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

Abstract

This study utilised data and interviewed participants (n = 138), aged 22–23 years from the Australian Temperament Project, which is a prospective national longitudinal study that has tracked pathways of antisocial behaviour and psychosocial adjustment from infancy to young adulthood. Gender- and group-related differences in interpersonal conflict resolution of young adults with differing histories of antisocial behaviour (namely high-risk persistently antisocial, low-risk persistently antisocial and non-antisocial groups) were examined, as measured by a modified version of the conflict tactics scale. The study findings show that both the high-risk and low-risk persistently antisocial groups reported higher levels of physically aggressive strategies than the non-antisocial group. The high-risk group also reported higher levels of non-physically aggressive strategies in resolving interpersonal conflict. Interestingly, young adult females reported higher levels of non-physical tactics in dealing with interpersonal conflict in their interpersonal relationships than young adult males. No gender differences were found in relation to physically aggressive strategies. This study suggests that the level of risk for persistent antisocial behaviour was significantly related to differences in interpersonal conflict resolution in young adulthood.

Keywords::

• persistent antisocial behaviour
• interpersonal conflict resolution
• risk trajectories
• longitudinal research

Introduction

A characteristic feature associated with persistent antisocial behaviour is the pervasiveness of psychosocial adversity encountered in young adulthood (Maughan & Rutter, 2001). Persistent antisocial behaviour predicts the continuity of not only antisocial behaviour but also a wide range of problems associated with psychosocial adjustment in young adulthood (Bor, McGee, Hayatbakhsh, & Najman, 2007; Smart et al., 2005). In particular, research findings suggest that adolescents with persistent antisocial behaviour demonstrate chronic problems in their interpersonal relationships and social functioning (Maughan & Rutter, 2001; Zoccolillo, Pickles, Quinton, & Rutter, 1992). Characteristically, aggressive or antisocial youth often display social skill deficits in their interpersonal interactions that tend to carry over into early adulthood. Social skill deficits associated with difficulties in interpersonal functioning may therefore play an influential role in the persistence of antisocial behaviour. Major life experiences associated with the transition to young adulthood and the unique challenges this period may present, in turn, may accentuate rather than ameliorate an individual's existing social skill deficits. This in turn raises important questions about the nature of long-term risks associated with the development of antisocial behaviour and the mechanisms that may be implicated in its maintenance. As an important step towards understanding the development and persistence of antisocial behaviour and psychosocial maladjustment, of primary importance therefore is the need for further research identifying mechanisms or processes associated with persistent antisocial behaviour and differentiating developmental pathways of such behaviour (Maughan & Rutter, 2001).

In terms of the study of interpersonal conflict resolution, notably there is a lack of prospective longitudinal studies examining the types of interpersonal conflict resolution strategies adopted by young adults with differing histories of persistent antisocial behaviour. Accordingly, there are certain limitations in this area of research that warrant further attention. First, there is a lack of prospective longitudinal studies that have explored the continuities of antisocial behaviour in young adulthood. Although arguably some effort has been made in recent years to describe the trajectories of growth and development of persistent antisocial behaviour across the childhood and adolescent years, very little research has examined the link between types of childhood and adolescent persistent antisocial behaviour and psychosocial outcomes such as interpersonal conflict resolution in young adulthood. Second, in the research literature to date, there has been a preponderance of studies focusing on psychosocial outcomes and interpersonal functioning of male youth with comparatively little exploration of these psychosocial constructs in female youth (Bor et al., 2007). The present study examined interpersonal conflict resolution, an important domain of interpersonal functioning that has been found to impact on interpersonal functioning and psychosocial adjustment in early adulthood and to be predictive of persistent antisocial behaviour in children and adolescents (Dunn, 2001; Woodward, Fergusson, & Horwood, 2002).

In particular, the present study extends this important area of research by contributing to a better understanding of the types of conflict resolution strategies that are implicated in youth aggression and persistent antisocial behaviour as these influence the behaviour of young adults with differing risk status for persistent antisocial behaviour. Accordingly, the current study draws on data collected as part of an established Australian longitudinal study, the Australian Temperament Project (ATP), and in addition incorporates cross-sectional data by collecting additional data from a subgroup of participants from the ATP study.

