The Prevention of Problem Behaviors in Adolescents and Young Adults

Perspectives on Theory and Practice

Bibliographic Data

ID12987136
AuthorsJames Jaccard (0000-0002-2254-1487, New York University, corresponding author)
Year2016
Volume7
Issue4
Pages585-613
Publication date2016-10-19
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of the Society for Social Work and Research (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1948-822X • E-ISSN: 2334-2315
PublisherUniversity of Chicago Press (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1086/689354
OpenAlexW2532190522
LanguageEN
Citations received12
References cited29

Behavior-Specific and Common-Cause Approaches to Prevention ProgramsDevelopmental scientists have long sought to identify the causes of problem behaviors in youth, with at least two conceptually distinct approaches used frequently. One approach emphasizes the common determinants of problem behaviors, arguing that variation in problem behaviors is due in large part to common causes that impact each behavior, such as sensation seeking, locus of control, emotion regulation, social class, religiosity, parenting, and media exposure. A well-known version of this approach is Jessor’s Problem Behavior Theory, which identifies a personality system, an environmental system, and a behavior system as core determinants of adolescent problem behaviors (Jessor & Jessor, 1977; Jessor, 2014). Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory also can be interpreted as elaborating sources of common problem-behavior causes. Also in this tradition are intervention strategies based on positive youth development (Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas, & Lerner, 2005; Oesterle, Hawkins, Fagan, Abbott, & Catalano, 2014). Positive youth development approaches de-emphasize the need to address the unique determinants of a given problem behavior and instead stress the importance of maximizing the more generalized cognitive, social, emotional, and moral development of youth. The assumption is that if youth achieve their potential in these areas of development, then problem behaviors will be fundamentally and drastically reduced. Frameworks that emphasize the common bases of problem behaviors posit that the behaviors will be highly correlated by virtue of their shared determinants. In adolescent-development textbooks and scientific literature, it is not uncommon to find assertions that adolescent problem behaviors are highly correlated (Santrock, 2013; Jessor, 2014). In my experience, this is a widely held belief among many social scientists.In contrast, a large group of developmental scientists use explanatory and intervention approaches that emphasize behavior-specific or unique influences on adolescent problem behaviors rather than common causes of those behaviors. For example, interventions exist that target beliefs, attitudes, and norms about sexual risk taking (Jemmott & Jemmott, 2000; Jemmott, Jemmott, & Fong, 1998), about smoking (Sussman, Dent, Burton, Stacy, & Flay, 1994), about drug use (Flay, 2000), and about alcohol use (Chou et al., 1998), to name a few. The working assumption of these frameworks is that although the different problem behaviors share some common determinants, there also are unique influences that must be considered to effectively address the behavior: If one seeks to reduce smoking in youth, for example, then issues related to smoking must be addressed; if one seeks to reduce alcohol consumption in youth, then issues related to alcohol use must be addressed. These approaches typically argue that, in general, adolescent problem behaviors are only modestly correlated with one another, and that unique rather than common determinants dominate them. Support for this proposition has been offered in meta-analyses of studies that have measured multiple problem behaviors (Guilamo-Ramos, Litardo, & Jaccard, 2005). The average correlation between problem behaviors is about 0.35, which reflects about 10% shared variance between them, although there is variability about this average, both above and below it (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2005).Although common causes are a source of covariation among problem behaviors, there is another source of association that is distinct from common causes: the fact that causal relationships exist between some problem behaviors. For example, research has linked alcohol use to unsafe sex. This research documents how being intoxicated impacts the salience of risk cognitions and judgment processes in sexual situations in ways that encourage unsafe sex (Cooper, 2006; Dermen & Cooper, 2000). Drug use is thought to impact school disengagement (Arria et al., 2013), although several theorists have argued that the causal impact is opposite in direction, with school disengagement encouraging drug use (Henry, Knight, & Thornberry, 2012).These sources of covariation between adolescent problem behaviors are depicted in Figure 1. Paths a and b reflect the impact of common causes on the multiple problem behaviors. The larger the values of paths a and b, the stronger the correlation between the problem behaviors, everything else being equal. Path c reflects the influence that one problem behavior has on another problem behavior, independent of common causes and unique influences. The larger the value of path c, the stronger the correlation between the problem behaviors, everything else being equal. Finally, paths d and e represent the impact of (uncorrelated) unique influences specific to each behavior. The larger the values of paths d and e, the weaker the correlation between the problem behaviors, everything else being equal.Figure 1. The common cause, direct cause, and unique cause model depicts sources of covariation between adolescent problem behaviors.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointAlthough it varies from study to study, current evidence suggests that unique variance carries substantial weight in shaping adolescent problem behaviors (see, for example, Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2005); unique variance tends to account for about two thirds of the variation in problem behaviors. My own position is that both common-cause and unique-cause approaches are important, and each has much to offer when designing programs to address adolescent problem behaviors. Indeed, I use both frameworks when designing my own prevention programs. In this article, I focus primarily on theories of the behavior-specific, unique causes of behavior, but this does not imply that I do not value and see the need for general-variable approaches. Theorists from each tradition should work together to bring both perspectives to bear in an integrated way. I have studied unique influences of behavior for the past 40 years using behavioral decision theory, and it is this framework that I want to highlight here

Developmental psychology · Fagan inspection · Positive Youth Development · Religiosity · Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development · Early Childhood Education and Development · Psychology · Social Psychology · Youth Development and Social Support

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub