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.     

Learning from the Danish case: A comment on Palle Svensson's critique of the Franklin thesis

Abstract. Palle Svensson in this issue of EJPR has objected to the characterisation of Danish voters made by Franklin and others who, in various publications, expounded the thesis that on issues of low salience, referendum votes tend to follow party lines. Svensson finds evidence that the Maastricht Treaty was not an issue of low salience to Danish voters in the ratification referendums conducted there, and gives other details of the evolution of public opinion regarding Europe that clarify the circumstances in which our thesis should apply. In the light of his arguments, this Comment presents a more nuanced version of the thesis that learns from the Danish case, and should be of greater utility than our earlier version in helping to interpret the role of government standing in referendum outcomes.