Conflict resolution and persistent antisocial behaviour

Persistent antisocial behaviour and psychosocial adjustment in young adulthood

Young adulthood has increasingly been recognised as a key transition or ‘turning’ point in an individual's life course, which is associated with a unique set of relational challenges (Caspi, 2000; Monahan, Steinberg, Caufmann, & Mulvey, 2009). This period in life tends to be characterised by considerable change as an individual assumes new-found adult roles and responsibilities and patterns of social interaction (Arnett, 2000). It has been proposed that young adulthood can represent a transition period which brings lasting changes in an individual's interpersonal relationships and psychosocial functioning (Maughan & Rutter, 2001). Of particular interest is research examining the potential impact of the continuation of adolescent antisocial behaviour into young adulthood (Bor et al., 2007; Smart et al., 2005).

Researchers, for instance, suggest that a characteristic feature associated with persistent antisocial behaviour is the pervasiveness of psychosocial adversities encountered in young adulthood (Maughan & Rutter, 2001). Accordingly, from a cumulative risk perspective, it seems that persistent antisocial behaviour predicts the continuity of not only antisocial behaviour but also a wide range of problems in adult psychosocial adjustment, highlighting the continuing impact of persistent antisocial behaviour in young adulthood (Bor et al., 2007; Smart et al., 2005). In particular, research findings suggest that adolescents with persistent antisocial behaviour show chronic problems in their interpersonal relationships and social functioning (Maughan & Rutter, 2001; Zoccolillo et al., 1992). As Connor (2002) notes, aggressive or antisocial youth tend to display social skill deficits in their interpersonal interactions, which carry over into early adulthood. Major life experiences associated with the transition to young adulthood and the unique challenges this period may present, in turn, may accentuate rather than ameliorate an individual's existing social skill deficits. Social skill deficits associated with difficulties in interpersonal functioning may therefore play an influential role in the persistence of antisocial behaviour. This in turn raises important questions about log-term risks associated with persistent antisocial behaviour and the nature of the underlying mechanisms that may contribute to its maintenance (Mata & van Dulmen, 2012; Maughan & Rutter, 2001). Further research identifying the mechanisms or processes associated with persistent antisocial behaviour and differentiating developmental pathways of such behaviour is therefore an important step towards understanding the development and persistence of antisocial behaviour and psychosocial maladjustment (Maughan & Rutter, 2001).

Interpersonal conflict resolution and aggressive behaviour

Interpersonal conflict resolution comprises a set of strategies used to negotiate a conflict. An accumulating body of research suggests that conflict resolution strategies that depend on hostility and aggression may have adverse consequences for an individual's interpersonal functioning and long-term psychosocial adjustment (Dunn, 2001). The consensus of available research suggests that the use of aggressive strategies to resolve a conflict tends to be correlated with antisocial behaviour as well as constitute an important precursor of psychosocial maladjustment. For example, in general, aggressive children and adolescents have been found to have a comparatively wider range of aggressive responses and a relatively limited number of non-aggressive conflict resolution strategies in their behavioural repertoire (Ang, 2003; Webster-Stratton & Lindsay, 1999). Relative to their non-aggressive peers when dealing with an interpersonal conflict, aggressive individuals generally therefore tend to be deficient in constructive conflict resolution skills and not surprisingly more frequently endorse aggression in their use of conflict resolution strategies (Ang, 2003).

