Identifying Latent Classes of Antisocial Behavior Among Youth From Saudi Arabia

• Date: 01 July 2017
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204016639349
• Published date: 01 July 2017
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Identifying Latent Classes of

Antisocial Behavior Among

Youth From Saudi Arabia:

An Assessment of the

Co-Occurrence Between

Aggression, Psychopathy,

Low Self-Control, and Delinquent Behavior

Eric J. Connolly

1

, Mohammed Said Al-Ghamdi

2

,

Ahmed Nezar Kobeisy

2

, Fatiyah Alqurashi

2

, Joseph A. Schwartz

3

,

and Kevin M. Beaver

2,4

Abstract

Despite the wealth of knowle dge on subcl ass format ion for anti social beh avior amon g youth

from the United States and other Western industrialized countries, very little is known about

the subclass structure for antisocial behavior among youth growing up in other geographical

contexts. Using validated measures of aggression, psychopathy, and low self-control, we

employ latent class analysis to identify latent subgroups of antisocial behavior from a sample of

324 Saudi Arabian youth. Three classes of antisocial behavior emerged and significant asso-

ciations between latent class membership and different forms of delinquency were observed.

The findings are the first to show a similar pattern of latent class formation for antisocial

behavior and risk for violent and nonviolent delinquency among Saudi Arabian youth compared

to U.S. youth.

Keywords

antisocial behavior, Saudi Arabia, aggression, psychopathy, low self-control, delinquency

1

Department of Criminal Justice, Pennsylvania State University, Abington, PA, USA

2

Center for Social and Humanities Research, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

3

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska Omaha, Lincoln, NE, USA

4

College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Eric J. Connolly, Department of Criminal Justice, Pennsylvania State University, 1600 Woodland Road, Abington, PA 19001,

USA.

Email: ejc22@psu.edu

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

2017, Vol. 15(3) 219-239

ªThe Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1541204016639349

journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

Introduction

The findings from life-course and developmental research during the past 20 years have revealed

much about the subclass structure for youth antisocial behavioral development and the differences in

risk for delinquency based on class membership (Farrington, 2003). A substantial amount of evi-

dence from this body of research has shown that latent subgroups for antisocial behavior tend to

emerge early in life (Lacourse et al., 2010), where youth who score the highest on measures of

aggression, psychopathy, and low self-control often demonstrate the highest risk for engaging in

serious forms of delinquent behavior during adolescence (Ray, Thornton, Frick, Steinberg, & Cauff-

man, 2015) and criminal behavior during adulthood (Mokros et al., 2015). The generalizability of

these antisocial subgroups across different samples from heterogeneous populations has offered a

great deal of support for the creation of theoretical perspectives focused on explaining differences

between groups and common risk factors among individuals within the same group (Moffitt, 1993).

Contemporary research examining the subgroup structure of antisocial behavior among youth sug-

gests that a three- or four-class solution commonly underlies the cross-sectional and longitudinal

patterns of antisocial behavior and risk for delinquency (Brame, Nagin, & Tremblay, 2001; Coˆte´,

Tremblay, Nagin, Zoccolillo, & Vitaro, 2002; Fergusson, Horwood, & Lynskey, 1994; Li & Lee,

2010; Maughan, Pickles, Rowe, Costello, & Angold, 2000; Moffitt, 1993; Shaw, Lacourse, & Nagin,

2005; Wiesner & Silbereisen, 2003).

While the accumulation of research on subgroup formation has offered important insight into the

number and structure of antisocial subgroups, the majority of findings from this body of research are

based on reports of antisocial personality traits from youth in the United States (Li & Lee, 2010) and

other Western industrialized countries such as England (Nagin, Farrington, & Moffitt, 1995),

Canada (Brame et al., 2001; Cote et al., 2002), and Germany (Wiesner & Silbereisen, 2003). Over

time, many criminological theories have been created and supported based on this ever growing

body of research that has informed criminologists about the co-occurrence of antisocial behaviors

and delinquent involvement during adolescence (Moffitt, 1993; Samps on & Laub, 1995). For

example, in addition to summarizing results on life-course patterns of antisocial behavior from

many of these populations, Moffitt (1993) argued in her developmental taxonomy that youth tend

to fall within one of two different antisocial subgroups. Specifically, youth who demonstrate a high

level of irritably or aggression, callous-unemotional traits or psychopathy, and low self-control (due

to neuropsychological deficits) are more likely to demonstrate conduct disorder problems during

childhood, engage in serious (often violent) forms of delinquency during adolescence, and continue

to offend well into adulthood. Moffitt identified members of this subgroup as life-course-persistent

offenders and suggested that these individuals would commit serious forms of violent crime and

cause the highest amount of social harm to societies. On the other hand, youth with low levels of

aggression, low levels of psychopathy, and higher levels of self-control are less likely to demonstrate

conduct disorder problems during childhood, more likely to engage in minor (often nonviolent)

forms of delinquency during adolescence, and then desist from engaging in antisocial behavior in

adulthood. Moffitt identified members of this subgroup as adolescence-limited offenders since

their delinquent behavior was confined to adolescence. While several studies have assessed and

found support for Moffitt’s central arguments regarding distinct subclasses of antisocial behavior

(Barnes, Boutwell, Morris, & Armstrong, 2012; Connell, Cook, Aklin, Vanderploeg, & Brex,

2011; Hasking, Scheier, & Abdallah, 2011; Vaughn et al., 2011), virtually no research has

explored the subclass structure of antisocial behavior among youth from countries that are cultu-

rally distinct from many Western industrialized societies. As such, very little is known about

whether similar patterns of antisocial behavior exist among youth growing up in other cultural

contexts and if members of validated antisocial subclasses are more (or less) likely to commit

certain violent and nonviolent acts of delinquency. One area of the world perhaps where this is

220 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 15(3)