- Email: [email protected]
Defiant Behavior During Adolescence across Cultures
Defiant Behavior During Adolescence across Cultures Leslie Berntsen and Laura A Baker, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Abstract A review of cross-cultural studies of defiant and other deviant behavior during adolescence is provided. Race, ethnicity, and nationality are considered as possible aspects of culture. Although deviant behavior is relatively common in the United States and other Western cultures, there are variations across racial and ethnic groups. Cross-nationally, there is little variation across Western cultures, although deviance is somewhat less prevalent in nonindustrialized societies where children gain adult responsibilities immediately after puberty.
Adolescence has long been equated with defiant behavior. In Rhetoric, Aristotle declared youth to be as “heated by nature as drunken men by wine.” In Emile, French Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau advised parents to “keep their hand[s] on the helm . [lest] all be lost.” And, in 1904, G. Stanley Hall, the first president of the American Psychological Association, coined the now ubiquitous phrase “storm and stress” to refer to the characteristic turbulence of the teenage years. Adolescents, he believed, constituted a separate race that would be properly integrated into normal adult society in their own due time (Arnett, 1999: p. 317). Hoping to challenge the popular conception that the ‘omnipresent and obvious symptoms of unrest’ widely observed during adolescence are simply ‘characteristics of the period,’ anthropologist Margaret Mead set sail for Samoa in 1926. After 2 years of living among young women on the island of Ta’u, she ultimately concluded that “adolescence represented no period of stress or crisis,” largely due to the “general casualness of the whole society” (Mead, 1928: pp. 109, 137). Unlike contemporary American culture, authority was diffused over large families, young people could move from family to family within their villages, and girls had the socially sanctioned freedom to sexually experiment. In Samoa, the constraints of a society that demonizes adolescents were conspicuously absent. In the years since its publication, Coming of Age in Samoa has been met with its fair share of controversy. Based on his own fieldwork in Samoa, one of Mead’s most vocal critics, Derek Freeman (1983), claims that Mead had not only been deceived by her informants, but that she also deliberately fabricated evidence in support of her ideological leanings. More recently, other anthropologists have come to Mead’s defense, claiming that Freeman’s criticisms (1) lack ethnographic accuracy and (2) represent an unjustified attack on her reputation driven by his own personal beliefs (see Shankman, 2009). While we will not further discuss the Mead–Freeman debate in this article, we do acknowledge Coming of Age in Samoa as the first major work to challenge the universality of adolescent defiance, thus laying the theoretical groundwork for the future study of cross-cultural adolescent behavior.
Defiance as a Form of Deviance In reviewing cross-cultural studies of defiant behavior, it is useful to consider defiance as a specific form of the more
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 6
general category of antisocial or deviant behavior. In this article, we thus broadly define ‘defiance’ to also include various forms of deviant and antisocial behavior. For the sake of uniformity, we will refer to all of these behaviors as ‘deviant’ for the remainder of the article. At its most basic level, deviance is principally characterized by a violation of social norms (see Franzese, 2009: pp. 6–7, for a review of contemporary sociological definitions). Since deviance is always defined in relation to a set of specific collective expectations, it is an inherently value-laden, context-dependent term. Beliefs and behaviors that might be viewed by one person as ‘deviant’ could easily be viewed as acceptable or even virtuous by another (Potter, 2011). In the United States, deviant behaviors that actively impinge upon the rights of others are diagnostically codified in the form of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), and antisocial personality disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Many scholars have argued against the medicalization of deviance on the grounds that a diagnostic label can serve as a powerful tool of social and political control that can be used to pathologize behaviors that are more disagreeable than dangerous (see Conrad, 1992). For example, during the Cold War, government officials in both China and the former Soviet Union imprisoned ‘mentally ill’ political and religious dissidents in asylums in order to suppress the opposition they deemed harmful to the rest of society (Bonnie, 2002). An in-depth analysis of how certain acts come to be regarded as deviant or whether they deserve to be considered deviant is outside of the purview of this article. Here, we limit our discussion to deviant behaviors (including defiance), widely associated with adolescence in the Western world. These include drug use and distribution, risky sexual behavior, generalized delinquent (including law-breaking) behavior, and aggression, all of which cause direct economic, emotional, or physical harm to oneself or others.
What Is Culture? In order to understand how certain cultural factors might encourage or discourage deviant behavior during adolescence, we first must specify what we mean by culture. In the definition often referred to as the ‘gold standard’ among anthropologists, E.B. Tylor (1871: p. 1) defined culture as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.23026-2
7
8
Defiant Behavior During Adolescence across Cultures
any other capabilities acquired by man as a member of society.” A century later, specifically applying the definition to the study of psychological processes, Marsella (1987: p. 381) proposed that culture also comprises any individual’s “values, attitudes, beliefs, cognitive styles, and patterns of consciousness.” Although preferred by scholars in different disciplines, both of these definitions converge on the idea that ‘culture’ cannot be neatly reduced to a single factor. Unfortunately, crosscultural scientific research often disregards the notion of a ‘complex whole’ in favor of empirical simplicity. ‘Culture’ is frequently conflated with racial or ethnic categories, with national (or even continental) borders often used as a proxy for group membership. Although a common identity might be more likely to lead to shared experiences that contribute to common psychological development, an emphasis on group membership above all else can easily obscure within-group heterogeneity and draw misleading distinctions between individuals that actually share more similarities than differences (see Choudhury and Kirmayer, 2009). Not all of the research cited in this review was conducted with these principles in mind, so we urge readers to look beyond labels in order to understand the underlying processes – values, beliefs, practices, etc. – that constitute the ever-evolving notion of ‘culture’ and that might contribute to adolescent deviance. With these definitions and concerns in mind, we review here studies investigating the differences in deviant behavior across groups pertaining to race, ethnicity, and nationality. We also discuss sociological theories that suggest differences across industrialized vs nonindustrialized societies, and individualism vs collectivism. Although gender and socioeconomic groups might well be considered as cultural entities, we have not reviewed these studies in this article, since they are described elsewhere.
