ANALYSIS OF RISK AND

PROTECTIVE FACTORS USING
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE METHODS
Celeste SIMÕES *¹, Margarida G. MATOS¹ &
Joan M. BATISTA-FOGUET²
¹ Technical University of Lisbon , Lisbon, Portugal
² ESADE BS, University Ramon Lull, Barcelona, Spain

ABSTRACT
Several factors are associated to delinquency. It is difficult to change or to reduce
risk factors, therefore, the perspective of protective factors promotion appears as an
alternative or a complementary approach for the risk behaviour prevention. The
present study was developed using mixed methods in order to analyse risk and
protective factors in juvenile delinquency. First, a quantitative study, using
structural equation modelling with 300 juvenile offenders, was conducted in order to
develop an explanatory model of delinquency. Secondly, a qualitative study, using a
“focal groups" procedure, was also conducted with 24 juvenile offenders, aiming at
knowing their perceptions regarding risk and protective factors for delinquency.
Several different risk and protective factors were found. The quantitative study
showed that, “substance use” was the most salient risk factor for juvenile
delinquency while “positive relations in school context” was the most salient
protective factor. The qualitative results confirmed these results. Implications to
selective and universal preventive interventions are discussed.

KEYWORDS: delinquency, risk and protective factors, preventive intervention.

*
Corresponding author:
E-mail: csimoes@fmh.utl.pt
390 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet

INTRODUCTION

Delinquent and disruptive behaviors include different forms of aggression and

violence. These behaviors are associated, on one hand, to illicit drug-use and
traffic, urban, racial, and xenophobic violence (Delles, 2001; União Europeia,
2001); on the other hand, these behaviors are associated with anxiety and mood
disorders, and other behavioral disorders (Frick, Bodin, & Barry, 2000; Hill, 2002;
Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan, & Mericle, 2002). Delinquency is increasing
in some countries, and is increasing in females, while the age of juvenile offenders
decreases (Loeber, Farrington, & Petechuck, 2003; União Europeia, 2001).
Delinquency has also several social adverse outcomes, like disadvantages
regarding social integration and economic independency (Fergusson & Horwood,
1999; Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington, & Milne, 2002; Werner & Smith, 2001), and
other costs for society related to medical, rehabilitation, and custody costs
(DiClemente, Hansen, & Ponton, 1996). Therefore, it becomes important to know
the determinants of these behaviors during adolescence, and in different life
contexts. Only knowing the factors that place the young people at risk, and the ones
that protect them from potential problems, it is possible to draw up preventive
interventions. The research developed on this topic shows that these behaviors have
several different determinants but also share common determinants There is a
diversity of causes or paths that can lead to a certain outcome, but there is also a
diversity of effects that a single factor can produce (Thornberry, Ireland, & Smith,
2001). This is valid for risk factors, but also for protective factors. It is difficult to
change or to reduce risk factors therefore, the perspective of protective factors
promotion appears as an alternative or a complementary approach for the risk
behavior prevention (Matos, et al., 2003; Matos & Simões, 2003).
Research in this area found several factors associated with delinquent and
disruptive behavior: (1) Individual (stress, genetic vulnerability, physiological,
psychological, cognitive, or behavioral) characteristics (Barkauskiene &
Bieliauskaite, 2002; Frick, et al., 2000; Hill, 2002; Matos & Simões, 2003;
McBurnett, Naguib, & Brown, 2000; O'Connor, Neiderhiser, Reiss, Hetherington,
& Plomin, 1998); (2) Peer relationships, that draw attention to the influence of
socializing with peers with similar antisocial behaviors (Hill, 2002; Lahey, Gordon,
Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, & Farrington, 1999; Shoemaker, 1996; Tiêt &
Huizinga, 2002); (3) Social that highlight the influence of socioeconomic and
social organization features on antisocial behavior development, and (4) Situational
that underline the opportunities to crime practice as the main determinant of
delinquency (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960; Farrington, 1998; Hill, 2002; Shoemaker,
1996).
Despite the value of all these perspectives, and the knowledge they had
brought to delinquency understanding, it is now widely recognized that these
behaviors are determined by several domains factors interaction. In this scope,
integrative perspectives, like Farrington theory (Farrington, 1995, 1998), Patterson,

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408
 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet 391

