Sign in or 
- EasyEdit
- Edit tags
-
(what's this?What are these tools?
People just like you can add or edit the content on this site. If you want to try editing, but aren't ready to add to this site, try our demo area.
Read more about editing pages at Wetpaint Central.
) - Report page
Share this
Problem Behaviour Theory and Schools (EE)
This initial or rough draft of a summary (formatted in an Encyclopedia Entry Term format) has been started by the International School Health Network from a previous Canadian project. Visitors to and members of this wiki-based web site are welcome to edit the draft (using the Easy Edit" tool found at the top of the page or to comment on the draft by using the "thread" tool found at the bottom of the page. (All previous versions of this page are automatically saved by the system, so don't hesitate to edit this page). Eventually, when time and resources permit, this initial draft will be formatted in accordance with the outline for glossary terms, encyclopedia entries and handbook sections used in this knowledge exchange program for health,safety, educational and social development interventions.
This summary discusses one behavioural theory that underpins school health promotion, safety, social development and other similar programs. The summary is one of several that are being developed within this wiki-based web site. Please see our Call for Writers/Contributors/Sponsors on Behaviour Theories for a full listing of this series of summaries.
Problem Behaviour Theory (PBT) was developed by Richard Jessor and colleagues during the 1960s to explain problem behaviour in a small, rural tri-ethnic community (Jessor, Groves, Hanson & Jessor, 1968). Jessor recognized that youth was a segment of the lifespan in which change is the predominant characteristic, and that rapid change is not unusual; he also recognized the need for a far-reaching understanding of young people and of youthful development (Jessor & Jessor, 1977). The influence of Rotter‘s Social Learning Theory (1954) and Merton‘s (1957) concept of anomie are evident in the theory.
PBT is an intersection of the fields of social psychology, developmental psychology and the psychology of personality (Jessor & Jessor, 1977). It enlarges the boundaries of the typical discipline-confined approach by encompassing factors that lie in the person, as well as those that lie in the social environment, and by examining their joint contribution to variation in human action and experience. It is not a grand theory, but rather a theory of mid-range—a network or concept of modest scope oriented toward a delimited concern—problem behaviour in youth (Donovan, 1996).
Problem behaviour is defined as behaviour that departs from norms—both social and legal—of the larger society; it is behaviour that is socially disapproved of by institutions of authority and tends to elicit some form of social control response, whether mild reproof, social rejection or even incarceration (Jessor, Chase & Donovan, 1980). It is important to note that what is defined as problem behaviour for young adolescents may not be considered as such for a senior in college or an adult, and that problem behaviours may be culturally and historically specific.
Problem behaviour is considered to be purposive, goal-oriented or functional by the individual and important enough to counter the likelihood of legal or social sanctions (Jessor, Jessor & Finney, 1973). Such behaviours are seen as characterizing the occupancy of a more mature status, engaging in them becomes a way of marking—both for self and others—a developing transition, a transition from ‗less mature‘ to ‗more mature‘, from ‗younger‘ to ‗older‘, from ‗youth‘ to ‗adult‘. For example, Jessor (1991) states that it is important to recognize that some outcomes or consequences of the behavioural risk of marijuana use can be desirable and positive and sought out by adolescents. Smoking marijuana, for example, can lead to social acceptance by peers and to a subjective sense of autonomy and maturity. A psychosocial reformulation of risk calls for a thorough cost and benefit analysis of risk factors. Behaviours that serve important social and personal functions for adolescents are unlikely to be abandoned in the absence of alternatives unless these alternatives can provide similar satisfactions without the costs. Research shows that adolescent risk behaviours are functional, purposive, instrumental and goal-directed, and that these goals are often central to normal adolescent development. While society may consider these behaviours problematic, there is nothing perverse, irrational or psychopathological about such goals. Jessor (1986) indentified eight psychosocial functions of adolescent drinking behaviour, including: signalling commonality with peer group, affirming independence from parents, coping with feelings of inadequacy, failure and stress, and just having fun and enjoyment.
The framework for this theory rests on the social-psychological relationships within and between each of the three systems of psychosocial influence: the personality system, the perceived environment system and the behaviour system. Within each system, the explanatory variables reflect either instigations to engage in problem behaviour or controls against it. Together, these systems generate a dynamic state called ―proneness‖ that specifies the likelihood of occurrence of normative transgression or problem behaviour (see Figure 1 for a pictorial explanation of the theory.) The framework is both complex and comprehensive, with more than 30 variables in three major systems and nearly 50 variables overall. Each of the three major systems of the theory is organized around structures of variables representing instigations to engage in problem behaviour and controls against engaging in problem behaviour. It is important to note the bidirectional relationship among the variables.
