Introduction
Antisocial Behavior in Childhood and Adolescence
The Role of Positive Emotion in Antisocial Behavior
Theories of Positive Emotion and Antisocial Behavior in Adults
Emotions and Antisocial Behavior in Children and Adolescents
Positive Moral Emotion Attributions and Antisocial Behavior in Children and Adolescents
Bullying, Positive Emotions and Antisocial Behavior in Children and Adolescents
Parent Socialization of Emotion in Relation to Child and Adolescent Antisocial Behavior
Peer Influence and the Role of Positive Emotion in Child and Adolescent Antisocial Behavior
The Current Study
Methods
Selection of Studies
Inclusion | Exclusion | |
---|---|---|
Population/participants: Children and adolescents Profile of antisocial behavior | Participants must be aged ≤ 18 years Participants must have a profile of antisocial behavior (as indicated by self and proxy reports) | Participants aged ≥ 19 years Participants without a profile of antisocial behavior Participants with autism or a learning disability |
Intervention/exposure: Antisocial behaviour i.e., oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), conduct problems, delinquency, aggression, vandalism, theft, crime, bullying and illegal acts | Self and proxy reports of antisocial behavior, including standardised measures. All reports of antisocial behavior will be included | Substance use, alcohol use, gambling and playing violent games |
Outcome: Positive emotion i.e., pleasure, excitement, pride, happiness, joy, amusement, and delight | Self-report or proxy report of positive emotion associated with antisocial behavior. All reports of positive emotion will be included as there are limited standardised measures of positive emotion | None |
Types of study | Quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods design Written in English Published peer-reviewed articles and unpublished articles | Written in a language other than English |
Search Strategy
Screening and Data Extraction
Quality Assessment
Data Synthesis
Results
Study Characteristics
Qualitative studies (n = 9) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Authors and year | Sample type | Country | N | % female | Sample age range in years (M) | Reports/evidence of AB (informant) | Reports/evidence of positive emotion (informant) | Relationship | MMAT ratings | |
Anderson and Linden (2014) | Forensic | Canada | 43 | 5% | (M = 16) | Recruited from juvenile prison | Semi-structured interview (self-report) | Yes (qualitative description) | 1.1 Yes 1.2 Can’t tell 1.3 Can’t tell 1.4 Yes 1.5 Can’t tell | |
Ash et al. (1996) | Forensic | USA | 63 | 33% | 13–18 (M = 15.7) | Recruited from juvenile prison | Semi-structured interview (self-report) | Yes (qualitative description) | 1.1 Yes 1.2 Yes 1.3 Can’t tell 1.4 Yes 1.5 Yes | |
Belson (1976) | Community | UK | 1425 | 0% | ‘juveniles’ but age not explicitly reported | Semi-structured interview (self-report) | Semi-structured interview (self-report) | Yes (qualitative description) | 1.1 Yes 1.2 Can’t tell 1.3 Can’t tell 1.4 No 1.5 Can’t tell | |
Cao et al. (2023) | Community | China | 40 | 15% | 4 to 6 (M = 5.3) | Teacher questionnaire report | Semi-structured interview (teacher report) | Yes (qualitative description) | 1.1 Yes 1.2 Yes 1.3 Yes 1.4 Yes 1.5 Yes | |
Gabaldón (2021) | Forensic | Venezuela | 18 | 11% | 14–17 | Recruited from juvenile prison | Semi-structured interview (self-report) | Yes (qualitative description) | 1.1 Yes 1.2 Yes 1.3 Yes 1.4 Can’t tell 1.5 Yes | |
Hochhaus and Sousa (1987) | Community; Forensic | USA | 9 | 0% | 13–16 | Gang involvement (self-report or reported by criminal justice system) | Semi-structured interview (self-report) | Yes (qualitative description) | 1.1 Yes 1.2 Yes 1.3 Can’t tell 1.4 No 1.5 Can’t tell | |