Debaryshe, and Ramsey model (2000), Walgrave theory (Walgrave, 1994), or

Lahey, Waldman and McBurnett’s causal model (1999), claimed that social
behavior is the result of several factors and mechanisms. Although each of these
theories approach specific processes in delinquency development, it is possible to
corroborate all of them highlighting the influence of significant life contexts in
childhood and adolescence, namely family, peers and school (Simões, 2005a,
2007). Regarding family, these theories highlight the fact that a family
environment where there is a good attachment and communication, democratic
rules, parental supervision over adolescent’s behaviors has all the ingredients to be
a protective environment. On the other hand, a potential risky family context for
delinquency development involves a violent family climate with communication
difficulties, without rules or supervision.
The same can be said regarding peer influence or the impact of school
context. Supportive peers with negative attitudes towards delinquency can act as a
buffer, while peers’ positive attitudes towards delinquency can be a risk factor for
the behaviors above-mentioned. At school context, good school performance, good
relationships with teachers and classmates, security and participation opportunities
act as protective factors and the absence of these factors can promote risk in school
context. But the risk or the protective factors can also be found at the individual
level. Positive expectations and attitudes towards delinquency, low levels of social
and decision making skills, maladjustment symptoms, certain personality traits ,
like aggressiveness or sensation seeking, can be risk factors at this level. Risk
behaviors, like substance use are also often mentioned as associated to juvenile
delinquency (Dishion, Capaldi, & Yoerger, 1999; Teplin, et al., 2002) and some
studies point out that substance use seems to be a better indicator of juvenile
delinquency for boys than for girls (Huizinga, Loeber, Thornberry, & Cothern,
2000). On the other side, negative attitudes towards these kinds of behaviors, risk
perception, communication, and social skills to cope with stress and aggression are
pointed as protective factors.
Besides all these features, other factors, like age and gender are frame
determinants of delinquency (Kolip & Schmidt, 1999; Simões, 2005a). The
involvement with risk behaviors increases with age, and boys are more prone to
these behaviors. In what concerns age, studies show that delinquency peaks in
adolescence (Le Blanc, 2003; Loeber, et al., 2003; Moffitt & Caspi, 2001). Some
adolescents show delinquent behaviors only at this stage of development, while
others have already started during childhood. Research also shows that individuals
who begin earlier, are at a greater risk to persist and extend this delinquent
trajectory to adulthood (Loeber, et al., 2003; Moffitt, et al., 2002). The reverse
seems to be true for the ones that begin only in adolescence. According to some
authors these behaviors appear in adolescence due to the maturity gap and express
mainly the need to state the autonomy from parents, and/or peer acceptance
(Moffitt & Caspi, 2001; Moffitt, et al., 2002). Boys are more involved than girls in
delinquency during adolescence, especially during childhood (Barbarin, 1999;
Daeater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1998; Fergusson & Horwood, 2002;

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408
392 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet

Moffitt & Caspi, 2001), and probably that’s why most of the delinquency studies
have male samples (Hill, 2002). Several authors point out different reasons for this
difference. Boys are more vulnerable than girls to develop attention-deficit and
hyperactivity disorder (Hill, 2002), learning disabilities (Shoemaker, 1996),
delayed communication skills development (Lahey et al., 1999) or even higher
levels of callous-unemotional traits (Frick, et al., 2003; Lahey, et al., 1999), factors
associated with a heightened risk for developing delinquent and disruptive
behaviors. Other authors mention the impact of parents behaviors that differ for
boys and girls (Lahey 1999), or the role of masculinity ideology as determinants of
problem behaviors in boys (Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1994).
All these features are mentioned in literature as part of a complex net of
factors associated to delinquency. This net of antecedents and outcomes goes in
line with the position of some authors (Igra & Irwin, 1996; Roemer, 1991; Udry,
1994) that point to an interaction between environmental and individual factors. As
Igra and Irwin (1996) stated some individual aspects, specifically psychological
factors, represent not only important risk behavior determinants, but also personal
filters through which social stimulus are interpreted and translated into actions.
The aims of this paper are: (1) to develop an explanatory model for
delinquency, taking into consideration the personal and social factors analysed in
the previous section (see Figure 1); according to this model, the main social
contexts (family, friends, classmates and teachers) are associated to the
development of personal factors (psychological symptoms, subjective well-being,
school satisfaction) that may promote or inhibit the involvement in risk behaviours,
like juvenile delinquency. (2) To analyse in-depth the perceptions of
institutionalized juvenile offenders about risk and protective factors for
delinquency at individual, family, peers, school and community levels.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408
 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet 393

Family Symptoms

Substance
Use
Friends

Well-Being

Classmates
Delinquency

School
Teachers

Figure 1
Delinquency explanatory model

Study 1
METHODS
PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE
We gathered data for this study from 300 juvenile male offenders (210
institutionalized, 90 with supervision in the community). From these, 25 (8,3%)
were excluded due to missing data on variables such as gender or age. The final
sample included 275 subjects (74% institutionalized, 26% with supervision in the
community) Subjects were 11 to 18 years old (M=15 years old, SD = 1.40 years
old).
Data were collected through anonymous, self-completion questionnaires.
The questionnaires were administered in the classroom, in the case of
institutionalized subjects, and, in the case of subjects under supervision in the
community, in a training room, where by the time of data collection a program of
social competences was been promoted. The Health Behavior in School Aged
Children (HBSC) questionnaire was used to collect data related to social contexts,
perceptions and health related behaviors. For the present study 27 variables related
to eight factors were selected: family communication (father and mother); friends
communications; time with friends after school; classmates (e.g., enjoy being

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408
394 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet

together, are kind and helpful, accept me as I am); teachers (ex. treat us fairly,
encourage to express my on own views in class); psychological symptoms (e.g.,
feeling low, nervous); subjective well-being (health and happiness); school
satisfaction; and substance use (marijuana). For the delinquency factor, 11 items
of the leisure and delinquent behavior questionnaire (Vieira, 1999) were used: In
the last year how frequently did you…(e.g., stolen a car or a motorbike; threaten
someone younger or weaker; brought something from a store without paying for
it). The response options for most of items are on a 1 to 5 scale.

RESULTS

Structural Equation Modelling, EQS Structural Equation Modelling

Software, version 6.1 (Bentler, in press), was the statistical procedure used to
analyse the proposed model and its relations. Robust estimation was used for all
analysis. Before running the model analysis, variables were transformed in
continuous variables through optimal scaling. Optimal scaling is a procedure that
attaches optimal quantifications to the arbitrary original ordinal values, while it
analyses the relationships among the observable variables to produce the factor
scores. This strategy aims to increase measurement reliability, improve accuracy
and power of discrimination, because a composite construct range is larger and
more parsimonious for comparisons between different groups than the individual
items (Batista-Foguet, Fortiana, Currie, & Villalbi, 2004). Since the indicators in
our study are ordinal, it is appropriate to submit them to optimal scaling before
using linear relationship analysis techniques such as Structural Equations
Modelling (Batista-Foguet, et al., 2004; Simões, Batista-Foguet, Matos, &
Calmeiro, 2008). In this analysis, the optimal scaling had lead to a new set of
values for the categories of the variables in study.
The analysis of the model had been conducted in two steps: first the test of
the measurement model and then the relationships between factors. A confirmatory
factorial analysis was conducted to test the model partially, before running the
global model, to control if the latent variables were adequately measured. For the
proposed model, three measurement models were tested: the “independent latent
factors model” that tested the measurement quality of independent latent variables
(family, friends, classmates and teachers); the “intervening latent factors model”
that tested the measurement quality of intervening measurement variables
(psychological symptoms, subjective well-being and school satisfaction), and the
“dependent latent factors model” that tested the measurement quality of dependent
variables (substance use and delinquency).
After testing the measurement models, the global model and the relations
between the latent factors have been tested. The analysis of each measurement
model conducted to some adjustments in their structure. The adjustments made
involved the removal of indicators with low factors loadings (<.60) and the
introduction of error covariances between two indicators. The introduction of these

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408
 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet 395

error covariances is justified because the unique components of these indicators are
sharing something which is outside the model. In the ”independent latent factors
model” three indicators had been removed (two related to friends factors: “easy to
make new friends” and “time with friends after school”; one related to teachers
factor: “teachers treat us fairly”), because their factors loadings were low. In the
“intervening latent factors model” two indicators, from school and psychological
symptoms factors, had been removed (“feeling safety in school” and “feeling
low”), because of low factor loading. The indicator “health” of subjective well-
being factor was also low, as well as the indicator “feel about school”, but since
these factors had only two indicators the decision was to keep the two indicators of
each factor. Finally, in the “dependent latent factors model” two indicators (from
delinquency factor) had factor loadings below .60 and so they were removed from
the model (threaten someone younger or weaker; broken windows from an
abandon house). Only an error covariance between the indicators “assault an
house” and “took money or objects from an house” had been introduced. The fit
indices held in the measurement models after these adjustments were good (χ2/df
<2; NFI and CFI>.95; SRMR and RMSEA<.05). Factor loadings, residuals and
explained variance of the nine factors indicators in the model are presented in
Table 1.

Table 1
Factor loadings (λ), Residuals (E) and R2 of the indicators of the nine factors in the model

Factor Indicator λ E R2
Father communication .640 .768 .410
Family Mother communication .679 .734 .462
Friends Same gender friends communication .718 .696 .515
Opposite gender friends communication .710 .704 .504
Classmates Enjoy being together .660 .752 .435
Are kind and helpful .677 .736 .458
Accept me as I am .707 .707 .500
Teachers Encourage to express my on own views .605 .796 .366
Help when I need .727 .686 .529
Are interested in me as person .925 .379 .856
Psychological Irritability or bad temper .624 .725 .524
Symptoms Nervous .862 .258 .862
Subjective Health .963 .271 .927
well-being Happiness .209 .978 .044
School Feel about school .365 .931 .133
School is boring 1.000 .000 1.000
Substance use Tried marijuana .625 .781 .390
Illicit drug use last month .888 .459 .789
Delinquency Stolen a car or a motorbike .780 .626 .609
Make graffiti’s in the walls .638 .770 .408
Brought something from a store without paying for it .703 .711 .494
Broken windows from a living house .748 .664 .559
Assault an house .758 .652 .574

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408
396 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet

Took money or objects from an house .690 .724 .476

Took objects from a car that don’t belongs to you .816 .579 .665
Scratch out or took the brand of a car .669 .743 .448
Paint or had put down traffic signals .631 .776 .398

After testing the measurement models the global model was tested. Table 2
summarizes tests of model fit. The fit indices held in the analysis for the global
model were good (1st step). Nevertheless, LM test showed that introducing a path,
between classmates’ factor and delinquency would decrease significantly the chi-
square value. Since this kind of path is often mentioned in literature, it was
introduced and the model was analyzed again (see Table 2 – 2nd step).

