Protective Factors for Nonviolence Research Paper

Prospective longitudinal studies have revealed well-replicated causes and risks for such a development (Loeber and Farrington 1998; Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber 1998). However, even the best predictions explain only a moderate amount of variance. Many children who are exposed to high risk do not develop serious aggressive behavior. Others who seem to enter the early-starting pathway leave it again after some time. Although these processes of abstinence and desistance are very important for explanation and prevention, far less research has been directed toward the issue of nonviolence in high-risk youngsters than vice versa (Losel and Bender 2001). These studies are part of the more general research on resilience, that is a process of positive adaptation in spite of significant adversity (Luthar et al. 2000). However, research in this field is subject to various conceptual and methodological problems.

1. Conceptual And Methodological Issues

Major problems are the definition and operationalization of risk, the ambiguity of protective factors, and the multidimensionality of behavioral outcomes. Resilience is not a static personality characteristic. The positive outcome of nonviolence may vary over time and developmental circumstances depending on the presence or absence of risk and protective factors. However, these risk and protective factors are not different classes of variables but often the negative vs. positive pole of the same variable (e.g., low vs. good intelligence). Risk can be defined by objective variables (e.g., low SES) or subjective indicators (e.g., violence prone attitudes). In the latter case, protective mechanisms may be partially confounded with both risk and behavioral outcome. Similarly important is the degree of risk; without a substantial risk, a good outcome may be misinterpreted as a result of a protective mechanism. In contrast, the more risks are present, the less variance is left over for protective effects.

Protective factors are variables that differ between groups of comparable high risk who show positive vs. negative behavioral outcome (Rutter 1985). A good example of research is the Kauai Study that investigated resilient and deviant children from early childhood to adulthood (Werner and Smith 1992). Other authors suggest that a factor should be labeled protective only if it reduces the problem behavior when risk is high but has no impact when risk is low (Stattin et al. 1997). In both concepts, the search for protective mechanisms refers to interaction effects (for other methodological concepts, see Luthar et al. 2000; Masten et al. 1990). However, the theoretical interpretation of such effects may be difficult when multiple risks or protective variables are combined. This is often the case because single variables show only small correlations with later violence.

Given a specific risk constellation, even the same pole of a variable may have both risk and protective effects depending on the kind of outcome. For example, shyness in childhood may be a protective factor against violence but be a risk for anxiety and depression. Therefore, risk and protective factors should not be conceptualized too broadly, but it must always be asked: ‘risk for and protection against what type of problem behavior?’ Sometimes, a positive behavioral outcome is defined not only by the absence of psychopathology but also by indicators of particularly good adaptation and competence. In the present paper, positive outcome is defined by the absence of violence or other serious offending in spite of various risk constellations. This contains both processes of general abstinence and desistance after a period of violence.

2. Examples Of Protective Mechanisms

The development of persistently antisocial behavior can be conceptualized as the outcome of a chain reaction of multilevel, biopsychosocial influences from childhood to adolescence (see Fig. 1).

The relations do not represent a necessary causal sequence, and most of the constructs reveal only low correlations with each other. Although the cumulation of factors increases the probability of violence, even multiple risks may not lead to serious problem behavior when one or more links in the chain are ‘broken’ because of positive personal or social resources. The following factors may exert such a protective function.

2.1 Biological Factors

Biological risks for aggressive behavior have been found on various levels, for example: behavior genetics, autonomic underarousal, functional deficits in the prefrontal brain, hormonal influences such as high testosterone, neurotransmitter processes, prenatal factors such as maternal smoking, or perinatal complications (Raine et al. 1997). However, we can rarely assume simple causal relationships. Complex interactions between biological and social factors seem to be more the rule than an exception. For example, low heart rate level (HRL) is primarily a risk for aggression in children from relatively normal family backgrounds. Pregnancy and birth complications are particularly related to violence when combined with maternal rejection, low SES, or family instability.

