Modifiable determinants of youth violence in Australia and the United States: a longitudinal study.

• Jurisdiction: Australia
• Author: Hemphill, Sheryl A.
• Date: 01 December 2009

Youth violence is a global problem. Few studies have examined whrther the prevalence or predictors of youth violence are similar in comparable Western countries like Australia and the United States (US). In the current article, analyses are conducted using two waves of data collected as part of a longitudinal study of adolescent development in approximately 4,000 students aged 12 to 16 years in Victoria, Australia and Washington State, US. Students completed a self-report survey of problem behaviours including violent behaviour, as well as risk and protective factors across five domains (individual, family, peer, school, community). Compared to Washington State, rates of attacking or beating another over the past 12 months were lower in Victoria for females in the first survey and higher for Victorian males in the follow-up survey. Preliminary analyses did not show state-specific predictors of violent behaviour. In the final multivariate analyses of the combined Washington State and Victorian samples, protective factors were being female and student emotion control. Risk factors were prior violent behaviour, family conflict, association with violent peers, community disorganisation, community norms favourable to drug use, school suspensions and arrests. Given the similarity of influential factors in North America and Australia, application of US early intervention and prevention programs may be warranted, with some tailoring to the Australian context.

Keywords: youth violence, risk and protective factors, adolescents, longitudinal study, cross-national study

**********

Youth violence is a global problem that is costly to societies around the world (Herrenkohl et al., 2000; Rutherford, Zwi, Grove, & Butchart, 2007; World Health Organization, 2002). Costs of violence stem from harm caused to victims (e.g., medical expenses, absence from school or work, psychological harm) as well as policing and criminal justice responses and perceived safety in the community (World Health Organization, 2002, 2004). There is an upsurge in the rates of violence as young people leave childhood and enter adolescence (Elliott, 1994; Farrington et al., 1990). Understanding how youth violence develops is crucial for effective prevention and early intervention. To date, much of the longitudinal research on the factors that influence the development of youth violence has been conducted in the United States. This research sets a strong foundation, yet it is important to broaden the research focus to include other countries to examine universal and context-specific influences. This study compares the predictors of youth violence in an Australian state (Victoria) and the US state of Washington.

International Comparisons of Adolescent Violent Behaviour

The majority of studies on both the development of violent behaviour and evidence-based approaches to the prevention of violent behaviour have been conducted in North America. Examining the similarities and differences in the development of violent behaviour across North America and other countries may therefore have important implications for applicability of prevention approaches around the world. International comparative studies are also essential to distinguish between universal and context-specific influences on behaviour across countries and cultures (Jessor et al., 2003; Unger et al., 2002). Cross-national studies of adolescence can make significant contributions to the field (Hosman & Clayton, 2000) because comparisons identify similarities and differences in levels of adolescent behaviours (Denny, Clark, & Watson, 2003) and allow investigation of underlying factors that explain differences in prevalence. Nations with differing cultural and political environments are of substantial research interest.

In general, previous international comparison studies of problem behaviour have relied on opportunistic use of existing datasets. In one example, Pirkis, Irwin, Brindis, Patton, and Sawyer (2003) compared substance use data from 14- to 17-year-olds in the 1999 US Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the 1998 US National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, and the 1998 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing Australia. The findings varied depending on the US dataset used, with Australian adolescents either less likely to report smoking cigarettes, drinking, and using marijuana, or to report no differences from their American counterparts. Based on these discrepancies, Pirkis et al. (2003) concluded that future international collaborations should focus on consistency of methods, including the use of surveys that are identical in design and implementation.