Given the stability and adverse consequences of persistent antisocial behaviour, it is important to examine the interpersonal processes involved in its development and maintenance. A number of researchers have therefore proposed that aggressive interpersonal conflict resolution may be one of the central interpersonal processes or mechanisms that predisposes individuals to an increased risk for persistent antisocial behaviour and therefore merits further research attention (McElwain, Olson, & Volling, 2002; Woodward et al., 2002). As Magdol, Moffitt, Caspi, and Silva (1998) explain, individuals with an extensive history of resolving an interpersonal conflict in a coercive or aggressive manner are likely to resort to similar tactics in their primary adult relationships. Specifically, it has been reported that adults with a history of childhood-onset or persistent antisocial behaviour are characterised by pervasive difficulties in their intimate adult relationships and interpersonal functioning (Woodward et al., 2002; Zoccolillo et al., 1992). As Monahan et al. (2009) have commented, it is reasonable to expect that persistently antisocial youths, who have an extensive history of engaging in antisocial behaviour, may evince chronic deficits in psychosocial functioning that underpin antisocial behaviour that is maintained into adulthood. In effect, the acquisition of maladaptive or aggressive interpersonal patterns may be reasonably expected to ‘fuel’ and maintain chronic relationship difficulties.

It has been proposed that stable individual differences in interpersonal conflict resolution may serve as precursors of interpersonal aggression and psychosocial maladjustment in adolescence and early adulthood (McElwain et al., 2002; Woodward et al., 2002). Interpersonal conflict resolution, as Rinaldi and Heath (2006) suggest, ‘comprises a set of strategies and abilities used to negotiate through social challenges’ (p. 188). An accumulating body of research suggests that conflict resolution strategies that depend on hostility and aggression may have adverse consequences for an individual's peer relations and long-term social adjustment (Dunn, 2001). Crick and Dodge (1994) define social adjustment as the degree to which individuals engage in adaptive competent behaviour while inhibiting aversive incompetent behaviour in their interaction with others. The assessment of social maladjustment is typically indexed by aggressive behaviour, in particular physical aggression (PA). As McElwain et al. (2002) explain, ‘individual differences in conflict management are associated with disruptive behaviour during childhood and in particular underscore the potential risk of aggressive conflict strategies for social maladjustment’ (p. 246).

An extensive body of research has highlighted the interpersonal skill deficits related to managing and resolving a conflict reported by aggressive children and adolescents. For example, the evidence suggests that, in general, aggressive children and adolescents have a comparatively wider range of aggressive responses and a relatively limited number of non-aggressive conflict resolution strategies in their behavioural repertoire (Asarnow & Callan, 1985; Dodge, Laird, Lochman, & Zelli, 2002; Dodge, Pettit, McClaskey, & Brown, 1986; Pettit & Dodge, 2003; Slaby & Guerra, 1988). Likewise, Webster-Stratton and Lindsay (1999) found that antisocial children endorsed fewer constructive problem-solving strategies and more negative conflict management strategies than their non-antisocial peers. Conflict resolution strategies were found to make a unique contribution to the prediction of antisocial behaviour. Therefore, relative to their non-aggressive peers when dealing with an interpersonal conflict, aggressive individuals generally tend to be deficient in constructive conflict resolution skills and not surprisingly more frequently endorse aggression in their use of conflict resolution strategies (Ang, 2003).

Smart et al. (2005), using prospective longitudinal data from the ATP, investigated the broader psychosocial outcomes at 19–20 years for individuals identified respectively as high-risk and low-risk persistently antisocial who were compared to a non-antisocial group of adolescents. Antisocial behaviour referred to acts such as theft, drug dealing, bullying and fighting. A cut-off of three or more risks was used to identify children who were ‘at risk’ for subsequent adolescent antisocial behaviour. These risks were constituted by a number of child-related characteristics reported by parents, teachers and self-report at the age of 11–12 years (such as high levels of reactive temperament style, hyperactivity, aggression and low levels of self-control). A child was deemed to be at risk in relation to a particular characteristic if found to be in the most problematic 25% of the cohort on that characteristic. The formation of the three subgroups relied on a risk score taken at 11–12 years and the level of participation in antisocial behaviour from 13 to 18 years. These groups were compared in four broad areas of psychosocial functioning including current life circumstances, individual attributes, adjustment and interpersonal relations. Consistent with earlier research, the researchers reported that high-risk persistently antisocial individuals, compared to their non-antisocial peers, were typically more volatile and reactive in their temperament styles and displayed greater conflict and more negativity in their interpersonal relationships with friends and family. In addition, the low-risk group showed comparatively more severe and pervasive difficulties in their psychosocial adjustment than the non-antisocial group. Thus, there appears to be a clear persistence in psychosocial adversity experienced in young adulthood in both high-risk and low-risk persistently antisocial youth.

