Comprehensive Investigation of the Role of Individuals, the Immediate Social Environment, and Neighborhoods in Trajectories of Adolescent Antisocial Behavior in Chicago, Illinois, 1994-2002 (ICPSR 33921)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

The overall goal of this study was to acquire a greater understanding of the development of adolescent antisocial behavior using data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN). Two objectives fell under this general goal:

1. To describe trajectories of substance use and delinquency across the adolescent period.
2. To assess important individual and social influences available in the PHDCN in terms of impact on the initial level and continuance of antisocial behavior.

Study Design View help for Study Design

Existing Longitudinal Cohort data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) were analyzed to assess patterns of substance use and delinquency across three waves for three age cohorts and 78 neighborhoods. Specifically, the study utilized Cohort 9 and Cohort 12 data which were each comprised of 752 individuals and Cohort 15 data which was comprised of 626 individuals. Each of the cohorts was interviewed approximately two years apart. The study analyses were expanded to the neighborhood level through use of data from the PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS: COMMUNITY SURVEY, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 2766). Approximately 8,700 Chicago residents (25 to 50 per neighborhood) were surveyed regarding their perception of their neighborhood.

The PHDCN measures used in this study focused on two major aspects of adolescent antisocial behavior (substance use, delinquency) and a number of domains that have been utilized in explaining them. The self-reported substance use and delinquency outcome variables were measured across three waves for Cohorts 9, 12, and 15. Other items included in study analyses include measures of individual risk, family/parental influences, social support, antisocial peers, sociodemographics, and neighborhood influence.

This analysis of existing PHDCN data used multiple cohort and multilevel latent growth models as well as several ancillary approaches to answer questions pertinent to the development of adolescent antisocial behavior. The first question was: (1) How are trajectories of substance use and delinquency across adolescence best described? This involved (a) an assessment of sample-average initial levels (intercept) and trends (slope) and their variance estimates; (b) plotting observed and expected trends across ages 9 to 19; and (c) testing group (cohort) differences in latent growth factors (intercept, slope). The second question was (2) To what extent do key individual and social influence measures available in PHDCN (e.g., self control, family influence, peer influence) impact the initial level of substance use/delinquency? This entailed (a) testing the effects of individual, family, and peer covariates on the intercept; (b) assessing relevant interaction effects for individual and family/peers; and (c) examining cohort differences in covariate effects. Third, (3) To what extent do key individual and social influences impact the progression (slope) of substance use/delinquency over time? This shifted the emphasis to the enduring impact of these risk or protective factors. A "launch" perspective was used to frame the analysis around the second and third questions. Fourth, the analysis considered (4) Do youth trajectories of substance use and delinquency vary across neighborhoods? The process for answering this question entailed: (a) assessing neighborhood cluster-level variance components for the intercept and slope; (b) assessing neighborhood cluster-level variance components for covariate effects (i.e., neighborhood influences) where relevant and; (c) assessing neighborhood influences on covariate effects (i.e., cross-level interactions) when variation was identified at the previous stage.

Sample View help for Sample

Units of observation were selected based on a multi-stage design where a random sample of 343 neighborhood clusters was initially chosen. Eighty of these clusters were then selected based on a stratified sampling strategy that focused on socioeconomic and racial composition. The selection of participants for the longitudinal cohort study followed from that process. Cohort 9 and Cohort 12 were each comprised of 752 individuals and Cohort 15 was comprised of 626 individuals. Seventy-five percent of those in Cohort 9, 74 percent in Cohort 12, and 72 percent in Cohort 15 who were invited to participate in the longitudinal cohort study actually did so.

The analysis was expanded to the neighborhood level (N=78) through use of data from The PHDCN community survey. Approximately 8,700 Chicago residents (25 to 50 per neighborhood) were surveyed regarding their perception of their neighborhood.

Time Method View help for Time Method

Universe View help for Universe

All individuals in Cohort 9, Cohort 12, and Cohort 15 of the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) Longitudinal Cohort studies.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Source View help for Data Source

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

Outcome measures include self-reported substance use and delinquency. Self-reported delinquency was measured across three different dimensions: violent offenses, property offenses, and public order/status offenses. Community-level measures include collective efficacy, social disorder, and social capital. Sociodemographic variables include gender, race, and socioeconomic status. Family/parental influences variables include parental warmth, parental monitoring, and parental lack of hostility. The study also utilized a social support variable, a self control measure, and an antisocial peers variable.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

Users should consult the original PHDCN studies for response rate information.

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

The substance use measure comprises the number of self-reports of use for the previous year for alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, and other illicit drugs (e.g., psychedelics, heroin, amphetamines). Self-reported delinquency was measured across three different dimensions: violent offenses (e.g., carried a hidden weapon, arson, stole purse/pickpocket, attack with weapon, used weapon to get money/things), property offenses (damage property, broke into building, stole from home, stole from store, took from car, bought/sold stolen goods), and public order/status offenses (e.g., skipped school, cause trouble in public place, drove without license).

A series of measures that tap into the youth's family environment and parental management processes were included in the study analyses. The items are drawn from the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) Inventory. Parental warmth is measured using 9 items derived from interviewer's observations of parents during the in-home interviews of primary caregivers and children at wave 1. Parental lack of hostility consists of several observational items that researchers recorded during the in-home interviews with children/adolescents and primary caregivers. Parental monitoring and supervision is a 13-item scale where primary caregivers self reported on how they directly and indirectly monitor their children.

The social support measure was derived from the Provision of Social Relationships (PSR) instrument that asks questions about the degree to which the youth feels respected and has people (family, friends) whom they can count on if necessary. A self control measure was developed based on the EASI temperament instrument. The antisocial peer influence measure was drawn from a set of 15 items that ask about the degree to which a youth's "friends or people [they] spend time with" engage in delinquent activities and substance use.

Social cohesion and neighborhood social control were combined to create a measure of collective efficacy. The study also utilizes a social capital measure (e.g., "there are adults in this neighborhood kids can look up to", "parents in the neighborhood generally know each other") and a social disorder measure (e.g., "how much of a problem is drinking in public", "how much of a problem is groups of teenagers hanging out and causing trouble").

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2012-12-19

Version History View help for Version History

Weight View help for Weight

none