Table 2
Structural model fit indexes

χ2 (d.f.) 1 CFI2 NNFI2 RMSEA (90% C.I.) 2 SRMR

1st Step 417.41*** (297) .943 .932 .038 (.029-.043) .053
2nd Step 412.65*** ( 296) .944 .934 .037 (.028-.046) .050
1 – Satorra-Bentler Scaled Chi-Square
2 – Robust
* p<.05; ** p<01; *** p<.001
1st Step – Proposed model
2nd Step – Introduction of a new path

The standardized solution (Figure 2 shows the beta coefficients and

explained variance for each dependent factor) show that the factors with higher
impact on delinquency were substance use (β=.41) followed by classmates
(β=-.19) and school satisfaction (β=-.17). Substance use present a positive impact
and classmates and school satisfaction a negative impact which allows us to say
that the more frequent is substance use and the more negative are the relations in
the school context the more frequent will be the delinquent behaviors. Subjective
well-being was an important predictor for substance use (β=-.38), as well as for
psychological symptoms (β=.23).
For the intervening factors, it was possible to verify that “friends” was the
only factor with significant impact on psychological symptoms (β=.18). For
subjective well-being, again only one factor presents a significant impact, namely
“classmates” (β=.36). This result allows us to say that more positive relations with
classmates promote higher levels of well-being. For school satisfaction, teachers
(β=.22) and family (β=.20) had a significant impact. The positive beta coefficient
shows that better relations with teachers and better communication with the family
conduct to higher school satisfaction levels. Psychological symptoms had also a
significant impact on school satisfaction, but in this case, a negative one (β=-.13).
It is also important to mention that since there isn’t multi-collinearity
(correlations between independent factors are very low - varied from .09 “family-

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408
 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet 397

classmates” to .13 “family-friends”), the level of confidence with the significance

test and also with the estimates of the beta coefficients is high. The correlations
between “family-teachers”, “friends-classmates”, “friends-teachers”, and
classmates-teachers” weren’t significant.
The explained variance varied from 5% to 23%. Substance use, classmates
and school satisfaction explain 21% of the variance of delinquency factor. For
substance use, it was possible to verify that well-being and psychological
symptoms explain 23% of the variance on this factor. Regarding the intervening
factors, it was possible to verify that family and teachers factors explain 10% of the
variance of school satisfaction. For subjective well-being, the classmates explain
20% of the variance on this factor. Finally, friends explain 5% of the variance on
psychological symptoms factor.

Family Symptoms
.23
.18 R2=.05

Substance
Use
-.38 R2=.23
Friends

Well-Being .41
.36 2
R =.20

Classmates -.13
.20 Delinquency

R2=.21
-.17

.22 School
Teachers
R2=.10 -.19

Figure 2
Delinquency explanatory model
Note: represent non-significant paths
represent an additional path to the original model
represent paths p<.05

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408
398 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet

DISCUSSION
The results of the quantitative study shows that the proposed model
supports the hypothesis that the influence of social contexts on delinquency is
mediated by psychological aspects (Igra & Irwin, 1996). Therefore, it seems that
features related to the family, friends, classmates and teachers are associated to the
development of personal factors that may promote or inhibit the involvement in
risk behaviours, like juvenile delinquency.
Results suggested that substance use is the main predictor of delinquency.
This aspect, which was confirmed in this study, is often mentioned in the literature
as an important risk factor for delinquency, especially for boys (Dishion, et al.,
1999; Huizinga, et al., 2000; Teplin, et al., 2002). Other factors, like school
satisfaction and classmates had also a direct impact on delinquency. These two
factors appeared as protective factors for the involvement in delinquent behaviors
since they had a negative impact on delinquency. These results are supported
several theories that point out the importance of positive relations in social
contexts, namely school, as protective factors for delinquency (Lahey et al., 1999;
Patterson, et al., 2000; Walgrave, 1994). Subjective well-being also appears to be a
protective factor against delinquency through its significant negative impact on
substance use. On the other side, psychological symptoms appear to be a risk
factor for delinquency, due to their positive impact on substance use and their
negative impact on school satisfaction. Other studies refer that internalizing and
externalizing problems in adolescence often go together, and therefore risk
behaviors, like substance use and delinquency, are coping strategies to deal with
stress and other psychological symptoms (Simões, 2005a; 2007).
The family, the teachers and again the classmates also appear to be
important protective factors, namely through their positive impact on intervening
factors. The communication with the family and the relationships with teachers had
a positive impact on school satisfaction, while classmates had a positive impact on
subjective well-being. On the other side, friends appeared to be a risk factor for
psychological symptoms and consequently for substance use and delinquency.
Several studies refer to friends as a risk factor for risk behaviors, but it seem that
this is only true when peers are involved in this kind of behavior or when they have
positive attitudes towards risk behaviors (Hill, 2002; Lahey, Gordon, et al., 1999;
Shoemaker, 1996; Tiêt & Huizinga, 2002)

Study 2

METHODS

The second study was developed using focus groups method. A focus
group is a discussion-based interview, which involves the simultaneous use of
multiple respondents to gather data on a certain issue (Lambert, Hublet, Verduyckt,
Maes, & Van den Broucke, 2002). This method allows to collect information on

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408
 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet 399

the perceptions, beliefs, and values of a group's participants (Calderon, Baker, &
Wolf, 2000).

PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE

We conducted four group interviews, with 24 institutionalized juvenile
male offenders from 11 to 18 years old. The session started with a brief
introduction about the aim of the interview and an ice-breaker activity to make
participants ready to engage in the discussion. Participants were told there were no
wrong answers and that research results will be anonymous. Tapping equipment
had been used, with participants consent. Topics for discussion (risk and protective
factors in main life contexts) were introduced in an open and informal style, to
allow the participants bring up their opinions. The time allocated for each group
interview was between 60 to 90 minutes.