Given the stability and adverse consequences of persistent antisocial behaviour, it is important to examine the interpersonal processes involved in its development and maintenance. As Dunn (2001) notes, ‘clearly conflict management … can provide a useful window on the broad developmental themes implicated in patterns of antisocial and aggressive behaviour’ (p. 49). A number of researchers have therefore proposed that aggressive interpersonal conflict resolution may be one of the central interpersonal processes or mechanisms that predisposes individuals to an increased risk for persistent antisocial behaviour and therefore merits further research attention (McElwain et al., 2002; Woodward et al., 2002). As Magdol et al. (1998) explain, individuals with an extensive history of resolving interpersonal conflicts in a coercive or aggressive manner are likely to resort to similar tactics in their primary adult relationships. Specifically, it has been reported that adults with a history of childhood-onset or persistent antisocial behaviour are characterised by pervasive difficulties in their intimate adult relationships and interpersonal functioning (Woodward et al., 2002; Zoccolillo et al., 1992). Effectively, the acquisition of maladaptive or aggressive interpersonal patterns may be reasonably expected to ‘fuel’ and maintain chronic relationship difficulties. Indeed, as Rinaldi (2002) notes, conflict resolution strategies seem to ‘dictate the quality of the relationship’ that individuals experience with their intimate family members and friends (p. 78).

Despite a number of recent advances in the study of interpersonal conflict resolution, there seems to be a lack of longitudinal studies examining the types of interpersonal conflict resolution strategies actually used by young adults with differing histories of persistent antisocial behaviour. As Rinaldi (2002) suggests, ‘information stemming from this type of research would be useful in designing prevention and intervention programs and in redesigning traditional social skills programs that have been found to have mixed results ranging from marginal to poor long-term success’ (p. 78). The current study extends this area of research by examining differences in interpersonal conflict resolution strategies reported by young adults with different profiles of persistent antisocial behaviour.

Conflict resolution and gender

In past research, it has been assumed that the adult outcomes for adolescent girls traversing antisocial pathways were relatively benign compared to adolescent boys. Indeed, it has been assumed that childhood-onset persistent aggression was solely a male phenomenon (Brennan, Hall, Bor, Najman, & Williams, 2003). More recent findings, however, depict less optimistic outcomes for girls who are identified as being aggressive or persistently antisocial (Connor, 2002). One explanation for these discrepant findings is the fact that most of the research has focused primarily on the continuities from childhood to adulthood of antisocial behaviour in boys. Effectively, there seems to be a lack of empirical studies in relation to the persistence of antisocial behaviour and its sequelae using female samples. More recently, however, empirical science has turned its ‘lens’ to examining the etiology and persistence of antisocial behaviour in relation to both sexes (Maughan & Rutter, 2001).

Indeed, a clear consensus that emerges from the current research literature suggests that the risk factors associated with persistent antisocial behaviour are similar for both males and females (Fergusson & Horwood, 2002; Odgers & Moretti, 2002). In reviewing the existing literature, for instance, Odgers and Moretti (2002) conclude that the majority of factors linked to aggressive and antisocial behaviour tend to exert a common influence for both boys and girls. Vassallo et al. (2002) using data obtained from the ATP recently found a similar pattern of results for male and female adolescents in examining gender-related differences in the predictors of antisocial behaviour. There appears to be a growing recognition that risk factors associated with the development of persistent antisocial behaviour are common to both sexes with the notable difference that prevalence rates for persistent antisocial behaviour clearly favour boys over girls (Connor, 2002). For instance, Fergusson and Horwood (2002) examined gender-related differences in the extent to which a range of social, family and individual risk factors were associated with offending trajectories in young adulthood. This study used longitudinal data gathered from the Christchurch Health and Development Study, which has followed a birth cohort of 896 New Zealand children to 21 years of age. Consistent with other recent research, no differences were found in the risk factors corresponding to the offending pathways of both young adult men and women. These researchers stipulate three main conclusions in relation to gender-related differences in offending trajectories: first, men and women appear to follow a similar set of trajectories in the development of offending behaviour; second, the similarities of these trajectories suggest that psychosocial factors that place boys at risk of offending and antisocial behaviour also apply to girls; and third, in terms of prevalence rates, the rate of offending was 2:1 in favour of boys.

