Examining interpersonal conflict resolution among persistently antisocial youth – Is this a key mechanism implicated in the persistence of antisocial behaviour?

Figures & data

Table 1 Number of study participants.

	Group			Total
	Non-antisocial	Low-risk	High-risk
Gender
Male	33	23	31	87
Female	18	17	16	51
Total	51	40	47	138

Table 2 Two-factor solution of the 14 conflict tactics items after Oblimin rotation (N = 137).

Conflict tactic	Factor loadings
	Factor 1	Factor 2
Hit (or tried to hit) the other person but not with anything (PA)	0.87
Hit (or tried to hit) the other person with something hard (PA)	0.87
Threatened to hit or threw something at the other person (PA)	0.85
Pushed, grabbed or shoved the other person (PA)	0.83
Threw something at the other person (PA)	0.79
Smashed or threw something (but not at the other person) (PA)	0.58
Discussed the issue fairly calmly (NA)		0.75
Tried to discuss the issue fairly calmly (NA)		0.70
Yelled or insulted the other person (NPA)		− 0.68
Stomped out of the room (NPA)		− 0.66
Sulked or refused to talk about it (NPA)		− 0.49
Argued heatedly but did not yell (NPA)		− 0.40
Got information to back up your side of things (NA)
Brought in someone else to help settle things (or tried to) (NA)
Eigenvalues	4.85	1.85
Percentage of variance	34.70	13.18
Cronbach'sα	0.90	0.70

Notes: Item loadings were considered significant if these were above the criterion levels of 0.40 and are presented in bold face. PA, physical aggression; NPA, non-physical aggression; NA, non-aggression. Two items (originally designated as non-aggression items) did not load on either Factor 1 or Factor 2.

Table 3 MANOVA results: relationship of group and gender to conflict tactics of PAT and NPT.

	F	df	p	Partial η^2
Multivariate effects
Main effects
Gender	5.28	2.130	**	0.075
Group	3.59	4.262	**	0.052
Two-way interaction
Gender ×  group	0.64	4.262	ns	0.010
Univariate effects
Gender
PAT	0.82	1.131	ns	0.006
NPT	6.34	1.131	*	0.046
Group
PAT	4.14	2.131	*	0.059
NPT	5.50	2.131	**	0.077
Gender ×  group
PAT	0.304	2.131	ns	0.005
NPT	0.479	2.131	ns	0.007

Note: PAT, physical aggression tactics; NPT, non-physical tactics; ns, non-significant. *p <  0.05; **p <  0.01.

Table

	Behaviour	Response
1.	Tried to discuss the issue fairly calmly	0	1	2	3	4	5
2.	Did discuss the issue fairly calmly	0	1	2	3	4	5
3.	Sulked or refused to talk about it	0	1	2	3	4	5
4.	Yelled or insulted the other person	0	1	2	3	4	5
5.	Argued heatedly but did not yell	0	1	2	3	4	5
6.	Pushed, grabbed or shoved the other person	0	1	2	3	4	5
7.	Stomped out of the room	0	1	2	3	4	5
8.	Smashed or threw something (but not at the other person)	0	1	2	3	4	5
9.	Threw something at the other person	0	1	2	3	4	5
10.	Threatened to hit or throw something at the other person	0	1	2	3	4	5
11.	Hit (or tried to hit) the other person but not with anything	0	1	2	3	4	5
12.	Hit (or tried to hit) the other person with something hard	0	1	2	3	4	5
13.	Got information to back up your side of things	0	1	2	3	4	5
14.	Brought in someone else to help settle things (or tried to)	0	1	2	3	4	5

Table

Comparison	Mean difference	p-Value	95% Confidence interval
Conflict tactics – PAT
Non-antisocial – low-risk	− 0.26*	0.048	− 0.52, 0.00
Non-antisocial – high-risk	− 0.39**	0.002	− 0.64, − 0.15
Low-risk – high-risk	− 0.14	0.307	− 0.4, 0.13
Conflict tactics – NPT mean
Non-antisocial – low-risk	− 1.34	0.341	− 0.41, 0.14
Non-antisocial – high-risk	− 0.42**	0.002	− 0.68, − 0.15
Low-risk – high-risk	− 0.28	0.051	− 0.57, 0.00

Notes: NPT, non-physical tactics; PAT, physical aggression tactics. *Mean difference is significant at 0.05 level; **mean difference is significant at 0.01 level.