Cross-National Differences Mixed results emerge from the literature on cross-national differences in deviant behavior during adolescence. One metaanalysis of 25 cross-national studies conducted between 1997 and 2008 revealed that prevalence estimates of both ODD (0.6–11.0%) and CD (0.47–8.7%) did not differ as a function of geographic location (Canino et al., 2010). Rather, methodological differences between studies accounted for a greater proportion of the variability in prevalence rates. However, of the 25 studies that met criteria for inclusion in the final analysis, only four were conducted in non-Western countries (three in Asia and one in the Middle East). In their discussion, the authors note that differences between Western and non-Western countries might have emerged if more nonWestern cultures were included in their analysis. Findings from non-Western cultures do, in fact, suggest some cross-national differences in deviant behavior. Markedly lower rates of adolescent problem behavior (smoking, drinking, and general delinquency) have been found in China compared to the United States (Jessor et al., 2003). In observational studies of children in four non-Western cultures (American Samoa, Belize, Kenya, and Nepal), physical aggression was not an entirely common occurrence, comprising 10% of boys’ and 6% of girls’ social behavior
(Munroe et al., 2000). However, aggressive acts were significantly more common among children in the two patrilineal societies (the Newars of Nepal and Logoli of Kenya) than those in the nonpatrilineal societies. Still other researchers have found adolescent deviance to be quite common in non-Western cultures. Among a random sample of male adolescents in Colombia, Pineda et al. (2006) observed prevalence estimates of CD to range from 10.5 to 35.5%, much higher than independent estimates in the United States (Hinshaw and Lee, 2003). Despite differences in the incidence of adolescent deviance, it does seem that similar developmental processes are at play in discouraging such behaviors across national borders. Investigating the relationship between adolescent misconduct and the parent–child relationship in Hungary, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United States, Vazsonyi (2003) found parental closeness, support, and monitoring to independently predict adolescent problem behaviors (ranging from misbehaving in school to physical assault) in all four countries. Researchers have also found a similar protective relationship between parenting practices and deviant behavior (drug use, nonaggressive antisocial behavior, and physically aggressive antisocial behavior) among adolescents in Canada, France, and Italy (Claes et al., 2005). In summary, the evidence for cross-national differences in deviant behavior during adolescence appears to be mixed. While few differences have been found between (mostly) Western cultures (Canino et al., 2010), some disparities are evident between Western and non-Western cultures, and when certain non-Western cultures are compared to one another. Rates of substance use and delinquency are lower in China but higher in Colombia compared to the United States, while aggression is not uncommon in other non-Western cultures (American Samoa, Belize, Nepal, and Kenya). Although these findings do not allow us to draw definitive conclusions about the worldwide distribution of adolescent deviance, they do lend support to Mead’s initial observation that it is (in its many manifestations) far from a universal phenomenon.
Racial/Ethnic Differences in the United States To explore whether adolescent deviance might be more consistent within a given country, we now turn to differences between racial and ethnic groups in the United States. Although criminal behavior can be a useful index of deviance, African and Hispanic Americans are disproportionately incarcerated relative to their Asian or European American counterparts (Glaze, 2011). Since there is growing evidence to suggest that these disparities can be largely attributed to racial profiling, aggressive police practices, targeted prosecutions, and sentencing biases (Gelman et al., 2007; Steffensmeier et al., 2006), it is especially crucial to look toward empirical studies that propose cogent explanations for specific differences in deviant behavior, rather than attempt to draw conclusions from crime statistics or any other purely observational data. Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Blum et al. (2000) found some evidence of racial differences in adolescent high-risk behaviors. Replicating
Defiant Behavior During Adolescence across Cultures earlier findings, White adolescents were the most likely to use substances or attempt suicide, Black adolescents were the most likely to have already engaged in sexual intercourse, and Black and Hispanic adolescents together were more likely to participate in acts of violence than White adolescents. However, after controlling for gender, income, and family structure, race accounted for less than 10% of the variance in risk behaviors among both younger and older adolescents. That is, although racial differences were observed, race alone could not accurately predict the likelihood that any one person might engage in those behaviors. An additional study focusing solely on high-risk sexual behaviors during adolescence found similar results. Although higher levels of parental education, a twoparent family, and a European–American background were all independently negatively associated with risky behaviors, neither race nor socioeconomic status could fully explain the rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases observed in the sample (Santelli et al., 2000). These results further emphasize the heterogeneity that occurs within racial and ethnic groups in the United States, which ultimately should discourage their use as sole explanatory variables in scientific research.
Industrialized vs Nonindustrialized Societies Contemporary research continues to validate Margaret Mead’s assertion that adolescence is neither uniformly experienced nor defined. Schlegel and Barry (1991) have found the usual ‘storm and stress’ of adolescence to be far less frequent, if at all present, in nonindustrialized societies. Interestingly, many of these societies lack a specific word to describe the period between childhood and adulthood due to various cultural constraints. For some societies that are heavily agrarian, children might work directly alongside adults as soon as they are physically capable. In others, girls might be expected to bear their own children immediately after the onset of puberty. And, in perhaps the most drastic shift from childhood to adulthood, some children are involuntarily recruited to participate in armed conflict. Each of these cases leaves little, if any, room for the developmental middle ground that is adolescence (see Brown and Larson, 2002).
Individualism vs Collectivism However, as previously mentioned, some industrialized societies (e.g., the United States and China) have been found to show markedly different levels of deviant behavior among adolescents (Jessor et al., 2003). In order to account for this difference, we now turn our attention to two distinct, heavily researched cultural typologies: individualism and collectivism. Much like the name suggests, individualism prioritizes the needs and desires of the individual over those of any given group. Individualists often have loosely defined, dynamic social relationships and generally prefer to exist autonomously of others’ influence. In contrast, collectivists tend to define themselves by their interdependent relationships with friends, family, and society at large, placing great emphasis on group needs and
9
social harmony (Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). Although collectivism is rooted in traditional Confucian values, it is certainly not geographically bound; collectivistic values have also been widely observed throughout Latin America, Africa, and South Asia (Triandis, 1989). Might cross-cultural differences in deviant behavior during adolescence emerge as a consequence of different values between individualistic and collectivistic cultures? Tyson and Hubert (2012) have found that adolescents from Australia and various East Asian countries differ in the way they think about delinquent behaviors (e.g., theft, property damage, drug use, drunk driving, etc.). Although participants from both groups agreed which behaviors were more or less severe than others, Australian adolescents rated delinquent behaviors as significantly less wrong than their East Asian counterparts. Especially reflective of the collectivist emphasis on social harmony and deference to authority, ‘shouting abuse at your parents’ was the single item with the greatest difference between the two groups. Further, as East Asian participants aged, they perceived delinquency as less acceptable, while Australian participants showed no change or even perceived delinquent acts as more acceptable, depending on the specific behavior. But do differences in beliefs necessarily map on to differences in behavior? One metaanalysis of 185 different crossnational comparisons found that aggression was significantly less frequent in cultures that value collectivist ideals, egalitarianism, and moral discipline (Bergeron and Schneider, 2005). However, this study is only an indirect measure of association between cultural values and aggression. As the authors acknowledge, national indices of values are very useful for understanding cross-national differences in behaviors, but they do little to help us understand how cultural factors might influence individual differences. When study participants are asked to specifically report the extent to which they endorse individualism or collectivism, similar patterns of results emerge. In a mixed gender sample of Chinese adolescents, self-reported individualism positively predicted, and self-reported collectivism negatively predicted, peer and teacher ratings of both overt and relational aggression (Li et al., 2010). This pattern has also been found to extend to delinquency more generally. Among a sample of Chinese, Cambodian, Laotian, and Vietnamese youth, the frequency of self-reported delinquent behaviors was, again, directly related to individualism and inversely related to collectivism (Le and Stockdale, 2005). Similar cultural values have been found to exert similar effects among non-Asian adolescents. In research examining the relationship between traditional Latino family values and externalizing behavior, German et al. (2009) found that Mexican–American adolescents with a heightened sense of familial obligation and emotional closeness to their family exhibited fewer externalizing conduct problems according to two independent teacher reports, even when they were exposed to deviant peers. However, a separate study revealed that Mexican adolescents who had acculturated to mainstream American culture reported engaging in more delinquent behaviors than those who had chosen to remain unacculturated, those who had very recently immigrated to the United
10
Defiant Behavior During Adolescence across Cultures
States, and White non-Hispanic adolescents (Fridrich and Flannery, 1995). In short, a wide variety of deviant behaviors appear to be more reliably associated with broad sets of values than with race, ethnicity, or nationality, per se. Regardless of the specific name, belief systems that emphasize the responsibility of the individual to some larger collective entity (whether it be one’s family or society at large) seem to protect against adolescent deviance.