Nonetheless, longitudinal research examining the childhood to adulthood continuities of antisocial behaviour in young women are very limited with only a handful of studies to date having used longitudinal data to examine patterns of antisocial development for both young women and young men (Storvoll & Wichstrom, 2003; Vassallo et al., 2002). Critical reviews of research on the developmental trajectories of antisocial behaviour have highlighted the need to improve the understanding of the development and persistence of antisocial behaviour in females (Fontaine, Carbonneau, Vitaro, Barker, & Tremblay, 2009). The current study seeks to redress this limitation by examining gender differences in the link between high- and low-risk persistent antisocial young adults and young adult outcomes.

Current study

This study examined interpersonal conflict resolution, an important domain of interpersonal functioning that has been empirically and theoretically implicated in the acquisition and maintenance of persistent antisocial behaviour and psychosocial adjustment in early adulthood.

One of the main aims of this study was to investigate gender and group differences between groups of high-risk persistently antisocial, low-risk persistently antisocial and non-antisocial young adults in interpersonal conflict resolution. In particular, with respect to interpersonal conflict resolution, in the context of interpersonal relationships with family and friends, it was expected that the high-risk persistently antisocial and low-risk persistently antisocial groups will endorse more maladaptive conflict resolution strategies and fewer constructive strategies relative to their non-antisocial peers. In particular, it was hypothesised that young adults with a history of persistent antisocial behaviour (both high-risk and low-risk groups) will display higher levels of physically aggressive strategies and lower levels of prosocial or constructive conflict resolution strategies than non-antisocial young adults. In addition, male participants were expected to endorse comparatively higher levels of physically aggressive strategies than female participants, while female participants were expected to endorse higher levels of prosocial or constructive strategies and comparable levels of non-physical aggression (NPA).

Methodology

Participants

Recruitment of participants

The participants in the main study were recruited from the ATP, which is a unique Australian longitudinal study that has followed the development and psychosocial adjustment of a representative sample of children, born in the state of Victoria, from infancy to early adulthood. The ATP study commenced in 1983, when a representative sample of rural and urban children born in the state of Victoria were recruited to take part in the study (N = 2443). Approximately, 65% of the original ATP sample was still participating in the project in 2004 at the age of approximately 20 years. Higher attrition rates have been recorded for participants from lower socio-economic backgrounds and participants whose parents were not born in Australia. However, there appear to be no significant differences between the retained and the non-retained subsamples on any infancy characteristics (Prior, Sanson, Smart, & Oberklaid, 2000; Smart et al., 2005). Since its inception, there have been 14 waves of data collection by means of annual or biannual mail surveys. Questionnaires have assessed adjustment and development in a number of important domains of functioning as reported by parents, maternal and child health nurses, teachers and the ATP participants themselves. Areas of functioning have included temperament style, behavioural and emotional adjustment, social skills, health, academic progress, interpersonal relationships and family demographic information. In 2005, a subsample (N = 138) of the ATP cohort was invited to participate in the present study. At the time of recruitment, participants were 22–23 years of age and these included 87 young adult men and 51 young adult women. The details of study participants are shown in Table 1.

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

Identification of ‘at risk’ groups

Participants were recruited from groups identified in the ATP cohort as ‘high-risk’ persistently antisocial, ‘low-risk’ persistently antisocial and low/non-antisocial youth. Below is a brief description of the criteria for selection into these three groups. Participants for the current study were selected on the basis of a number of indices used to identify individuals at risk of persistent antisocial behaviour. First, a cumulative risk index was used to identify children who were at risk for later involvement in persistent antisocial behaviour according to their developmental histories (for a detailed description, see Smart et al., 2005). Specifically, the following individual characteristics were included in the cumulative risk index as measured at 11–12 years of age:

• highly active temperament style (as reported by parents);

• highly negative reactive temperament style (as reported by parents);

• low task persistent temperament style (as reported by teachers);

• low task orientation temperament style (as reported by teachers);

• high aggression (as reported by parents, teachers and/or children);

• high hyperactivity (as reported by parents, teachers and/or children);

• low cooperativeness (as reported by parents, teachers and/or children) and

• low self-control (as reported by parents, teachers and/or children).