Similarly, biological variables can contribute to protective mechanisms in the context of given social risks. For example, autonomic arousal as indicated by high HRL or enhanced skin conductance (SC) reduce the risk of criminality for males with a criminal father, for boys from a low SES background, or for boys from families with poor parent–child relationships. It was also found that boys who desisted from antisocial behavior had a higher HRL, higher SC arousal, and better SC conditioning than persistent criminals. These results can be interpreted within neuropsychological theories on imbalances between the behavior activation and inhibition system or on prefrontal dysfunctions in aggressive individuals. Perhaps, the stress hormone cortisol may have a similar inhibiting effect on both the testosterone level and aggressive behavior. Enhanced salivary cortisol accompanies shyness, anxiety, depression, and high arousal in some studies. Thus, biological protective mechanisms may reflect an inhibited temperament that is associated with a reduced risk of antisociality. However, there are also comorbidities between externalizing and internalizing problems and specific forms of over controlled aggression.

2.2 Temperament Characteristics

Impulsivity, hyperactivity, negative emotionality (neuroticism), sensation seeking, and risk taking are personality dispositions for violence. These and related characteristics describe a child with a ‘difficult’ temperament. In contrast, an ‘easy’ temperament seems to have a protective function (e.g., Werner and Smith 1982). Children who did not develop aggressive and other antisocial behavior in spite of social and individual risks had advantageous dispositions such as positive mood, low impulsivity, flexibility in adaptation, sociability, and regularity of biological functions. According to Moffitt et al. (1996), boys who behaved untypically well in both childhood and adolescence showed the least difficult temperament at ages 3 and 5 years. However, positive temperament traits should not be interpreted as innate and stable resiliency because those boys who recovered from early antisocial behavior improved in temperament.

Children with a difficult temperament are also more frequently victims of parental hostility, neglect, and physical abuse. This, in turn, increases the risk of later aggressive behavior. In contrast, an easy temperament may reduce or avoid such negative family influences. The child’s personality can also help them to cope successfully with unfavorable social experiences. Both perspectives are suggested by studies on disadvantaged and maltreated children. For example, Cicchetti and Rogosch (1997) used Block’s personality concepts of ego over-control (e.g., rigid impulse containment), undercontrol (e.g., impulsivity), and ego resiliency (dynamic capacity to modify the level of ego control according to environmental demands). These authors found that maltreated children who were more ego resilient or more over-controlled adapted better and were less a target of continued abuse. However, inhibited children may sometimes ‘pay the price’ for better protection against aggressive behavior by exposure to a higher risk for internalizing problems.

2.3 Cognitive Competencies

Whereas low intelligence is a risk factor for persistently violent and delinquent behavior, above-average or high intelligence can have a protective function (Werner and Smith 1982). This is both a main effect and a buffer against risks such as a criminal father, a multiproblem milieu, or earlier problem behavior. A protective effect of cognitive competencies is in line with theories on deficits in neuropsychological functioning, social information processing, and self-control in aggressive youngsters. Intelligent children are more able to plan their behavior, anticipate consequences, solve conflicts verbally, and develop alternatives to aggressive reactions (Rutter et al. 1998). Probably, it is not primarily general intellectual capacity but more competencies in planning, communication, and interpersonal problem solving that help to cope with social risks of antisocial behavior.

Individuals with good cognitive competencies may not only avoid aggression in concrete situations but also experience more positive reactions in a variety of social contexts. Thus they are able to construct a more favorable environment. For example, high-risk individuals who planned their lives more carefully had better school experiences and chose better partners than others from similar backgrounds (Quinton et al. 1993).

2.4 Childrearing And Attachment

Parenting behaviors such as aggression, rejection, inconsistency, or laxness are well-replicated risk factors for serious and violent offending in youngsters. In contrast, parental involvement, positive emotionality, firm supervision, as well as good and reflective communication may help children to adapt relatively well in spite of risk factors for antisocial development (Stouthamer-Loeber et al. 1993, Werner and Smith 1992). Safety and stability in the family also seem to moderate negative environmental influences such as neighborhood violence (Richters and Martinez 1993). However, results on interactions between family variables and community violence are mixed.