Biological Explanations of Adolescence When it comes to explaining the ‘storm and stress’ of contemporary Western adolescence, biological, value-free explanations reign supreme. In these accounts, deviant, risktaking behaviors are framed as unfortunate, yet inevitable, consequences of the many neurodevelopmental changes that accompany puberty. Some of the most profound changes are related to the development of the prefrontal cortex. Often referred to as the brain’s CEO, the prefrontal cortex is responsible for a variety of higher-order executive functions, including controlling one’s impulses, initiating appropriate behaviors and inhibiting inappropriate behaviors, organizing complex information, making decisions, and empathizing with others. Clinical populations with prefrontal damage often show lapses in moral reasoning, an inability to anticipate future consequences, and an inability to inhibit inappropriate social behavior. In healthy individuals, the prefrontal cortex does not fully mature until the mid- to late 1920s. As it matures, the number of dopaminergic inputs to the region dramatically increases, a change reflected the newfound ability to control one’s impulses and make more mature, reasoned decisions (see Weinberger et al., 2005, for a review). As a result, prefrontal deficits are widely cited as the sole underlying cause of adolescent ‘storm and stress’ (for reviews, see Blakemore and Choudhury, 2006; Casey et al., 2008; Nelson et al., 2005).
Challenges to the Storm and Stress Model As Jeffrey Jensen Arnett (1999) suggests, the dominant ‘storm and stress’ model of adolescent deviance discounts individual differences in the adolescent experience within a given society, in addition to the differences observed between societies. Although the teenage years might be the most likely time for storm and stress to occur, not every teenager in the Western world experiences a similar period of angst, rebellion, and high-risk behavior. As a scientific category, adolescence represents the product of a very specific social and historical moment in time in which social Darwinism reflected the dominant ideology. Adolescents, in the view of early theorists like G. Stanley Hall, were simply not fit enough to survive (Choudhury, 2010). As a result of both intracultural differences in the normative adolescent experience as well as its history as a construct, some researchers argue that adolescence is a socially constructed, culture-bound syndrome that has been wrongly medicalized and used as a tool of social control (Hill and Fortenberry, 1992).
Culture and Biology: Mutually Constitutive Clearly, the brain and the changes it undergoes “cannot be viewed separately from the material, historical, and social circumstances that produced it” (Lock and Nguyen, 2010: p. 109). Even so, it is important to note that the acknowledgment or appreciation of cultural differences does not require an outright repudiation of scientific evidence. As Davis and Morris (2007) argue, “the biological without the cultural, or the cultural without the biological, is doomed to be reductionist at best and inaccurate at worst” (p. 411). Neither a biological explanation of the ‘storm and stress’ model nor a purely descriptive account of cross-cultural variations is entirely correct. To get a more complete picture, we first need to understand how culture and biology might interact to give rise to psychological outcomes. In a prime example of culture-gene coevolution at work, Chiao and Blizinsky (2010) found that individuals from collectivist cultures across 29 nations were more likely to carry the short (S) allele of the 5-HTTLPR serotonin transporter gene, which is associated with negative emotion and heightened anxiety. However, these same individuals were also less likely to suffer from mood or anxiety disorders. At first glance, these results seem paradoxical: How could a population with a heightened genetic risk for mood and anxiety disorders show decreased prevalence of those disorders? In their analysis, the authors argue that the collectivistic emphasis on social harmony lessens exposure to the types of chronic stress that put genetically susceptible individuals at risk of developing these conditions. That is, the cultural environment serves as a protective buffer against the harmful effects of various forms of psychopathology.
Conclusions and Future Directions Deviance is clearly a multidimensional construct. Various forms of deviant behavior during adolescence have been observed in many locations and populations around the world, although there are notable differences and trends. First, adolescent deviance seems to be less common in nonindustrialized societies where children gain adult responsibilities immediately after puberty (see Brown and Larson, 2002). Among Western industrialized nations, there is little overall variability in the prevalence of deviant or antisocial behaviors. And within the United States, there appear to be negligible differences between racial and ethnic groups. Nonetheless, adolescent deviance is generally a common occurrence in the Western world. When compared to Western adolescents, those from non-Western (especially Asian) cultures show significantly lower levels of a wide variety of deviant behaviors. Some researchers suggest that adolescent ‘storm and stress’ arises as the result of brain development, while others believe that it might be most productively understood as a function of specific cultural constraints and belief systems. Although a single cause remains elusive, it is clear that both biological and cultural explanations are not only useful, but vitally necessary, to understand deviant adolescent behavior.
Defiant Behavior During Adolescence across Cultures
See also: Aggression, Social Psychology of; Behavioral Problems, Effects of Socio-Economic Status On; Collective Behavior, Social Psychology of; Cross-Cultural Psychology; Cross-Cultural Research Methods in Psychology; Defiant Behavior During Infancy and Early Childhood; Developmental Research across Cultures and Nations: Challenges, Biases, and Cautions; Personality Changes During Adolescence Across Cultures; Self and Identity Development During Adolescence across Cultures; Stress in Adolescence: Effects on Development.
