Violence and Externalizing Behavior Among Youth in the United States

• Author: Christopher P. Salas-Wright,Matt DeLisi,Brandy R. Maynard,Michael G. Vaughn
• Published date: 01 January 2014
• Date: 01 January 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1541204013478973
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
2014, Vol 12(1) 3-21
Violence and Externalizing
ª The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
Behavior Among Youth in the
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1541204013478973
yvj.sagepub.com
United States: Is There a
Severe 5%?
Michael G. Vaughn1, Christopher P. Salas-Wright2,
Matt DeLisi3, and Brandy R. Maynard1
Abstract
Despite research demonstrating that approximately 5% of study populations are composed of
severely antisocial persons who account for a disproportionate share of problem behaviors, there
have been no nationally representative studies assessing this phenomenon among adolescents. Using
a large nationally representative sample (N ¼ 18,614), we identified a severe group (4.7% of
respondents) characterized by involvement in varied and intensive externalizing behaviors, greater
internalizing, lower academic achievement, and less parental involvement. The current study is the
first nationally representative study of criminal careers/externalizing behaviors among adolescents in
the United States, which is convergent with prior research and theory.
Keywords
criminal career, externalizing behavior, antisocial behavior, youth
Introduction
The asymmetrical nature of offending is profound. Put simply, a majority of problem behaviors
are committed by a minority of persons (DeLisi & Piquero, 2011; Thornberry, Huizinga, &
Loeber, 1995; Tracy, Wolfgang, & Figlio, 1990; Walters, 2012; Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin,
1972). The repeated empirical finding that approximately 5% of a sample or population is com-
posed of individuals, usually male but not exclusively, that account for a disproportionate share
of offenses is critical for prevention science and policy to address. Arguably, it is the essence
of the ‘‘crime problem.’’ A large and convergent literature has documented the ‘‘severe 5%’’
linked to a number of important but overlapping theoretical constructs such as life-course-
persistent offender, serious, violent, and chronic delinquent, early-onset severe conduct
1 School of Social Work, College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA
2 School of Social Work, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
3 Department of Sociology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Michael G. Vaughn, School of Social Work, Saint Louis University, 3550 Lindell Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63103, USA.
Email: mvaughn9@slu.edu

---

4
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 12(1)
disorder, and fledgling psychopath (e.g., DeLisi et al., 2011; Loeber & Farrrington, 1998; Mof-
fitt, 1993, 2003). This group is characterized by a disproportionate contribution to violence,
substance abuse, property damage, mental health distress, and social and economic burden
(DeLisi, 2005; Moffitt, 1993, 2003; Ribeiro da Silva, Rijo, & Salekin, 2012; Salekin & Lynam,
2010; Vaughn & DeLisi, 2008) and has been identified as arguably the most pressing and
important problem in child mental health (Eme, 2010). Studies indicate that the behavioral and
collateral consequences of severe antisocial behavior are enormous and widespread resulting in
likely billions in justice system, victimization, mental health, and associated costs (Cohen,
1998; Cohen & Piquero, 2009; DeLisi & Gatling, 2003; DeLisi et al., 2010). The average cost
of each chronically violent youth has been estimated as 2 million dollars (Dodge, 2009). For
these reasons, a better understanding of the epidemiology of severe antisocial behavior is cen-
tral to advancing prevention and treatment of what is a major social issue.
Despite the convergent findings that have accumulated on severe antisocial behavior,
Vaughn, DeLisi et al., 2011 have noted several shortcomings to these lines of research that
impede their external validity. These include geographically bound birth cohort designs (e.g.,
Brame, Mazerolle, & Piquero, 2010; Wolfgang et al., 1972), too few extreme offenders
(DeLisi, 2001; Piquero, Farrington, & Blumstein, 2007), and overreliance on enriched correc-
tional samples and other research participants derived from the criminal justice system (e.g.,
arrestees, civilly committed patients; Amirault & Lussier, 2011; Berg & DeLisi, 2005; Black-
burn & Trulson, 2010; Lussier, Bouchard, & Beauregard, 2011; Pedneault, Harris, & Knight,
2012; Sorensen, Cunningham, Vigen, & Woods, 2011; Sorensen & Davis, 2011). Although
invaluable, these lines of research have been unable to produce findings on extreme externaliz-
ing and antisocial behavior within a highly generalizable framework that can be universally
applicable to children and adolescents.
In this article, we extend previous work by Vaughn and colleagues (2011) that identified a
severe 5.3% of adults using latent class analysis (LCA) in the National Epidemiologic Survey
of Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) that is convergent with prior work on serious anti-
social behavior and disproportionality. This group was characterized by high levels of antisocial
behavior and substance use also possessing substantial co-occurring psychopathology. Specifi-
cally, we build on this previous work by again identifying and modeling characteristics and asso-
ciations of a severe 5% subgroup using a different nationally representative data source and age
range (12- to 17-year-olds). We do so in order to assess the ‘‘downward extension’’ of the severe
5% concept based on a set of externalizing behaviors and sociodemographic factors and then
executing an external validation of these latent classes by evaluating the associations with key
variables such as anxiety and depression, parental involvement, academic achievement, and
religiosity.
The Externalizing Spectrum
The externalizing spectrum is an important construct for youth violence. Externalizing liability is
characterized by general behavioral disinhibition and what are commonly termed acting out
behaviors. Externalizing behaviors include substance use, aggression and violence, theft, and
property destruction. The use of substances is an integral part of the externalizing spectrum due
to their co-occurrence and highly intertwined relationship to delinquency and violence (Krueger
et al., 2002; Vaughn, Freedenthal, Jenson, & Howard, 2007). As Krueger and colleagues have
argued (2007) externalizing converges with, helps to organize, and in many respects is an umbrella
concept for constructs such as low self-control (Vaughn, Perron, Beaver, DeLisi, & Wexler, 2010),
psychopathy (Vaughn & DeLisi, 2008), neurodisinhibition (Tarter et al., 2003), impulsivity (Barratt,
1994), risk seeking (Vaske, Ward, Boisvert, & Wright, 2012), and conduct disorder (Krueger,

