Preadolescent peer friendships: A critical contribution to adult social relatedness?

The primary aim of this paper is to review the literature on preadolescent friendships in order to examine the relationship between preadolescent friendships and social support in adulthood. Social supports are important to health, both directly and as a stress buffer. Few studies, however, have specifically examined adult social supports from the perspective of their developmental precursors and critical developmental periods. Some data indicate that the preadolescent period may be of particular importance to the development of adult social skills and ties. Observational and empirical studies of preadolescent peer relationships, and in particular best friendships, suggest unique and critical contributions to adult social relatedness. Present research is suggestive but is insufficient to validate preadolescence as a critical period in adult social relatedness. Our review has implications for better understanding the mechanisms by which preadolescent friendships effect adult social support—an important mediator of the effects of stress on health. Further longitudinal study is needed.Received Ph.D. from University of Maryland. Research interests are social supports and psychological responses to trauma and disaster.Received M.D. from Yale University. Research interests are social supports and traumatic stress.     

IS AGE IMPORTANT? TESTING A GENERAL VERSUS A DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR*

We tested competing hypotheses derived from Gottfredson and Hirschis (1990) general theory and Moffitt's (1993a) developmental theory of antisocial behavior. The developmental theory argues that different factors give rise to antisocial behavior at different points in the life course. In contrast, the general theory maintains that the factor underlying antisocial behavior (i.e., criminal propensity) is the same at all ages. To test these competing predictions, we used longitudinal data spanning from age 5 to age 18 for the male subjects in the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study. Using reports from three sources (parents, teachers, and the boys themselves), we estimated second-order confirmatory factor models of antisocial behavior. These models provided consistent support for the developmental theory, showing that separate latent factors underlie childhood and adolescent antisocial behavior. Moreover, we found that these childhood and adolescent factors related in ways predicted by Moffitt's developmental theory to four correlates of antisocial behavior: Childhood antisocial behavior was related more strongly than adolescent antisocial behavior to low verbal ability, by per activity, and negative/impulsive personality, whereas adolescent antisocial behavior was related more strongly than childhood antisocial behavior to peer delinquency. The two underlying latent factors also showed the predicted differential relations to later criminal convictions: Childhood antisocial behavior was significantly more strongly associated with convictions for violence, while adolescent antisocial behavior was significantly more strongly associated with convictions for nonviolent offenses.     

Examining the empirical relationship between prison crowding and inmate misconduct: A meta-analysis of conflicting research results

Incarceration rates in the United States dramatically increased over the past several decades. This trend has drawn significant academic attention to prison overcrowding and its potential effect on inmate misconduct. The empirical relationship between inmate misconduct and overcrowding, however, is less than clear. To be sure, studies indicating positive, negative, and null relationships can all be found in the literature. The current research subjects this body of literature to a meta-analysis in an effort to: (1) clarify the direction and strength of the relationship between overcrowding and rates of prison misconduct across all studies, and (2) to uncover the degree to which variation in research outcomes can be attributed to methodological differences across studies. Results indicate that prison crowding has little substantive impact on inmate misconduct. Implications of the findings are discussed in detail.