Bibliography American Psychiatric Association, 2000. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth ed., text rev. Author, Washington, DC. Arnett, J.J., 1999. Adolescent storm and stress, reconsidered. American Psychologist 54 (5), 317–326. Bergeron, N., Schneider, B.H., 2005. Explaining cross-national differences in peerdirected aggression: a quantitative synthesis. Aggressive Behavior 31 (2), 116–137. Blakemore, S.J., Choudhury, S., 2006. Development of the adolescent brain: implications for executive function and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47 (3–4), 296–312. Blum, R.W., Beuhring, T., Shew, M.L., Bearinger, L.H., Sieving, R.E., Resnick, M.D., 2000. The effects of race/ethnicity, income, and family structure on adolescent risk behaviors. American Journal of Public Health 90 (12), 1879–1984. Bonnie, R.J., 2002. Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union and in China: complexities and controversies. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 30 (1), 136–144. Brown, B.B., Larson, R.W., 2002. The kaleidoscope of adolescence: experiences of the world’s youth at the beginning of the 21st century. In: Brown, B.B., Larson, R.W., Saraswathi, T.S. (Eds.), The World’s Youth: Adolescence in Eight Regions of the Globe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–20. Canino, G., Polanczyk, G., Bauermeister, J.J., Rohde, L.A., Frick, P.J., 2010. Does the prevalence of CD and ODD vary across cultures? Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 45 (7), 695–704. Casey, B.J., Jones, R.M., Hare, T.A., 2008. The adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1124 (1), 111–126. Chiao, J.Y., Blizinsky, K.D., 2010. Culture-gene coevolution of individualismcollectivism and the serotonin transporter gene. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277 (1681), 529–537. Choudhury, S., Kirmayer, L.J., 2009. Cultural neuroscience and psychopathology: prospects for cultural psychiatry. Progress in Brain Research 178, 263–283. Choudhury, S., 2010. Culturing the adolescent brain: what can neuroscience learn from anthropology? Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 5 (2–3), 159–167. Claes, M., Lacourse, E., Ercolani, A., Pierro, A., Leone, L., Presaghi, F., 2005. Parenting, peer orientation, drug use, and antisocial behavior in late adolescence: a cross-national study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 34 (5), 401–411. Conrad, P., 1992. Deviance and Medicalization: From Badness to Sickness. Temple University Press, St. Louis, MO. Davis, L.J., Morris, D.B., 2007. Biocultures manifesto. New Literary History 38, 411–418. Franzese, R.J., 2009. The Sociology of Deviance: Differences, Tradition, and Stigma. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL. Freeman, J.D., 1983. Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Fridrich, A.H., Flannery, D.J., 1995. The effects of ethnicity and acculturation on early adolescent delinquency. Journal of Child and Family Studies 4 (1), 69–87. Gelman, A., Fagan, J., Kiss, A., 2007. An analysis of the New York City Police Department’s “stop-and-frisk” policy in the context of claims of racial bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association 102 (479), 813–823.
11
German, M., Gonzalez, N.A., Dumka, L., 2009. Familism values as a protective factor for Mexican-origin adolescents exposed to deviant peers. Journal of Early Adolescence 29 (1), 16–42. Glaze, L.E., 2011. Correctional Populations in the United States, 2010 (Report No. NCJ 236319). Retrieved from Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/ content/pub/pdf/cpus10.pdf. Hall, G.S., 1904. Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion, and Education. D. Appleton and Company, New York. Hill, R.F., Fortenberry, J.D., 1992. Adolescence as a culture-bound syndrome. Social Science and Medicine 35 (1), 73–80. Hinshaw, S.P., Lee, S.S., 2003. Conduct and oppositional defiant disorders. In: Mash, E.J., Barkley, R.A. (Eds.), Child Psychopathology. Guilford Press, New York, pp. 144–198. Jessor, R., Turbin, M.S., Costa, F.M., Dong, Q., Zhang, H., Wang, C., 2003. Adolescent problem behavior in China and the United States: a cross-national study of psychosocial protective factors. Journal of Research on Adolescence 13 (3), 329–360. Le, T.N., Stockdale, G.D., 2005. Individualism, collectivism, and delinquency in Asian American adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 34 (4), 681–691. Li, Y., Wang, M., Wang, C., Shi, J., 2010. Individualism, collectivism, and Chinese adolescents’ aggression: intracultural variations. Aggressive Behavior 36, 187–194. Lock, M., Nguyen, V., 2010. An Anthropology of Biomedicine. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. Markus, H.R., Kitayama, S., 1991. Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review 98 (2), 224–253. Marsella, A., 1987. The measurement of depressive experience and disorder across cultures. In: Marsella, A., Hirschfeld, R.M., Katz, M.M. (Eds.), The Measurement of Depression. Guilford Press, New York, pp. 376–397. Mead, M., 1928. Coming of Age in Samoa: A Psychological Study of Primitive Youth for Western Civilization. W. Morrow & Company, New York. Munroe, R.L., Hulefeld, R., Rodgers, J.M., Tomeo, D.L., Yamazaki, S.K., 2000. Aggression among children in four cultures. Cross-Cultural Research 34 (1), 3–25. Nelson, E.E., Leibenluft, E., McClure, E., Pine, D.S., 2005. The social re-orientation of adolescence: a neuroscience perspective on the process and its relation to psychopathology. Psychological Medicine 35 (02), 163–174. Pineda, D.A., Kamphaus, R.W., Restrepo, M.A., Puerta, I.C., Arango, C.P., Lopera, F.J., García-Barrera, M.A., Dowdy, E.T., 2006. Screening for conduct disorder in an adolescent male sample from Colombia. Transcultural Psychiatry 43 (3), 362–382. Potter, N.N., 2011. Mad, bad, or virtuous? The moral, cultural, and pathologizing features of defiance. Theory & Psychology 22 (1), 23–45. Santelli, J.S., Lowry, R., Brener, N.D., Robin, L., 2000. The association of sexual behaviors with socioeconomic status, family structure, and race/ethnicity among US adolescents. American Journal of Public Health 90 (10), 1582–1588. Schlegel, A., Barry, H., 1991. Adolescence: An Anthropological Inquiry. Free Press, New York. Shankman, P., 2009. The Trashing of Margaret Mead: Anatomy of an Anthropological Controversy. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., Kramer, J., 2006. The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: the punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology 36 (4), 763–798. Triandis, H.C., 1989. Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In: Berman, J. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Cross Cultural Perspectives. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 41–133. Triandis, H.C., 1995. Individualism and Collectivism: New Directions in Social Psychology. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Tylor, E.B., 1871. Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom. Bradbury, Evans, and Co., London. Tyson, G.A., Hubert, C.J., 2012. Cultural differences in adolescents’ perceptions of the seriousness of delinquent behaviours. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 10 (2), 316–323. Vazsonyi, A.T., 2003. Parent–adolescent relations and problem behaviors: Hungary, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United States. Marriage & Family Review 35 (3–4), 161–187. Weinberger, D.R., Elvevag, B., Giedd, J.N., 2005. The Adolescent Brain: A Work in Progress. National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Washington, DC.