---

Vaughn et al.
5
Markon, Patrick, & Iacono, 2005). The past decade has witnessed a keen interest in the externalizing
spectrum mainly for two purposes: advance the search for a common etiology to substance use
disorders and antisocial behavior and develop better measures and diagnostic indicators of substance
abuse and problem behaviors over the life course for the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition; DSM-V) to be released in May 2013.
With respect to etiology, several studies suggest that externalizing is an inherited vulnerability
(Hicks, Krueger, Iacono, McGue, & Patrick, 2004). Several well-designed behavior genetic studies
across multiple data centers and independent samples suggest that there is a uniform pattern in
heritable molecular genetic processes associated with a vulnerability to externalizing. First, linkage
analysis from the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism using a dimensional compo-
nent of externalizing has indicated a candidate gene, CHRM2 (Dick et al., 2008). More recent beha-
vior genetic research by Stephens and colleagues (2012) revealed that a gene cluster (CHRNA5/
CHRNA3/CHRNB4), which has been linked to nicotine and alcohol dependence in previous studies,
is associated with an externalizing phenotype across three longitudinal samples including the
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the Colorado Center for the Genetics of Antiso-
cial Drug Dependence, and the National Youth Survey–Family Study and involving over 3,000
study participants. The strongest association was found for stealing (>0.60) with smaller coefficients
for fighting and weapon use. These results provide compelling evidence for a genetic liability to
externalizing that is facilitated by upstream frontal lobe vulnerabilities to disinhibiting and poor
behavior control (e.g., Brower & Price, 2001).
The extent to which poor behavior controls and externalizing behaviors relate to other important
factors such as parenting and child care, internalizing, and academic performance have also been
studied. Using data from the National Institute of Child Health and Development Study of Early
Child Care and Youth Development, Belsky and Pluess (2011) found that externalizing among
adolescents with negative temperaments (compared to more positive temperaments) was predicted
by poor child care. Interestingly, however, high-quality care did not result in less externalizing
suggesting, according to the authors, greater vulnerability but not necessarily malleability. Vaughn,
Beaver, DeLisi, and Wright (2009) identified a severely impaired subgroup of children (9.8%,
n ¼ 1,594) from a nationally representative kindergarten cohort, who demonstrated poor self-
control based on parent and teacher assessments over time. Results from a regression analysis
predicting subgroup membership showed that...