Ojo (2008) | Forensic | USA | 20 | 0% | 14–17 | Involvement with the criminal justice system and gang involvement (self-report or reported by criminal justice system) | Semi-structured interview (self-report) | Yes (qualitative description) | 1.1 Yes 1.2 Yes 1.3 Yes 1.4 Yes 1.5 Yes | |
Community | Australia | 54 | 100% | 15–16 | Semi-structured focus groups (self-report) | Semi-structured focus groups (self-report) | Yes (qualitative description) | 1.1
Yes 1.2 Yes 1.3 Yes 1.4 Yes 1.5 Yes | ||
Community | Australia | 72 | 56% | 14–15 | Semi-structured focus groups (self-report) | Semi-structured focus groups (self-report) | Yes (qualitative description) | 1.1 Yes 1.2 Yes 1.3 Yes 1.4 Yes 1.5 Yes |
Quantitative non-randomized studies (n = 17) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Authors and year | Sample type | Country | N | % female | Sample age range in years (M) | Reports/evidence of AB (informant) | Reports/evidence of positive emotion (informant) | Comparison groups | Relationship | MMAT ratings |
Arsenio et al. (2004) | Community; Clinical | USA | 100 | 31% | Disruptive (M = 16.02) Comparison (M = 15.77) | Existing diagnosis of ODD or CD, or recruited from a specialist school for children with behavioral difficulties (psychologist) RPQ (teacher-report) CBCL-TRF (teacher-report) | Aggression emotion expectancies (self-report) Nonaggression emotion expectancies (self-report) Emotion chip method (self-report) | Disruptive children vs non-disruptive children | Positive, significant | 3.1 No 3.2 Yes 3.3 No 3.4 No 3.5 Yes |
Benenson et al. (2008) | Community | UK | Sample 1: 89 Sample 2: 335 | Sample 1: 0% Sample 2: 38% | 4–9 | Both samples: Interview (self-report), and responses coded (researcher-coded) | Sample 2: Rating scales (self-report) | Boys (from both samples) vs girls in sample 2 | Positive, significant | 3.1 Yes 3.2 Yes 3.3 Yes 3.4 Can’t tell 3.5 Yes |
Blair (1997) | Clinical | UK | 32 | Not reported | Children with high psychopathic tendencies (M = 13.20) Children with low psychopathic tendencies (M = 12.79) | Recruited from a school for children with Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties PSD (teacher-report) | Interview in relation to vignettes (self-report) | Children with high psychopathic tendencies vs children with low psychopathic tendencies | Null | 3.1 No 3.2 Yes 3.3 Yes 3.4 No 3.5 Yes |
Cimbora and McIntosh (2003) | Community; Clinical | USA | 63 | 0% | 13–18 | Existing diagnosis of CD (clinician), verified by researchers | AMI (self-report) Interview (self-report), and responses coded (researcher-coded) | Diagnosis of CD vs no CD | Positive, significant | 3.1 No 3.2 Yes 3.3 Yes 3.4 Yes 3.5 Yes |
de Castro et al. (2005) | Community; Clinical | Nether-lands | 84 | 0% | 7–13 (M = 10.10) | Aggressive ppts were recruited from behavior disorder clinics and specialist schools for children with behavior problems TRF- Dutch version (teacher-report) RPQ (teacher-report) | Interview, rating scales, vignettes (self-report). Responses were coded (researchers) | Aggressive vs non-aggressive boys | Positive, significant | 3.1 No 3.2 Yes 3.3 Yes 3.4 Yes 3.5 Yes |
Dishion et al. (1996) | Community | USA | 206 | 0% | 13–14 | Peer interaction task
(researchers) Police contact (juvenile court records) National Youth Survey measure of self-reported delinquency (self-report) | Peer interaction task (researchers) | Delinquent dyads vs non-delinquent dyads vs mixed dyads | Positive, significant | 3.1 Yes 3.2 Yes 3.3 Yes 3.4 Yes 3.5 Yes |
Gasser et al. (2012) | Community | Switzer-land | 139 | 41% | 7–9 | Peer-nomination scale (peer-report) Children were classified as overtly aggressive or not (researcher) | Interview (self-report). Responses were coded (researchers) | Aggressive vs non-aggressive children | Positive, significant | 3.1 No 3.2 Yes 3.3 Yes 3.4 No 3.5 Can’t tell |