Abstract A review of cross-cultural studies of defiant and other deviant behavior during adolescence is provided. Race, ethnicity, and nationality are considered as possible aspects of culture. Although deviant behavior is relatively common in the United States and other Western cultures, there are variations across racial and ethnic groups. Cross-nationally, there is little variation across Western cultures, although deviance is somewhat less prevalent in nonindustrialized societies where children gain adult responsibilities immediately after puberty.
Adolescence has long been equated with defiant behavior. In Rhetoric, Aristotle declared youth to be as “heated by nature as drunken men by wine.” In Emile, French Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau advised parents to “keep their hand[s] on the helm . [lest] all be lost.” And, in 1904, G. Stanley Hall, the first president of the American Psychological Association, coined the now ubiquitous phrase “storm and stress” to refer to the characteristic turbulence of the teenage years. Adolescents, he believed, constituted a separate race that would be properly integrated into normal adult society in their own due time (Arnett, 1999: p. 317). Hoping to challenge the popular conception that the ‘omnipresent and obvious symptoms of unrest’ widely observed during adolescence are simply ‘characteristics of the period,’ anthropologist Margaret Mead set sail for Samoa in 1926. After 2 years of living among young women on the island of Ta’u, she ultimately concluded that “adolescence represented no period of stress or crisis,” largely due to the “general casualness of the whole society” (Mead, 1928: pp. 109, 137). Unlike contemporary American culture, authority was diffused over large families, young people could move from family to family within their villages, and girls had the socially sanctioned freedom to sexually experiment. In Samoa, the constraints of a society that demonizes adolescents were conspicuously absent. In the years since its publication, Coming of Age in Samoa has been met with its fair share of controversy. Based on his own fieldwork in Samoa, one of Mead’s most vocal critics, Derek Freeman (1983), claims that Mead had not only been deceived by her informants, but that she also deliberately fabricated evidence in support of her ideological leanings. More recently, other anthropologists have come to Mead’s defense, claiming that Freeman’s criticisms (1) lack ethnographic accuracy and (2) represent an unjustified attack on her reputation driven by his own personal beliefs (see Shankman, 2009). While we will not further discuss the Mead–Freeman debate in this article, we do acknowledge Coming of Age in Samoa as the first major work to challenge the universality of adolescent defiance, thus laying the theoretical groundwork for the future study of cross-cultural adolescent behavior.
Defiance as a Form of Deviance In reviewing cross-cultural studies of defiant behavior, it is useful to consider defiance as a specific form of the more
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 6
general category of antisocial or deviant behavior. In this article, we thus broadly define ‘defiance’ to also include various forms of deviant and antisocial behavior. For the sake of uniformity, we will refer to all of these behaviors as ‘deviant’ for the remainder of the article. At its most basic level, deviance is principally characterized by a violation of social norms (see Franzese, 2009: pp. 6–7, for a review of contemporary sociological definitions). Since deviance is always defined in relation to a set of specific collective expectations, it is an inherently value-laden, context-dependent term. Beliefs and behaviors that might be viewed by one person as ‘deviant’ could easily be viewed as acceptable or even virtuous by another (Potter, 2011). In the United States, deviant behaviors that actively impinge upon the rights of others are diagnostically codified in the form of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), and antisocial personality disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Many scholars have argued against the medicalization of deviance on the grounds that a diagnostic label can serve as a powerful tool of social and political control that can be used to pathologize behaviors that are more disagreeable than dangerous (see Conrad, 1992). For example, during the Cold War, government officials in both China and the former Soviet Union imprisoned ‘mentally ill’ political and religious dissidents in asylums in order to suppress the opposition they deemed harmful to the rest of society (Bonnie, 2002). An in-depth analysis of how certain acts come to be regarded as deviant or whether they deserve to be considered deviant is outside of the purview of this article. Here, we limit our discussion to deviant behaviors (including defiance), widely associated with adolescence in the Western world. These include drug use and distribution, risky sexual behavior, generalized delinquent (including law-breaking) behavior, and aggression, all of which cause direct economic, emotional, or physical harm to oneself or others.
What Is Culture? In order to understand how certain cultural factors might encourage or discourage deviant behavior during adolescence, we first must specify what we mean by culture. In the definition often referred to as the ‘gold standard’ among anthropologists, E.B. Tylor (1871: p. 1) defined culture as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.23026-2
7
8
Defiant Behavior During Adolescence across Cultures
any other capabilities acquired by man as a member of society.” A century later, specifically applying the definition to the study of psychological processes, Marsella (1987: p. 381) proposed that culture also comprises any individual’s “values, attitudes, beliefs, cognitive styles, and patterns of consciousness.” Although preferred by scholars in different disciplines, both of these definitions converge on the idea that ‘culture’ cannot be neatly reduced to a single factor. Unfortunately, crosscultural scientific research often disregards the notion of a ‘complex whole’ in favor of empirical simplicity. ‘Culture’ is frequently conflated with racial or ethnic categories, with national (or even continental) borders often used as a proxy for group membership. Although a common identity might be more likely to lead to shared experiences that contribute to common psychological development, an emphasis on group membership above all else can easily obscure within-group heterogeneity and draw misleading distinctions between individuals that actually share more similarities than differences (see Choudhury and Kirmayer, 2009). Not all of the research cited in this review was conducted with these principles in mind, so we urge readers to look beyond labels in order to understand the underlying processes – values, beliefs, practices, etc. – that constitute the ever-evolving notion of ‘culture’ and that might contribute to adolescent deviance. With these definitions and concerns in mind, we review here studies investigating the differences in deviant behavior across groups pertaining to race, ethnicity, and nationality. We also discuss sociological theories that suggest differences across industrialized vs nonindustrialized societies, and individualism vs collectivism. Although gender and socioeconomic groups might well be considered as cultural entities, we have not reviewed these studies in this article, since they are described elsewhere.
