The Interplay of Prosocial and Conduct Problem Behaviour: Implications for Developmental and Life-Course Criminology.

Abstract

This thesis explored prosocial behaviour from a developmental and life-course perspective. In doing so, I fill two gaps in understanding in the role of prosocial behaviour in the deceleration of conduct problem behaviour. First, I explore how a developmental and life-course understanding of prosocial behaviour may shed light on whether prosocial behaviour is a facilitator or measurable outcome of the deceleration of conduct problem behaviour. Second, I explore how the social support perceptions of adolescents are related to their prosocial and conduct problem behaviour. Addressing a gap in knowledge on whether prosocial and conduct problem behaviour are driven by the same underlying factors. Ultimately, this thesis answers the overarching question––why should developmental and life course criminologists explore prosocial behaviour? I explored this question through three studies that provide insight into the interplay of prosocial and conduct problem behaviour. The data for each of the three studies in my thesis were from the scales and sub-scales that form a part of the Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) questionnaires (N= 4969; Female: 2447; Males: 2536). The participants were aged four to fifteen. In study one, I explored the implications of different analytic approaches to empirically examining prosocial behaviour within a developmental and life-course criminology perspective. To meet the aim of this research a group based-trajectory model and a growth curve model of prosocial behaviour were estimated and compared. I examined the development of prosocial behaviour, by applying the two conventional approaches to empirically studying the development of antisocial behaviour. The findings of this research provide insight into where investigations of prosocial behaviour may conceptually fit within the developmental and lifecourse perspective. Also allowing for a deeper assessment of how different analytic approaches impact on the developmental and life-course understanding of prosocial behaviour development. The results of study one indicated, that for this sample of children and adolescents, the developmental trajectory of prosocial behaviour (from age 4 – 15 years), may best be described as a single trajectory with variations around this trajectory. Conceptually, this positions prosocial behaviour development outside the realm of categorical explanations of behavioural development. The results did indicate that the development of prosocial behaviour is relatively stable with many children and adolescents maintaining their rank-ordering. Moreover, there was also evidence for more than three distinguishable trajectories of prosocial behaviour. Most of these trajectories, however, did not vary in shape and there was an absence of a distinct group of children and adolescents who were very low in prosocial behaviour. Thus, these findings suggest that the development of prosocial behaviour is a complex process that may not be captured taxonomically. In this sense the findings support the notion that there is a link between age-graded factors, such as socio-cognitive maturity, and prosocial behaviour, but that these associated factors drive variation around a single, normative developmental pattern of prosocial behaviour. In study two, I expanded on the findings in study one by exploring how changes in prosocial behaviour and conduct problems are causally related over time. These investigations contribute to developmental and life-course criminology theory, an understanding of the role of prosocial behaviour in the deceleration of conduct problem behaviour. Many studies have explored the relationship between prosocial behaviour and conduct problems, however, very few studies, consider the longitudinal and causal direction of this relationship. Without a thorough understanding of the longitudinal and causal relationship between prosocial behaviour and conduct problems, it cannot be assumed that interventions that aim to foster prosocial behaviour will also decrease conduct problems. The aims of study two were met by exploring a generalised cross-lagged panel model. This approach controls for fixed and occasion effects to allow for examination of short-term and long-term bi-directional patterns of change. The results indicated that whilst prosocial and conduct problems have a moderate amount of shared variance, there were differences in the bidirectional relationships of these behaviours. Specifically, there were only cumulative, longterm effects of prosocial behaviour change on conduct problems. These findings revealed no short-term predictive effect of conduct problems in one time period on prosocial behaviour in the next time period. There was, however, a short-term predictive relationship of prosocial behaviour in one time period on conduct problems in the next period. Specifically, higher prosocial behaviour in one time period predicted lower conduct problem behaviour in the next period. Despite the lack of a short-term predictive effect of conduct problems on prosocial behaviour, cumulative changes in conduct problems, were strong enough to influence reductions in prosocial behaviour over time. This pattern also held for the long-term impact of prosocial behaviour on conduct problems. These findings suggest that although conduct problems may have a cumulative negative impact on prosocial behaviour, the strength of the short and longterm influence of prosocial behaviour on conduct problem behaviour may be enough to overcome this long-term impact. The first two studies in my thesis revealed important insights into the general development of prosocial behaviour and how prosocial behaviour may influence and be influenced by conduct problems. In study three, I explored how the social support perceptions of early adolescents relate to both prosocial and conduct problem behavioural outcomes. These investigations are important as previous research provides some evidence to suggest that social support may be leveraged for strength-based interventions that both increase prosocial behaviour and decrease conduct problem behaviour. Other findings also indicate, however, that relative to adolescents who engage in prosocial behaviour, social support interventions may not be successful for adolescents who also engage in conduct problem behaviour, as they are less likely to perceive social support in their important contexts. To meet the aims of study three, I explored a multivariate multiple regression to account for any covariation between prosocial behaviour and conduct problems and provide a comparison of how the social support perceptions of early adolescents may differently predict their prosocial and conduct problem behaviour. The findings of these explorations, indicated that adolescents’ perceptions of social support from their mothers predicted conduct problems and prosocial behaviour, as did perceived support within the school environment. There was no significant association between adolescents’ perceptions of peer social support and either their prosocial or conduct problem behaviour. Adolescents’ perceptions of peer social support, however, did moderate the relationship between adolescents’ perceptions of social support from caring adults in their school and their prosocial behaviour. Adolescents who perceived high levels of support from caring adults in their school environment also reported low levels of peer support, but this corresponded to high levels of prosocial behaviour. Overall, I contribute to a developmental and life-course criminology understanding of the interplay of prosocial behaviour and conduct problems. I found that there was variability in the development of prosocial behaviour over time. This variability may be captured by a theoretical framework, such as Loeber’s developmental pathways theory, that explores the sequencing of the behaviour of children and adolescents. My finding that prosocial behaviour may facilitate the deceleration of conduct problem behaviour also provides empirical evidence for Loeber’s development pathways theory. Further, my results have practical implications, expanding on the existing evidence that guides strength-based developmental crime prevention approaches. The strengthening of social support provided to adolescents by their mothers and caring adults in the school environment may foster the deceleration of conduct problem behaviour. Future research should focus on extending the understanding of how prosocial behaviour may relate to specific types of conduct problem behaviour and other factors that may both increase prosocial behaviour and decrease conduct problem behaviour (e.g., personality). Developmental and life-course criminologists already have a comprehensive framework for understanding the development of conduct problem behaviour. My thesis contributes an understanding prosocial behaviour from this perspective. Thus, not only should developmental and life-course criminologists explore prosocial behaviour, they are well placed to do so.