The theory proposes that many problem behaviours are interrelated so that the personal and situational factors influencing one behaviour may be the same as those influencing another. This has lead to the suggestion that there exists a syndrome of problem behaviour and that it might be useful to deal with it as part of a lifestyle rather than discrete or separate behaviour.
Applications of the Theory
PBT is a unique example of the dialogue between theory and empirical research. Over the years, Jessor and his colleagues have conducted many studies examining and testing PBT, including a major longitudinal study of problem behaviour and psychosocial development among cohorts of junior high school and college youth (Jessor & Jessor, 1977), and two large-scale, national sample surveys of junior and senior high-school students (Donovan & Jessor, 1978; Jessor, Donovan & Widmer, 1980). The longitudinal design makes it possible to plot trajectories of change over time in personality, social environment and behaviour, and to use the theory to forecast important transitions, such as beginning to drink, starting to use marijuana, and becoming sexually active.
Overall, the research has shown considerable support for this theory. First, there is strong support for the premise that problem behaviours are interrelated and if a youth is engaging in one problem behaviour, it is highly likely that he/she will be engaging in others as well. These include behaviours such as drug use, drinking, problem drinking, sexual behaviour and reckless driving (Chase & Donovan, 1980; Donovan, Jessor & Costa, 1991; Jessor, 1976, 1988, 1986, 1987; Jessor, 1986; Jessor, Donovan & Widmer, 1980; Jessor, Collins & Jessor, 1972; Jessor & Jessor, 1973, 1975, 1978; Jessor, Jessor & Finney, 1973; Schlegel, Manske & d‘Avernas, 1985; Vingilis & Adlaf, 1990). Jessor (1991) labelled this phenomenon ―risk behaviour syndrome‖; Figure 2 demonstrates the interrelatedness of problem behaviours. Sadava (1985), and more recently, De Genna, Cornelius and Donovan (2009) have found evidence to suggest that that this risk behaviour syndrome may last well into adulthood.
Research has also validated the roles of the variables and the different systems in the theory. For example, research conducted in the 1970s demonstrated that the theory could account for approximately 50% of the variance in marijuana use in both local and national samples (Jessor & Jessor, 1977). Donovan (1996) examined whether the theory continued to be relevant for the explanation of illicit drug use among contemporary American youth. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of multiple datasets collected over a 20-year period confirm its enduring validity.
The primary value of the theory is in its forecasting abilities. A large array of evidence supports the utility of PBT for predicting developmental change in behaviour. A pattern of personality and perceived environmental variables that represent the dispositional and contextual likelihood of normative transgression has been shown to significantly predict adolescent transitions—from abstainer to drinker (Jessor, Collins & Jessor, 1972; Jessor & Jessor, 1975), from non-problem drinker to problem drinker (Donovan & Jessor, 1978; Jessor & Jessor, 1973; Jessor, Chase & Donovan, 1980), from non-user to user of marijuana (Jessor, 1976; Jessor, Jessor & Finney, 1973), from smoker to non-smoker (Costa, Jessor & Turbin, 2007) and from virgin to non-virgin (Jessor & Jesssor, 1975; Jessor, Costa, Jessor & Donovan, 1983).
The greater the transition-proneness, the greater the likelihood of occurrence of transition-marking behaviour and the earlier such behaviour is likely to occur. For example, it was found that females who were non-users of marijuana in the third year of the study (Jessor, Jessor & Finney, 1973), but who began marijuana use in the fourth year of the study, placed significantly lower value on academic achievement and higher value on independence and independence relative to achievement. They had higher expectations for independence relative to value on achievement, greater alienation, greater tolerance for deviance, and greater positive relative to negative functions for drinking, drugs and sex. They also had less parental support, less parent-friends compatibility, greater friends relative to parents influence, greater friends approval, and friend models for problem behaviour and greater general deviant behaviour. Some other measures, such as expectations for academic achievement and religiosity, while not significant, did still yield mean scores in the theoretically expected direction. The pattern is pervasive and consistent (Jessor, Jessor & Finney, 1973).
Although some of the samples used in the early studies were fairly homogenous, there is enough evidence to suggest that the theory holds regardless of gender or ethnicity (Donovan & Jessor, 1985; Donovan, Jessor & Costa, 1988). Furthermore, cross-cultural studies with youth from Italy and the Netherlands (Ciarirano, Van Schuur, Molinengo, Giorgia & Miceli, 2006), China (Jessor, Turbin, Costa, Dong, Zhang & Wang, 2003) and Eurasia and Western Europe (Vazsconyi, Chen, Young, Jenkins, Browder, Kahumoku, Pagava, Phagava, Jeannin & Michaud, 2008) have further validated the theory.