Gutzwiller‐Helfenfinger and Perren (2021) | Community | Switzer-land | 331 | 51% | (M = 14.9) | Offline bullying measure (self-report) Cyberbullying measure (self-report) | Assessment of moral functioning and emotion expectation using vignettes (self-report) | Open situation: Ashamed moralists vs happy moralists vs indifferent moralists vs happy transgressors Accomplished situation: moralists vs happy opportunists | Positive, significant | 3.1 No 3.2 Yes 3.3 Yes 3.4 No 3.5 Yes |
Lyon (2001) (Study 3) | Community | USA | 79 | 42% | 5–6 (kindergarten) 9–10 (4th grade) | CABI (teacher-report) | Moral feelings task (self-report) and responses coded (researcher) | Aggression: high vs low vs average Depressive: high vs low vs average | Positive, significant | 3.1 No 3.2 Yes 3.3 Yes 3.4 No 3.5 Yes |
Menesini et al. (2003) | Community | Spain; Italy | 179 | 50% | 9–13 | Participant roles questionnaire (self-report) and pro-bullying scale (assigned to groups by researchers) | Interview based on the Scan Bullying Test (self-report). Responses were coded (researchers) | Bullies vs victims vs outsiders | Positive, significant | 3.1 Yes 3.2 Yes 3.3 No 3.4 No 3.5 Yes |
Panayiotou et al. (2015) | Community | Cyprus | 91 | 41% | (M = 11.90) | BVQ-R (self-report) and assigned to groups (researchers) ICU (self-report) | Subjective emotion ratings in response to affective imagery stimuli (self-report) | Bullies vs bully-victims vs victims vs controls | Positive, non-significant | 3.1 No 3.2 Yes 3.3 Can’t tell 3.4 No 3.5 Yes |
Roos et al. (2011) | Community | Finland | 378 | 56% | (M = 11.30) | Peer reports of aggression (peer-reported) | Anticipated emotional response ratings to vignettes (self-report) | Girls vs boys; high vs low aggression | Positive, non-significant | 3.1 Can’t tell 3.2 Yes 3.3 No 3.4 No 3.5 Yes |
Schalkwijk et al. (2016) | Community; Forensic | Nether-lands | 334 | 41% | 13–18 Delinquents (M = 15.53) Controls (M = 14.52) | Delinquent participants recruited from juvenile prison | TOSCA-A (self-report) MOM (self-report) IRI (self-report) CoSS (self-report) | Delinquent vs non-delinquent | Positive, significant | 3.1 No 3.2 Yes 3.3 Yes 3.4 Yes 3.5 No |
Spidel et al. (2011) | Forensic | Canada | 60 | 25% | 12–18 (M = 15.02) | Participants were recruited from juvenile prison PCL:YV (completed from file information by researchers) | Lie identification and deceptive motivations
(identified by researchers from file and interview reviews) | Psychopathy: high vs medium vs low | Positive, significant | 3.1 No 3.2 Yes 3.3 Yes 3.4 No 3.5 Yes |
van Dijk et al. (2017) | Community | Nether-lands | 283 | 41% | 4–9 (M = 6.70) | Peer-nomination interview (peer report) IRPA (teacher-report) | Interview (self-report). Responses were coded (researchers) IRPA (teacher-report) | Bully vs bully-victim vs non-involved | Null | 3.1 No 3.2 Yes 3.3 No 3.4 Yes 3.5 Yes |
Vylegzhanina et al. (2017) | Community | Russia | 228 | 52% | 8–9 | Modified MVB (parent-report) | Modified MVB (parent-report) | Propensity for vandalism: high vs medium vs low | Positive, significant | 3.1 No 3.2 Yes 3.3 Can’t tell 3.4 No 3.5 Yes |
Warm (1997) | Community | USA | 250 | Not reported | 6–17 1st grade: (M = 7) 3rd grade: (M = 9) 6th grade: (M = 12) 8th grade: (M = 14) 11th grade: (M = 17) | Structured interview (self-report). Responses were coded (researchers) | Structured interview (self-report). Responses were coded (researchers) | Age/grade: 1st grade vs 3rd grade vs 6th grade vs 8th grade vs 11th grade | Positive, significant | 3.1 Yes 3.2 Yes 3.3 No 3.4 No 3.5 Yes |