Cross-National Differences Mixed results emerge from the literature on cross-national differences in deviant behavior during adolescence. One metaanalysis of 25 cross-national studies conducted between 1997 and 2008 revealed that prevalence estimates of both ODD (0.6–11.0%) and CD (0.47–8.7%) did not differ as a function of geographic location (Canino et al., 2010). Rather, methodological differences between studies accounted for a greater proportion of the variability in prevalence rates. However, of the 25 studies that met criteria for inclusion in the final analysis, only four were conducted in non-Western countries (three in Asia and one in the Middle East). In their discussion, the authors note that differences between Western and non-Western countries might have emerged if more nonWestern cultures were included in their analysis. Findings from non-Western cultures do, in fact, suggest some cross-national differences in deviant behavior. Markedly lower rates of adolescent problem behavior (smoking, drinking, and general delinquency) have been found in China compared to the United States (Jessor et al., 2003). In observational studies of children in four non-Western cultures (American Samoa, Belize, Kenya, and Nepal), physical aggression was not an entirely common occurrence, comprising 10% of boys’ and 6% of girls’ social behavior
(Munroe et al., 2000). However, aggressive acts were significantly more common among children in the two patrilineal societies (the Newars of Nepal and Logoli of Kenya) than those in the nonpatrilineal societies. Still other researchers have found adolescent deviance to be quite common in non-Western cultures. Among a random sample of male adolescents in Colombia, Pineda et al. (2006) observed prevalence estimates of CD to range from 10.5 to 35.5%, much higher than independent estimates in the United States (Hinshaw and Lee, 2003). Despite differences in the incidence of adolescent deviance, it does seem that similar developmental processes are at play in discouraging such behaviors across national borders. Investigating the relationship between adolescent misconduct and the parent–child relationship in Hungary, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United States, Vazsonyi (2003) found parental closeness, support, and monitoring to independently predict adolescent problem behaviors (ranging from misbehaving in school to physical assault) in all four countries. Researchers have also found a similar protective relationship between parenting practices and deviant behavior (drug use, nonaggressive antisocial behavior, and physically aggressive antisocial behavior) among adolescents in Canada, France, and Italy (Claes et al., 2005). In summary, the evidence for cross-national differences in deviant behavior during adolescence appears to be mixed. While few differences have been found between (mostly) Western cultures (Canino et al., 2010), some disparities are evident between Western and non-Western cultures, and when certain non-Western cultures are compared to one another. Rates of substance use and delinquency are lower in China but higher in Colombia compared to the United States, while aggression is not uncommon in other non-Western cultures (American Samoa, Belize, Nepal, and Kenya). Although these findings do not allow us to draw definitive conclusions about the worldwide distribution of adolescent deviance, they do lend support to Mead’s initial observation that it is (in its many manifestations) far from a universal phenomenon.
Racial/Ethnic Differences in the United States To explore whether adolescent deviance might be more consistent within a given country, we now turn to differences between racial and ethnic groups in the United States. Although criminal behavior can be a useful index of deviance, African and Hispanic Americans are disproportionately incarcerated relative to their Asian or European American counterparts (Glaze, 2011). Since there is growing evidence to suggest that these disparities can be largely attributed to racial profiling, aggressive police practices, targeted prosecutions, and sentencing biases (Gelman et al., 2007; Steffensmeier et al., 2006), it is especially crucial to look toward empirical studies that propose cogent explanations for specific differences in deviant behavior, rather than attempt to draw conclusions from crime statistics or any other purely observational data. Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Blum et al. (2000) found some evidence of racial differences in adolescent high-risk behaviors. Replicating
Defiant Behavior During Adolescence across Cultures earlier findings, White adolescents were the most likely to use substances or attempt suicide, Black adolescents were the most likely to have already engaged in sexual intercourse, and Black and Hispanic adolescents together were more likely to participate in acts of violence than White adolescents. However, after controlling for gender, income, and family structure, race accounted for less than 10% of the variance in risk behaviors among both younger and older adolescents. That is, although racial differences were observed, race alone could not accurately predict the likelihood that any one person might engage in those behaviors. An additional study focusing solely on high-risk sexual behaviors during adolescence found similar results. Although higher levels of parental education, a twoparent family, and a European–American background were all independently negatively associated with risky behaviors, neither race nor socioeconomic status could fully explain the rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases observed in the sample (Santelli et al., 2000). These results further emphasize the heterogeneity that occurs within racial and ethnic groups in the United States, which ultimately should discourage their use as sole explanatory variables in scientific research.
Industrialized vs Nonindustrialized Societies Contemporary research continues to validate Margaret Mead’s assertion that adolescence is neither uniformly experienced nor defined. Schlegel and Barry (1991) have found the usual ‘storm and stress’ of adolescence to be far less frequent, if at all present, in nonindustrialized societies. Interestingly, many of these societies lack a specific word to describe the period between childhood and adulthood due to various cultural constraints. For some societies that are heavily agrarian, children might work directly alongside adults as soon as they are physically capable. In others, girls might be expected to bear their own children immediately after the onset of puberty. And, in perhaps the most drastic shift from childhood to adulthood, some children are involuntarily recruited to participate in armed conflict. Each of these cases leaves little, if any, room for the developmental middle ground that is adolescence (see Brown and Larson, 2002).
Individualism vs Collectivism However, as previously mentioned, some industrialized societies (e.g., the United States and China) have been found to show markedly different levels of deviant behavior among adolescents (Jessor et al., 2003). In order to account for this difference, we now turn our attention to two distinct, heavily researched cultural typologies: individualism and collectivism. Much like the name suggests, individualism prioritizes the needs and desires of the individual over those of any given group. Individualists often have loosely defined, dynamic social relationships and generally prefer to exist autonomously of others’ influence. In contrast, collectivists tend to define themselves by their interdependent relationships with friends, family, and society at large, placing great emphasis on group needs and
9
social harmony (Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). Although collectivism is rooted in traditional Confucian values, it is certainly not geographically bound; collectivistic values have also been widely observed throughout Latin America, Africa, and South Asia (Triandis, 1989). Might cross-cultural differences in deviant behavior during adolescence emerge as a consequence of different values between individualistic and collectivistic cultures? Tyson and Hubert (2012) have found that adolescents from Australia and various East Asian countries differ in the way they think about delinquent behaviors (e.g., theft, property damage, drug use, drunk driving, etc.). Although participants from both groups agreed which behaviors were more or less severe than others, Australian adolescents rated delinquent behaviors as significantly less wrong than their East Asian counterparts. Especially reflective of the collectivist emphasis on social harmony and deference to authority, ‘shouting abuse at your parents’ was the single item with the greatest difference between the two groups. Further, as East Asian participants aged, they perceived delinquency as less acceptable, while Australian participants showed no change or even perceived delinquent acts as more acceptable, depending on the specific behavior. But do differences in beliefs necessarily map on to differences in behavior? One metaanalysis of 185 different crossnational comparisons found that aggression was significantly less frequent in cultures that value collectivist ideals, egalitarianism, and moral discipline (Bergeron and Schneider, 2005). However, this study is only an indirect measure of association between cultural values and aggression. As the authors acknowledge, national indices of values are very useful for understanding cross-national differences in behaviors, but they do little to help us understand how cultural factors might influence individual differences. When study participants are asked to specifically report the extent to which they endorse individualism or collectivism, similar patterns of results emerge. In a mixed gender sample of Chinese adolescents, self-reported individualism positively predicted, and self-reported collectivism negatively predicted, peer and teacher ratings of both overt and relational aggression (Li et al., 2010). This pattern has also been found to extend to delinquency more generally. Among a sample of Chinese, Cambodian, Laotian, and Vietnamese youth, the frequency of self-reported delinquent behaviors was, again, directly related to individualism and inversely related to collectivism (Le and Stockdale, 2005). Similar cultural values have been found to exert similar effects among non-Asian adolescents. In research examining the relationship between traditional Latino family values and externalizing behavior, German et al. (2009) found that Mexican–American adolescents with a heightened sense of familial obligation and emotional closeness to their family exhibited fewer externalizing conduct problems according to two independent teacher reports, even when they were exposed to deviant peers. However, a separate study revealed that Mexican adolescents who had acculturated to mainstream American culture reported engaging in more delinquent behaviors than those who had chosen to remain unacculturated, those who had very recently immigrated to the United
10
Defiant Behavior During Adolescence across Cultures
States, and White non-Hispanic adolescents (Fridrich and Flannery, 1995). In short, a wide variety of deviant behaviors appear to be more reliably associated with broad sets of values than with race, ethnicity, or nationality, per se. Regardless of the specific name, belief systems that emphasize the responsibility of the individual to some larger collective entity (whether it be one’s family or society at large) seem to protect against adolescent deviance.
