The Influence of Psychosocial Maturity on Adolescent Offenders' Delinquent Behavior

• Date: 01 April 2008
• Published date: 01 April 2008
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204007313229
• Author: Keith R. Cruise,Krissie Fernandez,Laura S. Guy,Tanisha R. Douglas,Lori H. Colwell,Wendy K. McCoy
• Subject Matter: Articles

178

The Influence of Psychosocial

Maturity on Adolescent

Offenders’ Delinquent Behavior

Keith R. Cruise

Fordham University

Krissie Fernandez

Michigan Department of Corrections

Wendy K. McCoy

Federal Bureau of Prisons

Laura S. Guy

Simon Fraser University

Lori H. Colwell

Connecticut Valley Hospital

Tanisha R. Douglas

University of La Verne

Prior research has demonstrated the predictive utility of psychosocial maturity in understanding

adolescents’ decison making regarding antisocial behaviors and other legal decisions. This study

investigated the influence of psychosocial maturity on adolescent offenders’self-report of delin-

quent behaviors over a 12-month time period. A total sample of 136 male and female juvenile

offenders were recruited from two juvenile justice settings. Consistent with prior research, results

indicated significant correlations between psychosocial maturity variables and self-reported

delinquent behavior with the current results revealing a moderating effect of gender on these

associations. Separate regression analyses were conducted for male and female juvenile offenders.

After controlling for age and setting, the psychosocial maturity variable of temperance consis-

tently predicted self-reported total, violent, and nonviolent delinquency for boys.

Keywords: psychosocial maturity; violence; juvenile offender; self-report

The juvenile justice system is predicated on the assumptions that adolescents, by virtue

of their developmental immaturity, are less culpable offenders and more amenable to

treatment than their adult counterparts. However, the increase in youth crime and violence

throughout the 1980s, until its peak in 1994 (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006), spurred a number

of policy changes affecting youths’ involvement in the juvenile justice system. For example,

the perceived failure of the juvenile justice system led to a decline in the age at which juveniles

Youth Violence and

Juvenile Justice

Volume 6 Number 2

April 2008 178-194

© 2008 Sage Publications

10.1177/1541204007313229

http://yvj.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Authors’Note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Keith R. Cruise, Department of

Psychology, Fordham University, 334 Dealy Hall, 441 East Fordham Road, Bronx, NY 10458; e-mail:

cruise@fordham.edu.

Cruise et al. / Psychosocial Maturity and Delinquency 179

may be tried as adults and a subsequent increase in the number of juveniles transferred to

adult court (see Kruh & Brodsky, 1997). Despite the fact that juvenile crime rates have

declined in recent years (1,578,893 juveniles arrested in 2004, representing a reduction of

1.7% from arrests in 2003; Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.), every state in the country

has increased the number of youths sent to criminal court in recent years (Fagan & Zimring,

2000). For example, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention noted a 41%

increase in juvenile court delinquency cases between 1985 and 2002, with the greatest

increase found for person and drug offenses (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).

Mental health professionals and judicial decision makers have struggled to define specif-

ically how youths’ cognitive and emotional capacities influence delinquent behavior and

abilities as legal decision makers. This lack of specificity has resulted in inconsistent artic-

ulation of the legal relevance in Supreme Court cases and subsequent juvenile justice policy

mandates (Chung, Little, & Steinberg, 2005; Colwell et al., 2005; Grisso & Schwartz,

2000; Salekin, Rogers, & Ustad, 2001; Salekin, Yff, Neumann, Leistico, & Zalot, 2002).

However, there is growing consensus that intervention and supervision strategies with justice-

involved youth must be guided by an understanding of the myriad factors that contribute to

adolescent delinquent behavior, including severe disruptions in cognitive and emotional

functioning such as diagnosable mental health disorders (Cocozza & Skowyra, 2000) and

normative changes that occur during the adolescent developmental period (Scott & Grisso,

1997, 2005; Steinberg & Cauffman, 1999; Steinberg & Schwartz, 2000). Regarding the former,

recent studies have found that approximately two thirds (66.3%) of male youths and three

quarters (73.8%) of female youths in the juvenile justice system have a diagnosable mental

health disorder (Teplin et al., 2006). For example, Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan, and

Mericle (2002) identified extremely high 6-month prevalence for any disruptive behavior

disorder (i.e., 41.4%-45.6% oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder) and any sub-

stance use disorders (i.e., 46.8%-50.7% alcohol use, marijuana use, other drug use, or com-

bined alcohol and other drug use disorders) in a random sample of 1,829 male and female

detained youths. Even after excluding conduct disorder, Teplin and colleagues found that

60.9% of male and 70.0% of female youths still met diagnostic criteria for a mental disorder,

with affective and anxiety disorders being common. In a companion study using the same

sample, McClelland, Elkington, Teplin, and Abram (2004) concluded that multiple sub-

stance use disorders are the rule rather than the exception, with 21% of the sample having

two or more substance use disorders. These data suggest that a large number of youths

currently detained in the juvenile justice system suffer from a variety of mental health prob-

lems. Despite greater awareness of disorder prevalence, much remains to be learned regarding

the connection between mental health problems as a risk factor and delinquent behavior

(see Sevin Goldstein, Olubadewo, Redding, & Lexcen, 2005).

Incorporating data on normative developmental changes into juvenile justice policy is

challenging. Historically, commentators have lamented the difficulties in applying existing

findings from the developmental literature, often conducted in laboratory settings with

community samples, to legal policy affecting juvenile offenders (see Grisso, 1998a; Melton,

Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1997; Otto & Goldstein, 2005). However, developmental

and criminology theorists have specifically addressed this disconnect by articulating and

testing theories, which account for the impact of maturity on the development of antisocial