On the one hand, protective functions of parenting behavior operate through reinforcement and the modeling of nonaggressive behavior. On the other hand, emotionally responsive and supporting parental behavior increases the probability of secure attachment as an internal working model for the future. Attachment to a competent caregiver promotes a structured, predictable, and regulated environment that is relevant for general neuronal functioning and the regulation of aggressive behavior. Although there is some controversy about the stability and generality of attachment types, secure bonding proves to be a protective factor against various risks for behavioral problems. These include, for example, family conflicts, child abuse, multiple life burdens, a mentally ill parent, parental divorce, or a deprived lower-class milieu (Losel and Bender 2001).

Protective functions of an emotionally positive and accepting as well as norm-oriented and adequately demanding upbringing are not restricted to the family context. Such an ‘authoritative’ climate in school or in residential care institutions can also have a positive effect on children at risk for aggression (Losel and Bliesener 1994). This is important because these youngsters often come from families in which protective childrearing features are lacking.

2.5 School Achievement And Bonding

Low academic achievement and deficits in school bonding are replicated predictors of violent offending (Hawkins et al. 1998). It is not clear how far school problems reflect a cause, an effect, or merely a correlate of antisocial behavior. However, academic achievement and good school bonding can have a protective function when risks for anti-sociality are present. Prospective studies have shown that success at school, regular attendance, achievement orientation, parental interest in a school career, and higher education are related to nonviolence or a recovery from antisocial behavior in childhood (Moffitt et al. 1996, Werner and Smith 1992). Good school achievement and school bonding still seem to exercise a protective function against antisocial behavior beyond the effects of intelligence.

Positive experiences in school are a source of self-affirmation that helps to compensate for negative experiences in the family. A good school career is also an indicator for bonds to society and increases the chance for nondeviant opportunities in life. Similar effects are found for good work behavior, motivation for vocational improvement, and job stability. Such characteristics lead to positive turning points of previous delinquents in late adolescence or young adulthood (Sampson and Laub 1993).

2.6 Peer Groups And Social Networks

Resilience research suggests that social support and involvement in social networks have a protective effect against various emotional and behavioral problems. However, in the case of aggressive behavior, this general relation needs to be differentiated. Whereas support from nondeviant family members, relatives, teachers, educators, or friends may function in a protective way (Werner and Smith 1992), belonging to a delinquent peer group is a strong predictor of violent offending and gang membership (Thornberry 1998).

Whether the peer network has a risk or a protective effect depends on the characteristics of the individuals involved. Having nondelinquent peers protects against the onset or persistence of antisocial behavior, whereas delinquent friends promote the opposite (StouthamerLoeber et al. 1993, Moffitt et al. 1996). Because individuals join groups according to their own interests and attitudes, deviant peers may be both a precursor and a result of one’s own antisociality. Children with early onset, undersocialized-aggressive behavior seem to be rejected by ‘normal’ youngsters and thus more likely to join groups with antisocial problems.

How far the peer group exerts long-term positive or negative influences on the development of antisocial behavior depends not least on the quality of relations to family and school. Satisfaction with the social network also seems to play a role. Both antisocial and nondeviant adolescents continue in their respective behavior when they are satisfied with their network (Bender and Losel 1997). However, not being embedded in a social network has a protective effect for those with previous antisociality, but a risk effect for those who were nondeviant before. Similarly, heterosexual relations may have a risk or a protective effect depending on the individual age, gender, and social context.

2.7 Self-Related And Social Cognitions

The literature on resilience emphasizes a positive self-concept and self-efficacy as a relatively general and strong protective factor. Although this view is supported partially by results on aggressive behavior (e.g., Werner and Smith 1992), self-esteem plays a more ambiguous role in this field. Subgroups of violent individuals do not have a negative but an inflated self-esteem (Baumeister et al. 1996). This is not just the case in adult psychopaths. Already aggressive children have more idealized ratings of their own competence and relationship quality than nonaggressive children. Such youngsters may show aggression more readily in response to perceived negative feedback from others. Idealized and defensive self-schemata contribute to forms of social information processing that trigger and reinforce aggressive behavior (e.g., hostility bias, egocentric goal setting, positive evaluation of aggressive reactions (Crick and Dodge 1994).

