Protective factors or strength factors represent conditions that reduce the likelihood an individual will engage in antisocial behaviors. On the contrary, criminogenic risk factors represent characteristics of an individual or his or her circumstances that increase the likelihood of engaging in criminal or other antisocial activities. A history of conduct disorder, school failure, substance abuse, and negative peer associations are examples of risk factors.
Some debate exists regarding the appropriate way to conceptualize protective factors. In some cases, protective factors are represented in terms of the absence of a risk factor. For example, substance abuse is treated as a risk factor, whereas the absence of abuse is treated as a protective factor. In other cases, protective factors are viewed as independent of risk factors but are seen as operating to moderate or ameliorate the risk. For example, a positive relationship between parent and youth accompanied by positive parenting may serve as a buffer against exposure to negative or antisocial peers. Similarly, a job skill and positive attitude toward work may serve as a buffer against influence from a criminogenic neighborhood. The treatment of protective factors as mediators of risk factors is the usual practice in the literature. However, some controversy also exists regarding the way in which risk and protective factors interact to affect behavior.
The identification of protective factors is important from a number of perspectives. First, to the extent that these factors play a role in determining the likelihood of engaging in antisocial activities, combining them with identified risk factors can improve the accuracy of predictions. Second, the identification of protective factors can play an important role in case planning and management. The Risk-Need-Responsivity model asserts that effective interventions are based on assessments of risks (factors placing the individual at risk of criminal activity), needs (risk factors that can be changed to reduce risk), and responsivity factors (factors not directly related to the criminal activity but that are relevant to case planning). Strength or protective factors are included in the latter category. This means that effective programs are strength based; that is, they incorporate positive features that an individual brings to the situation. Finally, identification of positive features of an individual or his or her situation is important when a psychologist is establishing a relationship with a client. A purely negative approach in dealing with individuals is rarely effective.
While considerable research has been conducted on risk factors, less attention has been paid to the identification of protective factors. However, operational definitions are represented in several instruments specifically designed for assessing protective factors (e.g., Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk) and broad-based risk–need instruments that include indices of strength (e.g., Level of Service/ Case Management Inventory; Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory 2.0). Broad categories of protective factors in these instruments include features of the individual’s environment (e.g., family supports, positive peer associations, educational and mental health resources) and characteristics or traits of the individual (e.g., emotional maturity, interest in hobby or sports, prosocial attitudes and values). It is important to recognize that protective factors relevant to a particular case will depend on a number of factors, including age or developmental level. Positive parenting and a good relationship between parent and youth may be important protective factors for an adolescent but may not be relevant to an adult.
Two broad constructs are relevant to protective processes: resilience and social capital. Resilience is treated as a characteristic or trait of the individual reflecting a capacity to cope effectively with conditions of stress or adversity. The second construct, social capital, refers to a constellation of personal characteristics reflecting high levels of coping skills, maturity, and prosocial attitudes. Both constructs, resilience and social capital, are important in helping psychologists understand why some individuals are better at coping with risk factors than others.
Much research and clinical attention has focused narrowly on the analysis of risk factors. However, increasing attention is being paid to the strengths a client brings to the situation. While there remain theoretical issues yet to be resolved, it is generally recognized that the prediction of criminal activity and interventions to address criminogenic needs can be improved by acknowledging the importance of these positive factors.
References:
- Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
- Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Boxer, P. (2008). What works? Best practices with juvenile offenders. In R. D. Hoge, N. G. Guerra, & P. Boxer (Eds.), Treating the juvenile offender (pp. 79–102). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
- Hoge, R. D. (2015). Risk/need/responsivity in juveniles. In K. Heilbrun & N. Goldstein (Eds.), APA handbook of psychology and juvenile justice (pp. 179–196). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
- Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Risk factors, prediction and prevention from childhood. New York, NY: Springer.