PBT has some interesting implications for prevention. First, it makes it clear that the problem behaviours that youth engage in have a definitive function to them. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the behaviour from youths‘ perspective and their analysis of the costs and benefits of engaging in a behaviour. For example, smoking marijuana when offered by a friend may result in social inclusion, while refusing may result in exclusion—an immediate and devastating cost for some youth. Being told that smoking marijuana can cause lung cancer is a risk with abstract and distant consequences that youth may be willing to accept given the importance and the relative value of the benefit. The theory suggests that to change a problem behaviour, there must be an alternative behaviour offered with benefits far outweighing the current benefits of the problem behaviour and without any risk. Newton‘s
physics law also applies—that the force required to change an object in motion is proportional to its momentum. It is far easier for an object in motion to continue on its current path. Change is difficult. The reality is that there are very few alternatives that would highly satisfy youth in the same way as problem behaviours.
Second, to lessen the chance of youth engaging in problem behaviours, the protective factors must be increased and the risk factors must be decreased (Ciarirano, Van Schuur, Molinengo, Giorgia & Miceli, 2006). Key proximal protective factors include: value on health, perceived effects of health-compromising behaviour, and parents who model health behaviour. Key distal protective factors are: positive orientation to school, friends who model conventional behaviour, involvement in pro-social activities, and church attendance (Jessor, Turbin & Costa, 1998). The reality is that to change some of these factors involves major macro-level structural changes for society, including the elimination of poverty. Jessor would argue that many prevention programs do not succeed because they do little to change basic social structures. While this perspective may seem pessimistic, it can be argued that it is realistic of the challenges and obstacles that many people face in this world.
Limitations
There are several criticisms that could be levelled against PBT. First, at most, in any study, the variables in the theory account for 65% of the variance. While this is impressive, there are still unknown variables that account for the remaining 35%. Second, all measures have been self-reported. Third, studies suggest that the theory, especially its predictive nature, is more applicable to high school youth than college-aged youth (Jessor, Jessor & Finney, 1973). Finally, there is some restrictiveness in how some terms are defined. For example, the questionnaire asks participants only about sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex and disregards a large number of students who have same-sex experiences. Research has shown that sexual minority youth are more likely to use substances (McCreary Centre Society, 2007). Similarly ‗religiosity‘ is very narrowly defined as church attendance and the only measure of academic performance is grade-point average. Despite these limitations, the theory remains widely cited, has received strong empirical support (Steinberg & Morris, 2001) and has many interesting, albeit somewhat pessimistic, implications for prevention.
This summary discusses one behavioural theory that underpins school health promotion, safety, social development and other similar programs. The summary is one of several that are being developed within this wiki-based web site. Please see our Call for Writers/Contributors/Sponsors on Behaviour Theories for a full listing of this series of summaries.
Problem Behaviour Theory and Schools
Problem Behaviour Theory (PBT) was developed by Richard Jessor and colleagues during the 1960s to explain problem behaviour in a small, rural tri-ethnic community (Jessor, Groves, Hanson & Jessor, 1968). Jessor recognized that youth was a segment of the lifespan in which change is the predominant characteristic, and that rapid change is not unusual; he also recognized the need for a far-reaching understanding of young people and of youthful development (Jessor & Jessor, 1977). The influence of Rotter‘s Social Learning Theory (1954) and Merton‘s (1957) concept of anomie are evident in the theory.
PBT is an intersection of the fields of social psychology, developmental psychology and the psychology of personality (Jessor & Jessor, 1977). It enlarges the boundaries of the typical discipline-confined approach by encompassing factors that lie in the person, as well as those that lie in the social environment, and by examining their joint contribution to variation in human action and experience. It is not a grand theory, but rather a theory of mid-range—a network or concept of modest scope oriented toward a delimited concern—problem behaviour in youth (Donovan, 1996).
Problem behaviour is defined as behaviour that departs from norms—both social and legal—of the larger society; it is behaviour that is socially disapproved of by institutions of authority and tends to elicit some form of social control response, whether mild reproof, social rejection or even incarceration (Jessor, Chase & Donovan, 1980). It is important to note that what is defined as problem behaviour for young adolescents may not be considered as such for a senior in college or an adult, and that problem behaviours may be culturally and historically specific.