That specific self-related and social cognitions have a protective effect against aggressive behavior is supported by findings on offender treatment. Here, cognitive–behavioral approaches show particularly positive results. Such programs address social perception, self-critical thinking, anger management, social perspective taking, victim awareness, creative thinking, interpersonal problem solving, social skills and attitudes. Ethical and religious beliefs can also have a protective function against antisocial behavior.

2.8 Neighborhood And Community Factors

Although it is methodologically difficult to separate individual and family characteristics from neighborhood and community characteristics, the latter seem to harbor a specific risk for antisocial behavior. In analogy to this, the protective model assumes that positive features of the broader social context, such as low poverty, low violence, low unemployment, many intact families, and high cohesion, may buffer negative influences on the individual and microsocial level. For example, Kupersmidt et al. (1995) found no main effect of neighborhood factors, such as income, ethnicity, and family structure, on childhood aggression. However, there were various interactions suggesting that the same neighborhood may be protective for one family type while functioning as a risk or neutral factor for others. Middle-class neighborhoods, for example, had a protective effect only on the aggressive behavior of black children from low-income, singleparent homes. Wikstrom and Loeber (2000) only found a negative effect for disadvantaged neigborhoods on older children with low individual or family risks.

Neighborhoods with low violence may have a protective effect because they provide fewer negative role models and reinforcements for aggressive behavior (Thornberry 1998). However, subjective experiences of the local climate have also to be considered. For example, Seidman et al. (1998) reported more adolescent antisocial behavior in neighborhoods with moderate poverty and violence than in neighborhoods that ranked high on such structural features. This relation held primarily for middle (not young) adolescents who perceived their neighborhoods as more hassling and less cohesive. There was also a subgroup with low antisociality who experienced themselves as disconnected to their neighborhood. This may indicate a protective effect of the family’s actively reduced involvement in a disadvantaged and violent neighborhood.

2.9 Conclusions And Perspectives

Research on protective factors and mechanisms is not the counterpart of traditional risk research but an integrated part of differentiated explanations of the natural history of violent and nonviolent behavior. Protective functions against violence and other serious antisocial behavior may emerge on and between biological, psychological, and social levels at various ages. Although relatively few studies are designed specifically to detect protective mechanisms against violence, the following factors seem to contribute to nonviolence in spite of serious risks:

(a) Genetic dispositions and high autonomic arousal

(b) An easy or inhibited temperament

(c) Personality dispositions of ego resiliency

(d) Above-average intelligence and good planning

(e) Emotionally secure bonds to the mother or other caregivers in or outside the family

(f) Affiliation to nonaggressive peers and (for specific risk groups) some social isolation

(g) Supportive relations to nondeviant friends or heterosexual partners

(h) Warmth, consistency, and supervision in child- rearing in the family, at school, or in other institutions

(i) Adult role models of prosocial behavior and resilience under difficult developmental circumstances

(j) Bonding to school and experiences of success at school

(k) Vocational achievement and employment stability

(l) Experiences of self-efficacy in nonaggressive activities and a good but not inflated self-esteem

(m) Cognitive schemata, beliefs, and information processing that are not aggression-prone

(n) Experiences of meaning and structure in one’s life

(o) Neighborhoods that do not concentrate too many high-risk families, are nonviolent, and socially integrated in a nondeviant mode.

Probably, none of these factors are protective under all kinds and degrees of risk. Some counteract violence only under specific circumstances. The protective function of others may depend on their dosage, age periods, gender, or co-occurrence with other individual or social resources. More research is needed to understand the interaction of various levels of risk and protection.

Further levels of influence need also to be integrated. For example, low exposure to violence in the media, effective fire-arm control, and generally low violence in the society may function in a protective mode. Target hardening, victim assertiveness, informal neighborhood control, and other forms of situational crime prevention can also counteract the behavioral manifestation of dispositions to aggressiveness.

Last but not least, it is necessary to integrate experimental research on prevention and intervention more strongly with the correlational-longitudinal research on protective factors (Farrington and Coid 2001). Although successful programs seem to address similar factors as those that are protective in the natural environment, there is not yet much exchange between the two areas of research.