For adolescent antisocial behaviour, including violence, there are few well-designed international comparisons; some previous studies show similarities in rates of antisocial behaviour and related behaviours and others report differences (Bond, Thomas, Toumbourou, Patton, & Catalano, 2000; Junger-Tas, Terlouw, & Klein, 1994; Rutter, Giller, & Hagell, 1998; Smith-Khuri et al., 2004; Vazsonyi, Trejos-Castillo, & Huang, 2007). Recent studies using matched recruitment and data collection and data management methods show that, in general, rates of youth violence are similar in Australia and the United States (Hemphill et al., 2007; McMorris, Hemphill, Toumbourou, Catalano, & Patton, 2007), although there are country differences in individual violent behaviours. For example, more Victorian than Washington State Grade 5 boys report that they have attacked someone to seriously hurt them, whereas more Washington State Grade 7 boys have carried a hand gun (Hemphill et al., 2007; McMorris et al., 2007).

In relation to the predictors of violent behaviour, studies from North America, the United Kingdom and New Zealand show similarities across a broad range of influences (within the young person, and his/her family, peer group, school and community) (Hawkins et al., 2000). Junger-Tas, Marshall, and Ribeaud (2003) found that relationships with parents were related to serious delinquency and to drug use in Anglo-Saxon, Southern European and Northwest European countries. However, some differences in the importance of specific predictors have also been found. For example, Junger-Tas et al. (2003) noted that father absence was closely associated with delinquent behaviour in Anglo-Saxon and Southern European countries but not in Northwest Europe.

Theoretical Models of the Development of Violent and Related Behaviours

A common approach to studying the development of violent behaviour is to examine the impact of risk and protective factors on behaviour. Risk factors are prospective predictors that increase the likelihood that an individual or group will engage in adverse outcomes (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992; National Crime Prevention, 1999). Protective factors both directly decrease the likelihood of antisocial behaviour (Jessor, Turbin, & Costa, 1998; Jessor, Van Den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa, & Turbin, 1995) and mediate or moderate the influence of risk factors (Garmezy, 1985; Rutter, 1985).

The theory informing the research presented in this article is the social development model (SDM) (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996). Consistent with ecological perspectives, the SDM organises risk and protective factors according to their influence in different developmental settings including communities, families, schools, peer groups and within individuals (Hawkins et al., 1992). The SDM integrates the main features of social control, social learning and differential association theories of crime and delinquency and postulates that antisocial behaviour (including violent behaviour) originates with unhealthy beliefs and unclear standards, as well as bonds of attachment to deviant peers and others involved in antisocial behaviour (e.g., family members and/or neighbours). Whether behaviour is antisocial (e.g., violent) or prosocial depends on the preponderance of perceived prosocial or antisocial opportunities, involvements, and perceived rewards.

The SDM and other ecological theories emphasise the importance of a wide range of social and contextual influences. Community risk factors include legal and normative expectations for behaviour and indicators of neighbourhood disorganisation. Family conflict and family history of antisocial behaviour are exemplars of family-level risk factors. Within the school setting, academic failure and low commitment are influential. Individual and peer factors include lack of impulse control, association with antisocial peers and early involvement in problem behaviour (Hawkins et al., 1998; Herrenkohl et al., 2000; Vassallo et al., 2002). Protective factors at the family, school and community levels include opportunities to engage in prosocial activities and recognition for prosocial involvement, attachment to prosocial others and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behaviour (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996).

According to the SDM, community and family characteristics such as low socioeconomic status (SES) are social structural influences on external constraints (informal and formal social controls) and on perceived prosocial and antisocial opportunities. Low SES is recognised as an important influence on the development of violent behaviour (Toumbourou et al., 2007). The SDM also identifies the role of exogenous variables in the form of constitutional/biological factors in processes of socialisation resulting in violence and related behaviours (Hawkins & Weis, 1985; Laundra, Kiger, & Bahr, 2002).

How society responds to problem behaviour (e.g., school suspensions, arrests) is also an important consideration that can influence the risk of violence among youth (Hemphill, Toumbourou, Herrenkohl, McMorris, & Catalano, 2006). For young people to learn that certain behaviours are not acceptable, the community needs to inform them when their behaviour is inappropriate and provide consequences that discourage them from engaging in such...