Problem behaviour is considered to be purposive, goal-oriented or functional by the individual and important enough to counter the likelihood of legal or social sanctions (Jessor, Jessor & Finney, 1973). Such behaviours are seen as characterizing the occupancy of a more mature status, engaging in them becomes a way of marking—both for self and others—a developing transition, a transition from ‗less mature‘ to ‗more mature‘, from ‗younger‘ to ‗older‘, from ‗youth‘ to ‗adult‘. For example, Jessor (1991) states that it is important to recognize that some outcomes or consequences of the behavioural risk of marijuana use can be desirable and positive and sought out by adolescents. Smoking marijuana, for example, can lead to social acceptance by peers and to a subjective sense of autonomy and maturity. A psychosocial reformulation of risk calls for a thorough cost and benefit analysis of risk factors. Behaviours that serve important social and personal functions for adolescents are unlikely to be abandoned in the absence of alternatives unless these alternatives can provide similar satisfactions without the costs. Research shows that adolescent risk behaviours are functional, purposive, instrumental and goal-directed, and that these goals are often central to normal adolescent development. While society may consider these behaviours problematic, there is nothing perverse, irrational or psychopathological about such goals. Jessor (1986) indentified eight psychosocial functions of adolescent drinking behaviour, including: signalling commonality with peer group, affirming independence from parents, coping with feelings of inadequacy, failure and stress, and just having fun and enjoyment.
The framework for this theory rests on the social-psychological relationships within and between each of the three systems of psychosocial influence: the personality system, the perceived environment system and the behaviour system. Within each system, the explanatory variables reflect either instigations to engage in problem behaviour or controls against it. Together, these systems generate a dynamic state called ―proneness‖ that specifies the likelihood of occurrence of normative transgression or problem behaviour (see Figure 1 for a pictorial explanation of the theory.) The framework is both complex and comprehensive, with more than 30 variables in three major systems and nearly 50 variables overall. Each of the three major systems of the theory is organized around structures of variables representing instigations to engage in problem behaviour and controls against engaging in problem behaviour. It is important to note the bidirectional relationship among the variables.
The theory proposes that many problem behaviours are interrelated so that the personal and situational factors influencing one behaviour may be the same as those influencing another. This has lead to the suggestion that there exists a syndrome of problem behaviour and that it might be useful to deal with it as part of a lifestyle rather than discrete or separate behaviour.
Applications of the Theory
PBT is a unique example of the dialogue between theory and empirical research. Over the years, Jessor and his colleagues have conducted many studies examining and testing PBT, including a major longitudinal study of problem behaviour and psychosocial development among cohorts of junior high school and college youth (Jessor & Jessor, 1977), and two large-scale, national sample surveys of junior and senior high-school students (Donovan & Jessor, 1978; Jessor, Donovan & Widmer, 1980). The longitudinal design makes it possible to plot trajectories of change over time in personality, social environment and behaviour, and to use the theory to forecast important transitions, such as beginning to drink, starting to use marijuana, and becoming sexually active.
Overall, the research has shown considerable support for this theory. First, there is strong support for the premise that problem behaviours are interrelated and if a youth is engaging in one problem behaviour, it is highly likely that he/she will be engaging in others as well. These include behaviours such as drug use, drinking, problem drinking, sexual behaviour and reckless driving (Chase & Donovan, 1980; Donovan, Jessor & Costa, 1991; Jessor, 1976, 1988, 1986, 1987; Jessor, 1986; Jessor, Donovan & Widmer, 1980; Jessor, Collins & Jessor, 1972; Jessor & Jessor, 1973, 1975, 1978; Jessor, Jessor & Finney, 1973; Schlegel, Manske & d‘Avernas, 1985; Vingilis & Adlaf, 1990). Jessor (1991) labelled this phenomenon ―risk behaviour syndrome‖; Figure 2 demonstrates the interrelatedness of problem behaviours. Sadava (1985), and more recently, De Genna, Cornelius and Donovan (2009) have found evidence to suggest that that this risk behaviour syndrome may last well into adulthood.
Research has also validated the roles of the variables and the different systems in the theory. For example, research conducted in the 1970s demonstrated that the theory could account for approximately 50% of the variance in marijuana use in both local and national samples (Jessor & Jessor, 1977). Donovan (1996) examined whether the theory continued to be relevant for the explanation of illicit drug use among contemporary American youth. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of multiple datasets collected over a 20-year period confirm its enduring validity.