Biological Explanations of Adolescence When it comes to explaining the ‘storm and stress’ of contemporary Western adolescence, biological, value-free explanations reign supreme. In these accounts, deviant, risktaking behaviors are framed as unfortunate, yet inevitable, consequences of the many neurodevelopmental changes that accompany puberty. Some of the most profound changes are related to the development of the prefrontal cortex. Often referred to as the brain’s CEO, the prefrontal cortex is responsible for a variety of higher-order executive functions, including controlling one’s impulses, initiating appropriate behaviors and inhibiting inappropriate behaviors, organizing complex information, making decisions, and empathizing with others. Clinical populations with prefrontal damage often show lapses in moral reasoning, an inability to anticipate future consequences, and an inability to inhibit inappropriate social behavior. In healthy individuals, the prefrontal cortex does not fully mature until the mid- to late 1920s. As it matures, the number of dopaminergic inputs to the region dramatically increases, a change reflected the newfound ability to control one’s impulses and make more mature, reasoned decisions (see Weinberger et al., 2005, for a review). As a result, prefrontal deficits are widely cited as the sole underlying cause of adolescent ‘storm and stress’ (for reviews, see Blakemore and Choudhury, 2006; Casey et al., 2008; Nelson et al., 2005).
Challenges to the Storm and Stress Model As Jeffrey Jensen Arnett (1999) suggests, the dominant ‘storm and stress’ model of adolescent deviance discounts individual differences in the adolescent experience within a given society, in addition to the differences observed between societies. Although the teenage years might be the most likely time for storm and stress to occur, not every teenager in the Western world experiences a similar period of angst, rebellion, and high-risk behavior. As a scientific category, adolescence represents the product of a very specific social and historical moment in time in which social Darwinism reflected the dominant ideology. Adolescents, in the view of early theorists like G. Stanley Hall, were simply not fit enough to survive (Choudhury, 2010). As a result of both intracultural differences in the normative adolescent experience as well as its history as a construct, some researchers argue that adolescence is a socially constructed, culture-bound syndrome that has been wrongly medicalized and used as a tool of social control (Hill and Fortenberry, 1992).
Culture and Biology: Mutually Constitutive Clearly, the brain and the changes it undergoes “cannot be viewed separately from the material, historical, and social circumstances that produced it” (Lock and Nguyen, 2010: p. 109). Even so, it is important to note that the acknowledgment or appreciation of cultural differences does not require an outright repudiation of scientific evidence. As Davis and Morris (2007) argue, “the biological without the cultural, or the cultural without the biological, is doomed to be reductionist at best and inaccurate at worst” (p. 411). Neither a biological explanation of the ‘storm and stress’ model nor a purely descriptive account of cross-cultural variations is entirely correct. To get a more complete picture, we first need to understand how culture and biology might interact to give rise to psychological outcomes. In a prime example of culture-gene coevolution at work, Chiao and Blizinsky (2010) found that individuals from collectivist cultures across 29 nations were more likely to carry the short (S) allele of the 5-HTTLPR serotonin transporter gene, which is associated with negative emotion and heightened anxiety. However, these same individuals were also less likely to suffer from mood or anxiety disorders. At first glance, these results seem paradoxical: How could a population with a heightened genetic risk for mood and anxiety disorders show decreased prevalence of those disorders? In their analysis, the authors argue that the collectivistic emphasis on social harmony lessens exposure to the types of chronic stress that put genetically susceptible individuals at risk of developing these conditions. That is, the cultural environment serves as a protective buffer against the harmful effects of various forms of psychopathology.
Conclusions and Future Directions Deviance is clearly a multidimensional construct. Various forms of deviant behavior during adolescence have been observed in many locations and populations around the world, although there are notable differences and trends. First, adolescent deviance seems to be less common in nonindustrialized societies where children gain adult responsibilities immediately after puberty (see Brown and Larson, 2002). Among Western industrialized nations, there is little overall variability in the prevalence of deviant or antisocial behaviors. And within the United States, there appear to be negligible differences between racial and ethnic groups. Nonetheless, adolescent deviance is generally a common occurrence in the Western world. When compared to Western adolescents, those from non-Western (especially Asian) cultures show significantly lower levels of a wide variety of deviant behaviors. Some researchers suggest that adolescent ‘storm and stress’ arises as the result of brain development, while others believe that it might be most productively understood as a function of specific cultural constraints and belief systems. Although a single cause remains elusive, it is clear that both biological and cultural explanations are not only useful, but vitally necessary, to understand deviant adolescent behavior.
Defiant Behavior During Adolescence across Cultures
See also: Aggression, Social Psychology of; Behavioral Problems, Effects of Socio-Economic Status On; Collective Behavior, Social Psychology of; Cross-Cultural Psychology; Cross-Cultural Research Methods in Psychology; Defiant Behavior During Infancy and Early Childhood; Developmental Research across Cultures and Nations: Challenges, Biases, and Cautions; Personality Changes During Adolescence Across Cultures; Self and Identity Development During Adolescence across Cultures; Stress in Adolescence: Effects on Development.
