PS501 Unit 6 Theoretical Foundations Paper Example

Three Residents, Three Theories: A PS501 Unit 6 Paper Testing Explanations of Adolescent Offending Against Cases From a Detention Center

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PS501: Foundations of Professional Psychology

Unit 6 Theoretical Foundations Paper

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The writer, the detention center and the three residents are composite; no real young person is described, and the sources cited are real.

Purpose

Theories in psychology earn their place by predicting something that could turn out wrong. Describing three theories of adolescent offending would be easy; showing where they disagree is more useful to someone who works with these young people every night. This paper takes three composite residents who came into our center during one week in February and asks what each theory would say about how each young person got here and what happens next. The comparison is meant to show the theoretical foundations of forensic and developmental psychology at work, not to diagnose anyone.

The Three Cases

Kaden, 16, was brought in after a fight at a party where several older teens had been drinking. Kaden has no prior contact with the juvenile court, attends school regularly and plays on the varsity baseball team. The fight began when friends dared Kaden to confront a rival group.

Tess, 15, came in on a warrant for repeated assaults on family members and a school staff member. Records from the county show contact with child welfare from age four, a diagnosis of a language disorder in second grade and suspensions every year since fourth grade. Tess has been in our center three times.

Marcus, 14, was booked for stealing a car with two friends. Marcus's only earlier contact was a citation for shoplifting at 13, handled through a diversion program. Marcus's grades fell during the past year, after a move to a new school district.

Moffitt's Developmental Taxonomy

Moffitt (1993) proposed that antisocial behavior conceals two groups with different histories. A small group shows problems at every stage of life, beginning with neuropsychological difficulties in early childhood that interact with difficult home environments and build on one another over time. A much larger group engages in antisocial behavior only during adolescence. For this second group, Moffitt argued, offending reflects a gap between biological maturity and the adult status society allows, and most of these young people stop as they gain adult roles.

The taxonomy sorts the cases quickly. Tess's history, with early language problems, child welfare contact and a long run of school trouble, fits the life-course-persistent pattern. Kaden's first and only incident, at 16, with friends watching, fits the adolescence-limited pattern. Marcus is harder to place. A citation at 13 and a car theft at 14 could be the early steps of the adolescence-limited pattern or something more persistent. The theory predicts different futures for Tess and Kaden, but it does not say much about Marcus without more history.

Steinberg's Social Neuroscience Account

Steinberg (2008) explains why risk taking rises from childhood into adolescence and falls again in adulthood. With puberty, the brain's reward circuitry becomes far more responsive, so that teenagers chase excitement and approval more strongly, above all when peers are present. The cognitive control system that regulates impulses matures more gradually, through adolescence and into early adulthood. The gap between the two systems leaves teenagers especially likely to take risks in emotionally charged situations with friends, even when they understand the dangers.

This account fits Kaden and Marcus well. Kaden was dared by friends at a party where alcohol was present, exactly the kind of situation in which Steinberg's model predicts that the reward of peer approval overwhelms judgment. Marcus stole the car with two friends, not alone. For Tess, the theory is less helpful. Its focus on peers and normal developmental change does not explain assaults on family members going back years, and it offers no account of the early childhood problems in Tess's history.

Steinberg's model explains why typical teenagers take risks with friends; it says little about a young person whose trouble started long before adolescence.

The System-Contact Effect

Gatti et al. (2009) offer a third explanation, focused not on the young person but on what happens after the first contact with the justice system. In their community sample of 779 boys from low-income Montreal neighborhoods, youths who went through juvenile court were much more likely to be involved in adult crime than boys with similar self-reported behavior who did not, and placements away from home showed the strongest association. They argue that system contact itself can push young people toward further offending.

This explanation is most relevant to Marcus. Marcus's first contact was handled through diversion, which kept Marcus out of formal court processing. The car theft is now in front of a judge. The system-contact account predicts that how the court responds now, and whether Marcus is detained for weeks or released to supervision, could matter as much for Marcus's future as anything about Marcus's character or brain. For Kaden, it predicts that formal processing for a first fight could do harm. For Tess, who has already been through the system several times, it suggests that some of the persistence in Tess's record may be the system's doing as well as Tess's.

Where the Theories Agree and Disagree

The three accounts agree that most adolescent offending is temporary and that a small group is different. They disagree about why. Moffitt locates the difference in early development, Steinberg in the timing of brain maturation shared by all teenagers, and Gatti and colleagues partly in the institutions that respond to young people. They also make different predictions about intervention. Moffitt's account suggests that Tess needs intensive, long-term support built around family and early difficulties. Steinberg's suggests that Kaden and Marcus need supervision in the situations where peers raise risk, and time. The system-contact account suggests that, for Kaden and Marcus especially, the less formal the response, the better.

The theories are not fully rivals. A developmental psychologist might combine them: early neuropsychological problems set some children on a path, normal adolescent brain development raises risk for nearly everyone, and the system's response can either interrupt or deepen the pattern. That combination fits all three of our cases better than any single theory.

Limits

These are composite cases built to test theories, not real young people, and the theories were developed with samples that differ from ours. The Montreal study followed only boys, and Moffitt built the taxonomy mostly on findings about males, while one of our three cases is a girl, and Steinberg's model draws on laboratory tasks and brain imaging that cannot be observed at a control desk. The comparison shows what each theory predicts, not which one is true.

Conclusion

Testing three theories against three cases showed that each explains some young people well and others poorly. Moffitt's taxonomy fits the resident with a long developmental history, Steinberg's model fits the residents who acted with peers, and the system-contact effect matters most for the resident at a turning point in court. For my work, the main lesson is that the decision to detain is itself part of the explanation, not just a response to it.

References

Gatti, U., Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(8), 991-998. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02057.x

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674-701. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674

Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28(1), 78-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002