The primary value of the theory is in its forecasting abilities. A large array of evidence supports the utility of PBT for predicting developmental change in behaviour. A pattern of personality and perceived environmental variables that represent the dispositional and contextual likelihood of normative transgression has been shown to significantly predict adolescent transitions—from abstainer to drinker (Jessor, Collins & Jessor, 1972; Jessor & Jessor, 1975), from non-problem drinker to problem drinker (Donovan & Jessor, 1978; Jessor & Jessor, 1973; Jessor, Chase & Donovan, 1980), from non-user to user of marijuana (Jessor, 1976; Jessor, Jessor & Finney, 1973), from smoker to non-smoker (Costa, Jessor & Turbin, 2007) and from virgin to non-virgin (Jessor & Jesssor, 1975; Jessor, Costa, Jessor & Donovan, 1983).
The greater the transition-proneness, the greater the likelihood of occurrence of transition-marking behaviour and the earlier such behaviour is likely to occur. For example, it was found that females who were non-users of marijuana in the third year of the study (Jessor, Jessor & Finney, 1973), but who began marijuana use in the fourth year of the study, placed significantly lower value on academic achievement and higher value on independence and independence relative to achievement. They had higher expectations for independence relative to value on achievement, greater alienation, greater tolerance for deviance, and greater positive relative to negative functions for drinking, drugs and sex. They also had less parental support, less parent-friends compatibility, greater friends relative to parents influence, greater friends approval, and friend models for problem behaviour and greater general deviant behaviour. Some other measures, such as expectations for academic achievement and religiosity, while not significant, did still yield mean scores in the theoretically expected direction. The pattern is pervasive and consistent (Jessor, Jessor & Finney, 1973).
Although some of the samples used in the early studies were fairly homogenous, there is enough evidence to suggest that the theory holds regardless of gender or ethnicity (Donovan & Jessor, 1985; Donovan, Jessor & Costa, 1988). Furthermore, cross-cultural studies with youth from Italy and the Netherlands (Ciarirano, Van Schuur, Molinengo, Giorgia & Miceli, 2006), China (Jessor, Turbin, Costa, Dong, Zhang & Wang, 2003) and Eurasia and Western Europe (Vazsconyi, Chen, Young, Jenkins, Browder, Kahumoku, Pagava, Phagava, Jeannin & Michaud, 2008) have further validated the theory.
PBT has some interesting implications for prevention. First, it makes it clear that the problem behaviours that youth engage in have a definitive function to them. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the behaviour from youths‘ perspective and their analysis of the costs and benefits of engaging in a behaviour. For example, smoking marijuana when offered by a friend may result in social inclusion, while refusing may result in exclusion—an immediate and devastating cost for some youth. Being told that smoking marijuana can cause lung cancer is a risk with abstract and distant consequences that youth may be willing to accept given the importance and the relative value of the benefit. The theory suggests that to change a problem behaviour, there must be an alternative behaviour offered with benefits far outweighing the current benefits of the problem behaviour and without any risk. Newton‘s
physics law also applies—that the force required to change an object in motion is proportional to its momentum. It is far easier for an object in motion to continue on its current path. Change is difficult. The reality is that there are very few alternatives that would highly satisfy youth in the same way as problem behaviours.
Second, to lessen the chance of youth engaging in problem behaviours, the protective factors must be increased and the risk factors must be decreased (Ciarirano, Van Schuur, Molinengo, Giorgia & Miceli, 2006). Key proximal protective factors include: value on health, perceived effects of health-compromising behaviour, and parents who model health behaviour. Key distal protective factors are: positive orientation to school, friends who model conventional behaviour, involvement in pro-social activities, and church attendance (Jessor, Turbin & Costa, 1998). The reality is that to change some of these factors involves major macro-level structural changes for society, including the elimination of poverty. Jessor would argue that many prevention programs do not succeed because they do little to change basic social structures. While this perspective may seem pessimistic, it can be argued that it is realistic of the challenges and obstacles that many people face in this world.
Limitations
There are several criticisms that could be levelled against PBT. First, at most, in any study, the variables in the theory account for 65% of the variance. While this is impressive, there are still unknown variables that account for the remaining 35%. Second, all measures have been self-reported. Third, studies suggest that the theory, especially its predictive nature, is more applicable to high school youth than college-aged youth (Jessor, Jessor & Finney, 1973). Finally, there is some restrictiveness in how some terms are defined. For example, the questionnaire asks participants only about sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex and disregards a large number of students who have same-sex experiences. Research has shown that sexual minority youth are more likely to use substances (McCreary Centre Society, 2007). Similarly ‗religiosity‘ is very narrowly defined as church attendance and the only measure of academic performance is grade-point average. Despite these limitations, the theory remains widely cited, has received strong empirical support (Steinberg & Morris, 2001) and has many interesting, albeit somewhat pessimistic, implications for prevention.
dmccall |
Latest page update: made by dmccall
, Feb 2 2010, 11:58 AM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by dmccall
51 words added view changes - complete history) |
|
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