Quantitative descriptive studies (n = 21) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Authors and year | Sample type | Country | N | % female | Sample age range in years (M) | Reports/evidence of AB (informant) | Reports/evidence of positive emotion (informant) | Relationship | MMAT ratings | |
Agnew (1990) | Community | USA | Not reported | Not reported | 11–18 | Semi-structured interview (self-report). Responses were coded (researchers) | Semi-structured interview (self-report). Responses were coded (researchers) | Yes (descriptive statistics were used, significance not reported) | 4.1 Can’t tell 4.2 Yes 4.3 Can’t tell 4.4 Can’t tell 4.5 Can’t tell | |
Aluja-Fabregat and Torrubia-Beltri (1998) | Community | Spain | 470 | 50% | (M = 13.64) | EPQ (self-report) PTSBS (teacher-report) | SSS (self-report) PTSBS (teacher-report) Ratings given to violent cartoons (self-report) | Positive, significant | 4.1 Yes 4.2 Can’t tell 4.3 Yes 4.4 Yes 4.5 Yes | |
Arsenio et al. (2009) | Community | USA | 100 | 31% | (M = 15.90) | Diagnosis of CD/ODD or no diagnosis (psychologists) CBCL-TRF (teacher-report) MRPA (teacher-report) | Anticipated response and outcome expectancies based on vignettes (self-report) Adolescents moral reasoning task (self-report) | Positive, significant | 4.1 Can’t tell 4.2 No 4.3 Yes 4.4 Yes 4.5 Yes | |
Arsenio et al. (2000) | Community | USA | 51 | 53% | 3–5 (M = 4) | Observation (researchers) Aggression scale (teacher-report) Peer ratings of their aggression (peer-report) | Observation (researchers) | Positive, significant | 4.1 Yes 4.2 No 4.3 Yes 4.4 Yes 4.5 Yes | |
Arsenio and Lover (1997) | Community | USA | 37 | 49% | 4–5 | Observation (researchers) | Observation (researchers) | Positive, significant | 4.1 Can’t tell 4.2 No 4.3 Yes 4.4 Yes 4.5 Yes | |
Arsenio and Ramos-Marcuse (2014) | Community; Clinical | USA | 63 | 62% | 3–6 (M = 4) | CBCL (parent-report) Caregiver-Teacher Report Form (therapist-report) | MSSB (self-report). Responses were coded (researchers) | Null | 4.1 Yes 4.2 Yes 4.3 Yes 4.4 Can’t tell 4.5 Yes | |
Bjørnebekk and Howard (2012) | Clinical; Forensic | Norway | 101 | 37% | 12–18 (M = 15) | Met criteria for any behavior listed in the DSM-IV for ODD, CD or disruptive behaviors such as aggression or delinquency (welfare authorities) TRF (teacher-report) SRD (self-report) | AAS (self-report) | Positive, significant | 4.1 Yes 4.2 Yes 4.3 Yes 4.4 Yes 4.5 Yes | |
Byck et al. (2015) | Community | USA | 592 | 51% | 13–18 (M = 15.9) | Mobile Youth Survey (self-report) | SSS (self-report) | Positive, significant | 4.1 Yes 4.2 Yes 4.3 Yes 4.4 No 4.5 Yes | |
Callender et al. (2010) | Community; Clinical | USA | 215 | 47% | Time 1 (M = 5.5) Time 2 (M = 10) | CBQ (parent-report) CBCL (parent-report) TRF (teacher-report) Experimental task. Children’s behaviors were coded to create a ‘cheating severity score’ (researchers) | Experimental task. Children’s behaviors were coded for inappropriate positive affect (researchers) | Yes (descriptive statistics were used, significance not reported) | 4.1 Yes 4.2 Yes 4.3 Yes 4.4 Yes 4.5 Yes | |
Ching et al. (2014) | Forensic | Australia | 143 | 22% | (M = 16) | PCL:YV (completed from case file information by researchers) | Function of index offences from case files were coded (researchers) | Positive, significant | 4.1 Yes 4.2 Yes 4.3 Yes 4.4 No 4.5 Yes | |
Erreygers et al. (2017) | Community | Belgium | 1720 | 54% | (M = 13.61) | Measure of engagement in prosocial and antisocial behavior online (self-report) | Measure of emotions in the past month (self-report) | Null | 4.1 Yes 4.2 No 4.3 Yes 4.4 No 4.5 Yes | |
Feilhauer et al. (2013) | Community | Belgium | 46 | 0% | 8–12 | YSR (self-report) ICU (self-report) | AMI (self-report) Two additional structured questions about emotion (self-report) | Positive, significant | 4.1 Yes 4.2 No 4.3 Yes 4.4 Yes 4.5 Yes | |