RESULTS

The data from the focus groups were analyzed to set up categories and
subcategories for each one of the main topics (risk and protective factors at an
individual, family, peers, school and community level). The data presented here
reflects all the features brought up into discussions. Special attention is dedicated
to categories/subcategories that were discussed in several focus groups. In this case
a brief description and an illustration with selected quotations were introduced.

Risk factors

Several features in different levels were pointed as risk factors for

delinquency. Nevertheless five risk factors for delinquency had a special emphasis
in the discussion: delinquent friends, poor parent-child relationships, opportunities,
positive expectations, and decision-making skills deficit.

Delinquent friends
Having friends that are involved in this kind of behavior is referred by
juvenile offenders as one of the main reasons for getting into delinquency. This
topic was discussed in all focus groups and generally it was the first one brought up
to the discussion. Participants state that these friends, that they call “bad
companies” influence them to get involved. Some of them talk about peer pressure,
especially from the oldest over the youngest:

“We are all here because of the bad companies”

“We begin to steal because we saw the oldest stealing”
“Sometimes friends tell us: If we don’t steal is because you are a coward / are
afraid”
“Our oldest friends call us to join them for stealing”
“We steal to affirm ourselves in the group”

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408
400 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet

Poor parent-child relationships

Lack of attachment, attention and communication between parents and
child was pointed as an important reason for getting involved in delinquency.

“I hadn’t a father and a mother when I was born to give me love and
attention... and what leads us to risky behaviors is the fact that we don’t have
anyone to rely on when we need it the most, that is the 10-12 years old
period… we don’t have a mother, a father, a grandmother or a grandfather to
help us by that time, to relieve… I started like that... I started to be revolted...
to stay out late at night... stay with friends... spend the nights out of home”

Opportunities
Opportunities to steal were mentioned as an important reason to get into
delinquency. Nevertheless participants tell that many times opportunities don’t
come by chance . They result from an oriented, targeted search.

“When we see something that is just near our hand we steal it”
“We go for a ramble and when something appears…”
“Opportunities... it depends... I’m not gone risk myself for a 2 Euros thing…
but for a mobile phone that costs more then 500 Euros… I go for it”

Positive Expectations
Positive expectations were also a significant issue for delinquency.
According to participants, getting involved in this risk behavior has several positive
consequences, namely, obtaining goods and money, a “cool” image and fun.
Participants mentioned several products that are gained through delinquent acts,
specifically trade mark clothes and sport shoes, mobile phones, play stations TM
and computers. In what concerns image, participants mentioned that being involved
in delinquent acts gives them a rebel and tough image, which for them is a positive
one. Also, fun was referred as a reason to practice delinquent acts.

“We begin to steal to have trade mark clothes and sport shoes, play stations
TM, computers… our parents have difficulties to buy them and as we never had
them, we steal”.
“With the money we steal, we can go to the disco, invite boys and girls out…”
“We steal to show… to show to others that we are evil”
“I steal just for fun”.

Deficits in decision-making skills

Do things without thinking in what they are getting into and in its
outcomes is, accordingly to participants, another main reason to delinquency.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408
 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet 401

“Friends influence a lot, but only the ones who want to go, really go... the
problem is that we don’t think twice”.
“Only when I go the police office I think: Cursed hour! I should think it twice”.

Besides these main factors, other reasons were mentioned by the

participants (see Table 3). In what concerns individual factors, positive attitudes
towards delinquency (liking what they do and getting pleasure from these
activities), low risk perception (especially when they are younger and they know
that they won’t go to jail), substance use (they need money to buy drugs when),
leisure time (sometimes delinquent acts are just a way to spend their free time) and
sensation seeking (try new sensations) were also brought up to the discussion. In
what concerns family, features like the lack of parental supervision (over friends
and activities); lack of rules and delinquent parents were also mentioned.
Regarding the school context, low commitment and poor academic performance
were mentioned as risk factors for delinquency. Community factors, like poor and
unsafe neighborhoods and discrimination (especially because of unequal
socioeconomic status) were also brought up to discussion.

Table 3
Risk factors (categories and subcategories)

Category Subcategory
Individual Cognitive Positive expectations
Positive attitudes
Low risk perception
Decision-taking skills deficit
Behavior Substance use
Leisure time
Personality Sensation seeking
Family Relations Poor parent-child relationships
Lack of parental supervision
Lack of rules
Perceptions Delinquent parents
Peers Relations Delinquent friends
School Behavior Low commitment/poor academic
performance
Community Poor neighborhoods
Discrimination
Opportunities

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408
402 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet

Protective factors

Several features at different levels were also brought up as protective

factors against delinquency. Six features had a particular emphasis in the
discussion: non-delinquent friends, high-risk perception, socio-cognitive skills,
family communication, physical punishment and residential placement for juvenile
offenders.

Non-delinquent friends
Have friends that are not involved in delinquency was referred to as being
one of the most important protective factors. Friends especially the oldest ones,
give them advice to stay out of delinquency and emphasize the negative outcomes
of delinquency

“Some friends advise us, some others get us a job in order to stay out of this
bad life”.
“They told me several times not to steal, that I’ll end up in a residential
placement for juvenile offenders… and it was true”.
“We have in our neighborhood some friends that are very critical to this…”

High-risk perception

The knowledge of short term and long term delinquency’s negative

outcomes was found to be an important feature to prevent involvement with
delinquency.

“The ones that don’t steal have a better life”.

“I’m scared when I have the stolen things with me... scared of the proofs, the
fingertips”.
“… and when the police are close to me…”
“I can’t get involved in anything else… I will go immediately to prison. I have
two years of suspended punishment”.

Socio-cognitive skills
Some socio-cognitive skills, like self-control, saying no, or decision-
making competencies were mentioned as a protective factors against risk
behaviors.

“You need to have self-control to stay out of risk behaviors”.

“We must have our head on our shoulders and say no! No! No!”.
“If you think before acting you can avoid many things”.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408
 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet 403

Family communication
Communication between parents and adolescents is considered very
important to prevent risk behaviors. Participants had mentioned that it is important
that parents talk about delinquency outcomes and advices them to stay out of these
behaviors.

“Family tells us not to steal, not to make a mess, to keep us calm”.

“Family can give advices about risk behaviors”.

Physical punishment
Physical punishment was brought up to discussion by juvenile offenders
has a significant protective in family context for delinquency.

“Family can protect their children by slapping their face”.

“Parent can spank...”.

Residential placement for juvenile offenders

Being on a residential placement for juvenile offenders was mentioned as
an important protective factor for risk behaviors. Participants mentioned features
like freedom restrictions and acquiring new academic and life competencies, as
some of the positive aspects of this placement.

“When I get out of here I won’t get into anything else”.

“It’s better to be here than go to jail in the future”.
“You are here now but you still can be someone important,… a doctor…”

Besides these aspects, other features were mentioned by the participants as

potential protective factors for delinquency (see Table 4). In what concerns
individual factors, participants also stressed the impact of having a job; at a family
level, participants mentioned the importance of having restrictive rules along with
having support and warm family climate, especially on difficult moments; at school
level, good relations with teachers and school staff who simultaneously give them
advice and supervise them were also referred as important protective factors
against delinquency.

Table 4
Protective factors (categories and subcategories)

Category Subcategory
Individual Cognitive Risk perception
Socio-cognitive skills
Behavior Work
Family Relations Communication
Restrictive rules
Physical punishment

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408
404 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet

Support/affect
Peers Relations Non-delinquent friends
School Relations Teachers and school staff
Community Residential placement for juvenile offenders

DISCUSSION

The results of the qualitative study show that juvenile offenders have a
wide view of risk and protective factors associated to delinquency. Among the
several features related to delinquency, the most referred ones were interpersonal
(peers and family) and individual. Most of the aspects brought up by the
participants are referred in literature as important risk or protective factors
(Cloward & Ohlin, 1960; Farrington, 1995, 1998; Hill, 2002; Lahey et al., 1999;
Patterson, et al., 2000; Pleck, et al., 1994; Shoemaker, 1996; Walgrave, 1994).
Regarding risk factors, the influence of delinquent friends or parents, positive
expectations, namely of material goods or of a certain trendy image, substance use
or abuse, sensation seeking, decision making skills deficit and opportunities to
delinquency were discussed. Also poor family relationships, poor parenting
practices, such as lack of parental supervision and rules, as well as a low
commitment to school or neighborhood and wide social influences were stressed.
Regarding protective factors, participants highlighted the impact of non-delinquent
friends as people that can alert them to delinquency dangers, high-risk perception,
socio-cognitive skills, positive relations on school with teachers and school staff,
the impact of family support, communication and affection, but also physical
punishment. About this last topic, research show that this kind of strategy doesn’t
have the desired positive outcomes regarding adjustment and development
(Figueiredo, 1998; McWhirter, McWhirter, McWhirter, & McWhirter, 1998).
Studies also confirm that there is a tendency to replicate these strategies with the
next generations, and it seems that this revive of educational strategies is especially
true for negative parenting styles (Oliveira et al., 2002).

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

The results obtained in both studies point out to the importance of social
contexts, like family, peers and school, as the starting point for the involvement in
risk behaviors. It is important to prevent these problematic behaviors, given their
present and future negative consequences on adolescent lives. An early
intervention is especially important, because the ones that have an earlier onset of
delinquent behaviors have more chances to become chronic offenders (Loeber, et
al., 2003). It is important to pay attention to the first signs of disruptive behavior,
aggressiveness and interpersonal difficulties in the first years of life, namely in the
kindergarten. It is particularly important that the promotion of protective factors
through programs which aim to develop personal and social skills (Lipsey, 1995;
Matos, 2005; Matos, Simões, & Carvalhosa, 2000; Simões, 2000, 2005b, 2007).

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408
 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet 405

Since risk and protection factors are present in several life contexts, it is important
to promote, besides individual-centered interventions, actions that engage family,
peers and school, in order to reduce risk and trigger resources for support.

