The Role of Depressed Mood and Anger in the Relationship Between Family Conflict and Delinquent Behavior

Drawing on R. Agnew's (Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology 30: 47–87, 1992) general strain theory, this paper examines whether depressed mood and anger mediate the effects of family conflict on delinquency. We examine data on 7758 students, 14–16 years old, attending the compulsory 9th and 10th grades of the Icelandic secondary school system. We use structural equation modeling to show that exposure to arguments and fights at home are positively related to both depressed mood and anger among adolescents. Anger is positively associated with delinquent behavior whereas depressed mood has no effect on delinquency.     

Narcissistic Features in Young Adolescents: Relations to Aggression and Internalizing Symptoms

Recent research and theory suggest narcissistic features contribute to aggression in adults. The present study examined the association of narcissistic features with aggression and internalizing symptoms in 233 students of 5th–8th grade at three inner-city schools. A factor analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory in this sample revealed three factors: Adaptive Narcissism, Exploitativeness, and Exhibitionism. Regression analyses were used to predict the association of these three narcissistic features with self-, teacher-, and peer-reported aggression and self-reported internalizing symptoms. Results indicate narcissistic exploitativeness positively predicted self-reported proactive aggression, and narcissistic exhibitionism positively predicted internalizing symptoms. Narcissism and self-esteem interacted to predict teacher-reported aggression and self-reported internalizing symptoms. Results are discussed in the context of existing theories of narcissism, threatened egotism, and self-perception bias.     

Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America

In the tradition of research on political tolerance and democratic rights in context, this study uses a national survey of Americans conducted shortly after the September 11, 2001 attack on America to investigate people's willingness to trade off civil liberties for greater personal safety and security. We find that the greater people's sense of threat, the lower their support for civil liberties. This effect interacts, however, with trust in government. The lower people's trust in government, the less willing they are to trade off civil liberties for security, regardless of their level of threat. African Americans are much less willing to trade civil liberties for security than whites or Latinos, even with other factors taken into account. This may reflect their long-standing commitment to the struggle for rights. Liberals are less willing to trade off civil liberties than moderates or conservatives, but liberals converge toward the position taken by conservatives when their sense of the threat of terrorism is high. While not a forecast of the future, the results indicate that Americans' commitment to democratic values is highly contingent on other concerns and that the context of a large-scale threat to national or personal security can induce a substantial willingness to give up rights.     

Toward Good Governance and Sustainable Development: The African Peer Review Mechanism

To accomplish the objectives and the outcomes of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), African leaders have agreed, among other things, to subject their countries to peer review through the use of a unique and innovative African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). This paper analytically describes and assesses the APRM. It contends that peer review represents a sea of change in the thinking of African leaders as they seek to reverse the trend of lack of accountability, political authoritarianism, state failure, and corruption to embrace and consolidate democracy as well as effect sound and transparent economic management. It is further argued that peer review would provide a number of benefits to those countries that subject themselves to it and that, in turn, would have positive multiplier effects on Africa's development performance.     

Public Mass Murderers and Federal Mental Health Background Checks

The litany of public mass murders, from Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, Las Vegas, and Parkland to less well‐known incidents that occur yearly, has focused national attention on federally mandated mental health background checks of prospective gun purchasers. The call has been to put more gun‐disqualifying mental health records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System database to prevent “deranged” murderers from buying guns and running amok. Our study examines whether increasing the robustness of the mental health background database will likely prevent potential public mass murderers from buying guns. Building on research that shows that serious mental illness contributes little to the risk of interpersonal violence and, further, that few persons with serious mental illness acquire gun‐disqualifying mental health records, we examine whether public mass murderers are among the small percentage of those with serious mental illness who do have gun‐disqualifying mental health records. Using a large sample of 106 US offenders who used a firearm to commit a public mass murder from 1990 to 2014, we find that half of the offenders had a history of mental illness or mental health treatment but that less than 5 percent had gun‐disqualifying mental health records. Implications of these findings and recommendations for further research are discussed.