A meta-analysis of 50 studies was conducted to investigate whether juvenile delinquents use lower levels of moral judgment than their nondelinquent age-mates and, if so, what factors may influence or moderate the developmental delay. The results show a lower stage of moral judgment for juvenile delinquents (d=.76). Effect sizes were large for comparisons involving male offenders, late adolescents, delinquents with low intelligence, and incarcerated delinquents. The largest effect sizes were found for period of incarceration and comparisons involving juvenile delinquents with psychopathic disorder. Production instead of recognition measures, dilemma-free assessment methods, and non-blind scoring procedures yielded relatively large effect sizes, whereas effect sizes were medium for comparisons involving delinquents with average intelligence, non-incarcerated delinquents, female offenders, as well as early and middle adolescents. Psychopathic disorder and institutionalization were identified as unique moderators of the link between moral judgment and juvenile delinquency. It is concluded that developmentally delayed moral judgment is strongly associated with juvenile delinquency, even after controlling for socioeconomic status, gender, age and intelligence.

A meta-analysis of 19 studies (N = 15,992 offenders) showed a significant inverse relation between more mature moral development and recidivism. Moderator analyses revealed a larger effect size for moral cognition (r = .20) than for moral emotion (r = .11). Effect sizes for production measures (r = .57) were much larger than for recognition measures (r = .16) and unstructured (clinical) judgment (r = .10). Larger effect sizes were found for female delinquents (r = .32) than for male delinquents (r = .21).Only small differences in effect sizes were found between juvenile delinquents (r = .10) and adult delinquents (r = .16). Finally, self-report measures of recidivism revealed much larger effect sizes (r = .32) than official reports of recidivism (r = .09). The discussion focuses on the theoretical and practical meaning of the magnitude of the effect size for the relation between moral development and recidivism.

<p>In this study we compared the impact of promotive and risk factors on 18-month recidivism during adolescence. <em>We measured bipolar factors (factors with risk and promotive effects being the ends of the same continuum) for 13,613 American juveniles who had committed a criminal offense. For most of the factors </em>no significant differences were found between the impact of the promotive and risk ends. Interventions aimed at increasing promotive factors may therefore be potentially just as effective as interventions aimed at decreasing risks. The importance of both promotive and risk factors was found to be significantly higher for younger than for older adolescents in almost every domain, which emphasizes the importance of early intervention. Furthermore, age and sex differences were found in the impact and prevalence of promotive and risk factors.<em> </em>The discussion focuses on implications for clinical practice.</p>

No abstract

No abstract