Bibliography American Psychiatric Association, 2000. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth ed., text rev. Author, Washington, DC. Arnett, J.J., 1999. Adolescent storm and stress, reconsidered. American Psychologist 54 (5), 317–326. Bergeron, N., Schneider, B.H., 2005. Explaining cross-national differences in peerdirected aggression: a quantitative synthesis. Aggressive Behavior 31 (2), 116–137. Blakemore, S.J., Choudhury, S., 2006. Development of the adolescent brain: implications for executive function and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47 (3–4), 296–312. Blum, R.W., Beuhring, T., Shew, M.L., Bearinger, L.H., Sieving, R.E., Resnick, M.D., 2000. The effects of race/ethnicity, income, and family structure on adolescent risk behaviors. American Journal of Public Health 90 (12), 1879–1984. Bonnie, R.J., 2002. Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union and in China: complexities and controversies. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 30 (1), 136–144. Brown, B.B., Larson, R.W., 2002. The kaleidoscope of adolescence: experiences of the world’s youth at the beginning of the 21st century. In: Brown, B.B., Larson, R.W., Saraswathi, T.S. (Eds.), The World’s Youth: Adolescence in Eight Regions of the Globe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–20. Canino, G., Polanczyk, G., Bauermeister, J.J., Rohde, L.A., Frick, P.J., 2010. Does the prevalence of CD and ODD vary across cultures? Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 45 (7), 695–704. Casey, B.J., Jones, R.M., Hare, T.A., 2008. The adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1124 (1), 111–126. Chiao, J.Y., Blizinsky, K.D., 2010. Culture-gene coevolution of individualismcollectivism and the serotonin transporter gene. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277 (1681), 529–537. Choudhury, S., Kirmayer, L.J., 2009. Cultural neuroscience and psychopathology: prospects for cultural psychiatry. Progress in Brain Research 178, 263–283. Choudhury, S., 2010. Culturing the adolescent brain: what can neuroscience learn from anthropology? Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 5 (2–3), 159–167. Claes, M., Lacourse, E., Ercolani, A., Pierro, A., Leone, L., Presaghi, F., 2005. Parenting, peer orientation, drug use, and antisocial behavior in late adolescence: a cross-national study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 34 (5), 401–411. Conrad, P., 1992. Deviance and Medicalization: From Badness to Sickness. Temple University Press, St. Louis, MO. Davis, L.J., Morris, D.B., 2007. Biocultures manifesto. New Literary History 38, 411–418. Franzese, R.J., 2009. The Sociology of Deviance: Differences, Tradition, and Stigma. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL. Freeman, J.D., 1983. Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Fridrich, A.H., Flannery, D.J., 1995. The effects of ethnicity and acculturation on early adolescent delinquency. Journal of Child and Family Studies 4 (1), 69–87. Gelman, A., Fagan, J., Kiss, A., 2007. An analysis of the New York City Police Department’s “stop-and-frisk” policy in the context of claims of racial bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association 102 (479), 813–823.
11
German, M., Gonzalez, N.A., Dumka, L., 2009. Familism values as a protective factor for Mexican-origin adolescents exposed to deviant peers. Journal of Early Adolescence 29 (1), 16–42. Glaze, L.E., 2011. Correctional Populations in the United States, 2010 (Report No. NCJ 236319). Retrieved from Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/ content/pub/pdf/cpus10.pdf. Hall, G.S., 1904. Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion, and Education. D. Appleton and Company, New York. Hill, R.F., Fortenberry, J.D., 1992. Adolescence as a culture-bound syndrome. Social Science and Medicine 35 (1), 73–80. Hinshaw, S.P., Lee, S.S., 2003. Conduct and oppositional defiant disorders. In: Mash, E.J., Barkley, R.A. (Eds.), Child Psychopathology. Guilford Press, New York, pp. 144–198. Jessor, R., Turbin, M.S., Costa, F.M., Dong, Q., Zhang, H., Wang, C., 2003. Adolescent problem behavior in China and the United States: a cross-national study of psychosocial protective factors. Journal of Research on Adolescence 13 (3), 329–360. Le, T.N., Stockdale, G.D., 2005. Individualism, collectivism, and delinquency in Asian American adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 34 (4), 681–691. Li, Y., Wang, M., Wang, C., Shi, J., 2010. Individualism, collectivism, and Chinese adolescents’ aggression: intracultural variations. Aggressive Behavior 36, 187–194. Lock, M., Nguyen, V., 2010. An Anthropology of Biomedicine. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. Markus, H.R., Kitayama, S., 1991. Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review 98 (2), 224–253. Marsella, A., 1987. The measurement of depressive experience and disorder across cultures. In: Marsella, A., Hirschfeld, R.M., Katz, M.M. (Eds.), The Measurement of Depression. Guilford Press, New York, pp. 376–397. Mead, M., 1928. Coming of Age in Samoa: A Psychological Study of Primitive Youth for Western Civilization. W. Morrow & Company, New York. Munroe, R.L., Hulefeld, R., Rodgers, J.M., Tomeo, D.L., Yamazaki, S.K., 2000. Aggression among children in four cultures. Cross-Cultural Research 34 (1), 3–25. Nelson, E.E., Leibenluft, E., McClure, E., Pine, D.S., 2005. The social re-orientation of adolescence: a neuroscience perspective on the process and its relation to psychopathology. Psychological Medicine 35 (02), 163–174. Pineda, D.A., Kamphaus, R.W., Restrepo, M.A., Puerta, I.C., Arango, C.P., Lopera, F.J., García-Barrera, M.A., Dowdy, E.T., 2006. Screening for conduct disorder in an adolescent male sample from Colombia. Transcultural Psychiatry 43 (3), 362–382. Potter, N.N., 2011. Mad, bad, or virtuous? The moral, cultural, and pathologizing features of defiance. Theory & Psychology 22 (1), 23–45. Santelli, J.S., Lowry, R., Brener, N.D., Robin, L., 2000. The association of sexual behaviors with socioeconomic status, family structure, and race/ethnicity among US adolescents. American Journal of Public Health 90 (10), 1582–1588. Schlegel, A., Barry, H., 1991. Adolescence: An Anthropological Inquiry. Free Press, New York. Shankman, P., 2009. The Trashing of Margaret Mead: Anatomy of an Anthropological Controversy. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., Kramer, J., 2006. The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: the punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology 36 (4), 763–798. Triandis, H.C., 1989. Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In: Berman, J. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Cross Cultural Perspectives. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 41–133. Triandis, H.C., 1995. Individualism and Collectivism: New Directions in Social Psychology. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Tylor, E.B., 1871. Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom. Bradbury, Evans, and Co., London. Tyson, G.A., Hubert, C.J., 2012. Cultural differences in adolescents’ perceptions of the seriousness of delinquent behaviours. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 10 (2), 316–323. Vazsonyi, A.T., 2003. Parent–adolescent relations and problem behaviors: Hungary, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United States. Marriage & Family Review 35 (3–4), 161–187. Weinberger, D.R., Elvevag, B., Giedd, J.N., 2005. The Adolescent Brain: A Work in Progress. National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Washington, DC.