REFERENCES

Barbarin, O. A. (1999). Social risks and psychological adjustment: A comparison of

African American and south African children. Child Development, 70, 1348-1359.
Barkauskiene, R., & Bieliauskaite, R. (2002). [Behavioral and emotional problems of
children with learning disabilities]. Medicina (Kaunas), 38, 439-443.
Batista-Foguet, J. M., Fortiana, J., Currie, C., & Villalbi, J. (2004). Different approaches in
the construction of socioeconomical indexes: An Applied comparison using family
affluence scale. Social Indicator Research Journal, 67, 315-332.
Bentler, P. M. (in press). EQS 6 Structural Equations Program Manual. Encino, CA:
Multivariate Software (www.mvsoft.com).
Calderon, J. L., Baker, R. S., & Wolf, K. E. (2000). Focus groups: A qualitative method
complementing quantitative research for studying culturally diverse groups.
Education for Health, 13, 91-95.
Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and oportunity. New York: The Free
Press.
Daeater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1998). Multiple risk
factors in the development of externalizing behavior problem: Group and
individual differences. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.
Delles, J. (2001). Prevenção de delinquência em França: História e perspectiva. Paper
presented at the "1º Encontro Pensar e Agir. Prevenção da desviância juvenil:
Reflexões do interior do problema", Lisboa.
DiClemente, R. J., Hansen, W. B., & Ponton, L. E. (1996). Adolescents at risk: A
generation jeopardy. In R. J. DiClemente, W. B. Hansen, & L. E. Ponton (Eds.),
Handbook of Adolescent Health Risk Behavior (pp. 1-4). New York: Plenum
Press.
Dishion, T. J., Capaldi, D. M., & Yoerger, K. (1999). Middle childhood antecedents to
progressions in male adolescent substance use: An ecological analysis of risk and
protection. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 175-205.
Farrington, D. P. (1995). The development of offending and antisocial behaviour from
childhood: Key findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 36, 929-964.
Farrington, D. P. (1998). Youth crime and antisocial behaviour. In A. Campbell & S.
Muncer (Eds.). The Social Child (pp. 353-392). Hove, East Sussex: Psychology
Press.
Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (1999). Early conduct problems and later life
opportunities. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 1097-1108.
Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2002). Male and female offending trajectories.
Development and Psychopathology, 14, 159-177.
Figueiredo, B. (1998). Maus tratos à criança e ao adolescente (I): Situação e enquadramento
da problemática. Psicologia: Teoria, Investigação e Prática, 3, 5-20.
Frick, P. J., Bodin, S. D., & Barry, C. T. (2000). Psichopathic traits and conduct problems
in community and clinical-referred samples of children: Further development of
the psychopathy screening device. Psychological Assessment, 12, 382–393.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408
406 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet

Frick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Bodin, S. D., Dane, H. E., Barry, C. T., & Loney, B. R. (2003).
Callous-unemotional traits and developmental pathways to severe conduct
problems. Developmental Psychology, 39, 246–260.
Hill, J. (2002). Biological, psychological and social processes in the conduct disorders.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 133-164.
Huizinga, D., Loeber, R., Thornberry, T. P., & Cothern, L. (2000). Co-ocurrence of
delinquency and other problem behaviors Retrieved 21-04-2003, from
www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/182211.pdf
Igra, V., & Irwin, C. E., Jr. (1996). Theories of adolescent risk-taking behavior. In R. J.
DiClemente, W. B. Hansen & L. E. Ponton (Eds.). Handbook of Adolescent Health
Risk Behavior (pp. 35-51). New York: Plenum Press.
Kolip, P., & Schmidt, B. (1999). Gender and health in adolescence. Copenhagen: World
Health Organization.
Lahey, B. B., Gordon, R. A., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Farrington, D. P.
(1999). Boys who join gangs: A prospective study of predictors of first gang entry.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 261-276.
Lahey, B. B., Waldman, I. D., & McBurnett, K. (1999). The development of antisocial
behavior: An integrative causal model. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 40, 669-682.
Lambert, M., Hublet, A., Verduyckt, P., Maes, L., & Van den Broucke, S. (2002). Report
on the project: Gender differences in smoking in young people. Brussels: Flemish
Institute for Health Promotion.
Le Blanc, M. (2003). Trajectórias de delinquência comum, transitória e persistente: Uma
estratégia de prevenção diferencial. In I. Alberto, A. C. Fonseca, C. P.
Albuquerque, A. G. Ferreira & J. Rebelo (Eds.). Comportamento anti-social:
Escola e família (pp. 31-81). Coimbra: Centro de Psicopedagogia da Universidade
de Coimbra.
Lipsey, M. W. (1995). Que concluímos nós de 400 estudos de investigação sobre a eficácia
do tratamento com jovens delinquentes? Infância e Juventude, 3, 11-31.
Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., & Petechuck, D. (2003). Child delinquency: Early
intervention and prevention. Child Delinquency (May), 3-19.
Matos, M. G. (2005). Comunicação e gestão de conflitos e saúde na escola. Lisboa:
CDI/FMH.
Matos, M. G., Battistutta, D., Simões, C., Carvalhosa, S. F., Dias, S., & Gonçalves, A.
(2003). Conhecimentos e atitudes sobre o VIH/SIDA em adolescentes
portugueses. Psicologia, Saúde e Doenças, 4, 3-20.
Matos, M. G., & Simões, C. (2003). La delinquenza giovanile. Aspetti relativi al
trattamento. In D. Sacchi (Ed.), Apprendisti adulti. Interventi di prevenzione e
terapia con gli adolescenti (pp. 235-252). Milano: McGraw-Hill.
Matos, M. G., Simões, C., & Carvalhosa, S. F. (2000). Desenvolvimento de competências
de vida na prevenção do desajustamento social. Lisboa: IRS /MJ.
McBurnett, K., Naguib, S., & Brown, K. (2000). Substratos biológicos dos distúrbios do
comportamento (DC) e do comportamento anti-social em crianças e adolescentes.
Revista Portuguesa de Pedagogia, XXXIV, 37-64.
McWhirter, J. J., McWhirter, B. T., McWhirter, A. M., & McWhirter, E. H. (1998). At-risk
youth: A comprehensive response (2nd Ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole
Publishing Company.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408
 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet 407

Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent
and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females.
Development and Psychopathology, 13, 355-375.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Harrington, H., & Milne, B. J. (2002). Males on the life-course-
persistent and adolescent-limits antisocial pathways: Follow-up at age 26 years.
Development and Psychopathology, 14, 179-207.
O'Connor, T. G., Neiderhiser, J. M., Reiss, D., Hetherington, E. M., & Plomin, R. (1998).
Genetic contributions to continuity, change, and co-ocurrence of antisocial and
depressive symptoms in adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
39, 323-336.
Oliveira, E. A., Marin, A. H., Pires, F. B., Frizzo, G. B., Ravanello, T., & Rossato, C.
(2002). Estilos Parentais Autoritário e Democrático-Recíproco Intergeracionais,
Conflito Conjugal e Comportamentos de Externalização e Internalização.
Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 15, 1-11.
Patterson, G., Debaryshe, B., & Ramsey, E. (2000). Developmental perspective on
antisocial behavior. In W. Craig (Ed.), Childhood social development: The
essencial readings. Malden: Blackwell.
Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1994). Problem behaviors and masculinity
ideology in adolescent males. In R. D. Ketterlinus & M. E. Lamb (Eds.),
Adolescent problem behaviors: Issues and research (pp. 165-186). New Jersey:
Laurance Erlbaum Associates.
Roemer, M. I. (1991). National health systems of the world. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Shoemaker, D. J. (1996). Theories of delinquency: An examination of explanations of
delinquent behavior (3rd Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Simões, C. (2000). Adolescência, saúde e comportamento desviante. In M. G. Matos, C.
Simões & S. F. Carvalhosa (Eds.), Desenvolvimento de competências de vida na
prevenção do desajustamento social (pp. 109-119). Lisboa: IRS /MJ.
Simões, C. (2005a). Comportamentos de risco na adolescência: Estudo dos factores
aliados ao risco e à protecção na saúde em jovens em idade escolar em função
dos diferentes cenários relevantes do seu quotidiano e do seu percurso de
desajustamento social. Tese de Doutoramento (não publicada). Universidade
Técnica de Lisboa, Lisboa.
Simões, C. (2005b). Resiliência, Saúde e Desenvolvimento. In M. G. Matos (Ed.),
Comunicação e gestão de conflitos e saúde na escola. Lisboa: CDI/FMH.
Simões, C. (2007). Comportamentos de risco na adolescência. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste
Gulbenkian / Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia.
Simões, C., Batista-Foguet, J. M., Matos, M. G., & Calmeiro, L. (2008). Alcohol use and
abuse in adolescence: proposal of an alternative analysis. Child: Care, Health and
Development, 34, 291-301.
Teplin, L. A., Abram, K. M., McClelland, G. M., Dulcan, M. K., & Mericle, A. A. (2002).
Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 59, 1133-1143.
Thornberry, T. P., Ireland, T. O., & Smith, C. A. (2001). The importance of timing: The
varying impact of childhood and adolescent maltreatment on multiple problem
outcomes. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 957-979.
Tiêt, Q. Q., & Huizinga, D. (2002). Dimensions of the construct of resilience and
adaptation among inner-city youth. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 260-276.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408
 408 C. Simões, M. G. Matos, J. M. Batista-Foguet

Udry, J. R. (1994). Integrating biological and sociological models of adolescent problem

behaviors. In R. D. Ketterlinus & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Adolescent problem
behaviors: Issues and research (pp. 41-56). New Jersey: Laurance Erlbaum
Associates.
União Europeia (2001). A justiça de menores na Europa: Conclusões do seminário da
presidência francesa da União Europeia (Outubro de 2000), Conclusões de Paris.
Infância e Juventude, 1, 9-20.
Vieira, A. (1999). Comportamento delinquente na adolescência: Influência social e
identidade social. Unpublished Manuscrito não publicado, Instituto Superior de
Ciências do Trabalho e da Empresa, Lisboa.
Walgrave, L. (1994). Prevenção criminológica na cidade: Para uma prevenção do crime que
seja realmente prevenção criminológica. Infância e Juventude, 4, 33-83.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (2001). Journeys from childhood to midlife: Risk, resilience
and recovery. New York: Cornell University Press.

Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal

12 (2008) 389-408

View publication stats