The development of antisocial behavior is influenced by biological factors. However, these factors also influence how one responds to interventions aimed at reducing antisocial behavior.
Individuals who develop antisocial behavior at a young age are more likely to engage in criminal behavior later in life compared to later emerging antisocial behavior. Various interventions are aimed at preventing the development of problematic behavior in youth. Unfortunately, these programs are limited by their complexity, high costs and modest effects. The programs are not equally beneficial to all participants.
For interventions to be successful, it has to be determined which youth are most in need of them. Some individuals outgrow their issues, while others’ behavior spirals. At some point, both may exhibit similar behaviors, but their development could differ. It is therefore important to determine which individuals are most likely to persist in their problematic behavior and are in need of more intensive interventions. Also, it needs to be determined which type of intervention is the most beneficial to a specific individual. Research indicates that different factors, such as difficulties with attention, self-regulation or emotional responding, lead to antisocial behavior in different individuals. In order for interventions to be more effective, it is necessary to understand the (biological) factors that influence the intervention outcome and use this knowledge in the selection of individuals for programs or to develop programs for particular individuals.
Research done by Albert et al. (2015) already showed the relevance of biological factors in relation to interventions. In that study, the effect of a certain gene on intervention responses was assessed. High risk children who carried this gene benefited most by the intervention program, while intervention had no effect for non-carriers.
While using biological information could improve the effectiveness of interventions, a number of ethical issues arises (for instance: privacy, discrimination, stigma).
Research has shown the existence of heterogeneity in the biological factor of youth with antisocial behavior. Different combinations of environmental and biological factor result into problematic behavior. How children will respond to an intervention depends partly on their hormone levels, genes, levels of neurotransmitters and brain functioning.
A child’s outcome is influenced by its environment, genetic factors that affect the character (IQ, temperament) and how it responds to its environment. Studies indicate that antisocial behavior is heritable at a rate of 40-50%. The effect of single genes on antisocial behavior is considered to be small, but acquiring genetic information could help predict one’s response to intervention. Several studies found a link between certain gene variants and levels of brain structure and functioning.
Also helpful could be information concerning the stress response system. In youth with antisocial behavior, a significant heterogeneity in responding was observed. The stress response system includes the autonomic nervous system and the HPA axis. As a response to stress, the HPA axis releases cortisol. Both high and low levels of cortisol have been linked to antisocial behavior. The functioning of the autonomic nervous system is measured through monitoring heart rate and skin conductance. A low resting heart rate and reduced level of skin conductance have been linked to antisocial behavior in youth. However, environmental factors were also associated with a higher risk for antisocial behavior.
Some studies found an association between low levels of respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) and aggression in young males, while others found a positive link between RSA and externalizing problems or did not find an association between aggression and RSA. Higher levels of RSA are considered to reflect to ability to adapt to environmental stressors and emotion regulation, so it could influence the response to intervention programs.
Functional and structural neuroimaging studies have shown divergent brain functioning and structure in youth exhibiting antisocial behavior. In youth with conduct disorder, reduced brain functioning and structure were found. However, other studies lead to various results regarding the brain functioning.
Although biological abnormalities will not be found in everyone with antisocial behavior and vice versa, several biological risk factor could underlie heterogeneity in how youth responds to interventions.
The relationship between environmental and biological factors has a reciprocal nature. While biological factors potentially influence one’s response to the environment, environmental factors can alter our biology. Being exposed to stress for a long time can modify the functioning of the stress response system and gene expression.
Research has shown that the combination of social risk factors and biological risk factors increases the risk for antisocial behavior. Biological factors could influence the response to various types of environments. For instance, cortisol levels can influence whether rejection by peers is related to antisocial behavior. The majority of studies concerned negative environmental factors, but biological factors can also influence the response to positive environments. A number of children is highly responsive to their environment, whether it is a positive or negative one.
Intervention during the early years is potentially successful in preventing youth to continue their problematic behavior. Some studies investigated how biological factors influence the response to intervention.
Studies indicate that genes linked to glucocorticoids and dopamine temper the response to interventions aimed at reducing antisocial behavior in youth. Research showed that a genetic factor tempers the responsiveness to the Coping Power intervention. Youth with one variant of the oxytocin receptor gene exhibited reduced externalizing behavior, regardless of the type of intervention. Youth with the other variant of the gene receiving intervention in group format, exhibited very limited improvement and even worse behavior in the following year. Youth who received one-on-one intervention exhibited reduced externalizing behavior. Genetic factors could be helpful regarding the choice of intervention format.
Physiological factors were also linked to the potential responses to intervention. Parent training and intensive day-care treatment were found to be the least successful in youth with lower resting heart rate. Risk factors such a attention issues, age, cognitive functioning and delinquency did not influence the success of the intervention. Biological factors can be helpful predictors of the most effective intervention for specific youth.
Hormones have also been the subject of studies on intervention responsiveness. In a study among participants with disruptive behavior disorders, those with elevated levels of cortisol exhibited more improvement when receiving a structured intervention aimed at reducing aggressive behavior. Youth with higher testosterone levels were several times more likely to not respond to multifaceted psychological treatment.
Research suggests that a biosocial approach could be helpful in predicting which youth may benefit the most from intervention and which youth will probably not respond to certain therapy.
Less than 50% of children who exhibit antisocial behavior continue this behavior into adulthood. Not all children are in need of intensive interventions. Biological factors are helpful in determining which youth are likely to engage in continuous anti-social behavior.
A study found that youth (aged 12-22 years) carrying a variant of the GABRA2 gene exhibited continuous externalizing behavior. Normalizing cortisol levels is considered to be predictive of a decrease in aggression. A better prediction of antisocial trajectories may positively influence interventions.
Various (ethical) issues could arise regarding the use of biological information in order to improve the outcomes of interventions, such as discrimination, equity of service provisions and stigma. However, biological information about children must be kept private and will not be used by others than the interventionists. It is up to society whether the potential benefits of using this information outweigh the possibility of harming one’s privacy.
Add new contribution