Harden et al. (2012) | Community | USA | 7675 | Not reported | Time 1: 10–11 Time 2: 17 | SRD (self-report) | 3-item measure of sensation seeking (self-report) | Positive,
significant | 4.1 Yes 4.2 Yes 4.3 Yes 4.4 No 4.5 Yes | |
Hasegawa (2023) | Community | Japan | 371 | 48% | 9–13 | Bullying Behavior Scale (self-report) | Judgment Related to Peer Exclusion using vignettes (self-report) One item on emotion attribution (self-report) | Positive, significant for Judgement Null for emotion attribution | 4.1 Yes 4.2 Can’t tell 4.3 Yes 4.4 Can’t tell 4.5 Yes | |
Hawes et al. (2019) | Community | Australia | 90 | 0% | 10–13 (M = 11.29) | APSD (parent-report) SDQ (parent-report) | Experimental task (young person), and ratings of their emotional states (self-report) | Positive, significant | 4.1 Yes 4.2 No 4.3 Yes 4.4 No 4.5 Yes | |
Kunimatsu et al. (2012) | Forensic | USA | 58 (60) | 100% | 12–18 (M = 14.98) | Participants were recruited from juvenile prison PCS (self-report) ICU (self-report) Adolescent Stories Interview (self-report) SRD (self-report) | Adolescent Stories Interview (self-report) | Positive, significant | 4.1 Yes 4.2 No 4.3 Yes 4.4 Yes 4.5 Yes | |
Marrington et al. (2023) | Community | Australia | 157 | 58% | 13–18 (M = 15.58) | Global Assessment of Internet Trolling-Revised (self-report) | Social Rewards Questionnaire (self-report) | Positive, significant | 4.1 Yes 4.2 No 4.3 Yes 4.4 Can’t tell 4.5 Yes | |
Mishna et al. (2010) | Community | Canada | 2186 | 55% | 11–17 | Questionnaire about experience of cyberbullying (self-report) | Questionnaire about experience of cyberbullying (self-report) | Yes (qualitative description) | 4.1 Yes 4.2 Yes 4.3 Yes 4.4 No 4.5 Yes | |
Ortiz Barón et al. (2018) | Community | Spain | 351 | 56% | 10–14 (M = 12.25) | Antisocial Behavior scale of the BPQ (teacher-report) | AMP (self-report) TOSCA-C (self-report) | Null | 4.1 Yes 4.2 Yes 4.3 Yes 4.4 Can’t tell 4.5 Yes | |
Wong et al. (2023) | Community | Canada | 150 | 50% | 4 -5 (M = 4.53) | Three items from the aggression/ hostility scale of the Berkeley Puppet Interview (self-report) Six items from the Child Behavior Checklist (parent-report) | Seven vignettes from the Social-Emotional Responding Task (self-report, and responses coded by the researchers) | Positive, significant | 4.1 Can’t tell 4.2 Can’t tell 4.3 Yes 4.4 Yes 4.5 Yes | |
Wong and McBride (2018) | Community | Hong Kong | 750 | 52% | 11–15 | Measure of cyberbullying perpetration and victimization (self-report) | Fun-Seeking subscale of the BAS (self-report) NBCA (self-report) | Positive, significant | 4.1 Yes 4.2 Yes 4.3 Yes 4.4 Can’t tell 4.5 Yes | |
Mixed methods studies (N = 3) | ||||||||||
Allen et al. (2018) | Community | UK | 47 | 51% | 11 to 14 (M = 12.50) | Teachers and child self-report | Teacher semi-structured interview on the top 25% on student-report CU score (n = 24) and below the median ICU score (n = 23) | Yes (qualitative description) | 5.1 No 5.2 Yes 5.3 Yes 5.4 Can’t tell 5.5 Yes | |
Walker-Barnes and Mason (2001) | Community; Forensic | USA | 31 | 100% | 12 to 17 (M = 14.79) | Participants recruited from a specialist school for girls at high risk for delinquency | Semi-structured interview (self-report) | Yes (qualitative description) | 5.1 Yes 5.2 Yes 5.3 Yes 5.4 No 5.5 No | |
Weenink (2014) | Forensic | Netherlands | 159 | Not reported | Up to 18 (but did not report age range) | Perpetration of a violent offence (judicial files). Offences were coded as ‘frenzied’ or not (researchers) | Judicial files containing perpetrator reports (self-report). Emotions were coded (researchers) | Yes (qualitative description) | 5.1 No 5.2 Yes 5.3 Yes 5.4 No 5.5 No |