Bibliography:

1. Baumeister R F, Smart L, Boden J M 1996 Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: the dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin 103: 5–33
2. Bender D, Losel F 1997 Protective and risk effects of peer relations and social support on antisocial behaviour in adolescents from multi-problem milieus. Journal of Adolescence 20: 661–78
3. Cicchetti D, Rogosch F A 1997 The role of self-organization in the promotion of resilience in maltreated children. Development and Psychopathology 9: 797–815
4. Crick N R, Dodge K A 1994 A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin 115: 74–101
5. Farrington D P, Coid J (eds.) 2001 Prevention of Adult Antisocial Behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (in press)
6. Hawkins J D, Herrenkohl T, Farrington D P, Brewer D, Catalano R F, Harachi T W 1998 A review of predictors of youth violence. In: Loeber R, Farrington D P (eds.) Serious &
7. Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
8. Kapersmidt J B, Griesler J C, De Rosier M E, Patterson C J, Davis P W 1995 Childhood aggression and peer relations in the context of family and neighborhood factors. Child Development 66: 360–75
9. Loeber R, Farrington D P (eds.) 1998 Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
10. Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M 1998 Development of juvenile aggression and violence: Some common misconceptions and controversies. American Psychologist 53: 242–59
11. Losel F, Bender D 2001 Protective factors and resilience. In: Farrington D P, Coid J (eds.) Prevention of Adult Antisocial Behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (in press)
12. Losel F, Bliesener T 1994 Some high-risk adolescents do not develop conduct problems: A study of protective factors. International Journal of Behavioral Development 17: 753–77
13. Luthar S S, Cicchetti D, Becker B 2000 The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development 71: 543–62
14. Masten A S, Best K M, Garmezy N 1990 Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology 2: 425–44
15. McCord J, Tremblay R (eds.) 1995 Preventing Antisocial Behavior: Intervention From Birth Through Adolescence. Guilford Press, London
16. Moffitt T E 1993 Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review 100: 674–701
17. Moffitt T E, Caspi A, Dickson N, Silva P, Stanton W 1996 Childhood-onset versus adolescent-onset antisocial conduct problems in males: Natural history from ages 3 to 18 years. Development and Psychopathology 8: 399–424
18. Quinton D, Pickles A, Maughan B, Rutter M 1993 Partners, peers and pathways: Assortative pairing and continuities in conduct disorder. Development and Psychopathology 5: 763–83
19. Raine A, Farrington D P, Brennan P, Mednick S A (eds.) 1997 Biosocial Bases of Violence. Plenum, New York
20. Richters J E, Martinez P E 1993 Violent communities, family choices, and children’s chances: An algorithm for improving the odds. Development and Psychopathology 5: 609–27
21. Rutter M 1985 Resilience in the face of adversity. Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry 147: 598–611
22. Rutter M, Giller H, Hagell A 1998 Antisocial Behavior by Young People. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
23. Sampson R J, Laub J H 1993 Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
24. Seidman E, Yoshikawa H, Roberts A, Chesir-Teran D, Allen L, Friedman J L, Aber J L 1998 Structural and experiental neighborhood contexts, developmental stage, and antisocial behavior among urban adolescents. Development and Psychopathology 10: 259–81
25. Stattin H, Romelsjo A, Stenbacka M 1997 Personal resources as modifiers of the risk for future criminality. British Journal of Criminology 37: 198–223
26. Stouthamer-Loeber M, Loeber R, Farrington D P, Zhang Q, van Kammen W, Maguin E 1993 The double edge of protective and risk factors for delinquency: Interrelations and developmental patterns. Development and Psychopathology 5: 683–701
27. Thornberry T P 1998 Membership in youth gangs and involvement in serious and violent offending. In: Loeber R, Farrington D P (eds.) Serious & Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
28. Werner E E, Smith R S 1982 Vulnerable but Invincible. McGrawHill, New York
29. Werner E E, Smith R S 1992 Overcoming the Odds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY
30. Wikstrom P-O, Loeber R 2000 Do disadvantaged neighborhoods cause well-adjusted children to become adolescent delinquents? Criminology 38: 1109–42