Who is at risk? Applying the biopsychosocial model to explain non-violent and violent delinquency in youth

Abstract

Research has highlighted the relevance of biological measures in explaining antisocial behavior, but the inclusion of such measures in clinical practice is lagging behind. According to the integrative biopsychosocial model, biological measures should be studied together with psychological and social-environmental factors. In this data-driven study, we applied this comprehensive model to explain non-violent and violent delinquency of 876 at-risk youth (715 male, 9-27 years), by combining nine biological (autonomic-nervous-system; endocrinological), nine psychological, and seven social-environmental measures. Using latent-class-regression analysis we uncovered four distinct psychologically-driven biological clusters, which differed in non-violent and violent delinquency-risk, moderated by social-environmental variables: a biological-psychopathic traits; low problem; high problem; and biological-reactive group. Individual vulnerabilities to (non-)violent delinquency depended on social-environmental context that differed between clusters. These findings highlight the importance of biological and psychological factors, in the context of social-environmental factors, in explaining (non)-violent delinquency.

Keywords: Biopsychosocial; Data-driven; Latent-class regression; Non-violent; Violent delinquency; Youth.

Fig. 1

Conceptual, schematic overview of the one-step Latent Class Regression Analysis. We predicted delinquency risk (non-delinquency, non-violent delinquency, violent delinquency) from psychologically-driven biological clusters, moderated by social and environmental variables.

Fig. 2

Simplified, schematic representation of the four clusters based on their psychological (A) and biological (B) axes. A. The four clusters are depicted in a quadrant with (roughly considered) two dimensions (for interpretive purposes only), with callous-manipulative, proactive aggressive tendencies on the y-axis (i.e., YPI Interpersonal, YPI affective, low Empathy, RPQ Proactive aggression scales) and externalizing, reactive-aggressive characteristics on the x-axis (YPI Behavioral, RPQ Reactive aggression, Externalizing problems). Each cluster has their own color throughout the results to ease interpretation: yellow (cluster 1: biological – psychopathic traits, green (cluster 2: low problem), turquoise (cluster 3: high problem) and purple (cluster 4: biological – reactive). The shading/gradient within each cluster reflects the heterogeneity (inter-individual differences) within each cluster. B. The clusters on a biological axis (for interpretative purposes only), considering levels of the Cortisol Awakening Response – total volumes, and Testosterone (here indicated as a CAR AUCg↑:Testosterone↓ ratio), and pre-ejection period (PEP).

Fig. 3

Raw available data of the significant biological covariates (A-C) and the significant psychological indicators (D-L) per cluster, with box plots superimposed (for continuous data). For the biological covariates only significant variables are shown. For all biological plots, included non-significant variables, see Fig. S2. Categorical variables are shown in number of participants per category.

Fig. 4

Effects of the social and environmental variables on the chance of non-delinquency (light-shaded colors), non-violent delinquency (medium-shaded colors), and violent delinquency (dark-shaded colors), per cluster (cluster 1: yellow, cluster 2: green, cluster 3: turquoise, cluster 4: purple). When value exceed the shaded sections, this indicates a significant effect. Values within the shaded sections thus represent non-significant effects. The bars represent Z-scores. As such, values lower than −1.96 (lower chance) or higher than +1.96 (higher chance) indicate a significant effect.