A cut-off of three or more risks at 11–12 years was used to identify children who were at risk for subsequent antisocial behaviour. In particular, three groups were formed.

• Low-risk persistently antisocial (N = 42): At 11–12 years, this group had been identified as having had fewer than three childhood risks and from 13–18 years had persistently engaged in high levels of adolescent antisocial behaviour (high antisocial behaviour at two or more time points, including the last time point).

• High-risk persistently antisocial (N = 78): At 11–12 years, this group had been identified as having had three or more childhood risks and from 13–18 years had persistently engaged in high levels of adolescent antisocial behaviour (high antisocial behaviour at two or more time points, including the last time point).

• Non-antisocial (N = 658): This group never engaged in high levels of adolescent antisocial behaviour. Included were a range of individuals (ranging from few to many risks) with an overall average number of childhood risks for this group of 1.6 (for a more detailed description, see Smart et al., 2005).

Measures

The following section provides details of the measures used in the current study.

Antisocial behaviour

The classification of participants according to their history of antisocial behaviour relied on existing data previously compiled by the ATP. Antisocial behaviour was assessed at 13–14, 15–16 and 17–18 years using a short form of the Self-Report of Delinquency Scale (Moffitt & Silva, 1988; see Smart et al., 2005 and Vassallo et al., 2002 for further details). Participants reported the number of times they had engaged in each of 12 different antisocial acts (e.g. assault, theft, property damage, vandalism) in the 12 months using a four-point scale where 1 =  not at all, 2 =  once, 3 =  twice and 4 =  more often. Participants were classified as displaying high levels of antisocial behaviour at a particular age if they had engaged in three or more differing antisocial acts during the previous 12 months, and as having displayed little or no antisocial behaviour if they had engaged in fewer than three differing antisocial acts during this time frame.

Interpersonal conflict resolution measure – conflict tactics scale

Conflict tactics or interpersonal conflict resolution was assessed using a 14-item scale, adapted from the original conflict tactics scale (CTS; Unger, Sussman, & Dent, 2003). A considerable amount of research has found the CTS to be acceptable in terms of reliability and validity (Straus, 1990a). For instance, construct and concurrent validity has been demonstrated in a number of studies (Straus, 1990b) and internal consistency as measured by Cronbach's α coefficients has reportedly ranged from 0.62 to 0.83 for verbal aggression and 0.69 to 0.88 for PA or violence, suggesting adequate internal consistency for these two subscales of the CTS, while demonstrating relatively lower levels of internal consistency for reasoning with Cronbach's α coefficient values reportedly ranging from 0.42 to 0.61 (Straus, 1990a).

The modified version of the CTS as reported by Unger et al. (2003) was used in this study to assess the interpersonal conflict resolution tactics young adults use in the context of conflict with a close family member or friend. ‘Conflict tactics’ in the context of using the CTS has previously been defined as ‘the tactics or methods used to reach a resolution’ (Newton, Donaldson-Connely, & Landsverk, 2001, p. 318). The modified CTS is a 14-item scale comprising of three subscales, namely PA, NPA and non-aggression (NA; see Appendix 1). In terms of the response format, a Likert-type scale was used in this study to gauge the frequency with which specific tactics were used during conflict with a close family member or friend relating to the 12-month period preceding the time of assessment. Respondents were asked to indicate how often they engaged in each tactic by endorsing a number on a continuum from 0 to 5 for each of the items. Responses to each item were accordingly rated on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 0 to 5 (0 =  never, 1 =  very rarely, 2 =  less than half the time, 3 =  about half the time, 4 =  most of the time and 5 =  every time). Endorsement of the frequency of use of the specific conflict tactics over 12 months was deemed important as it allows for the evaluation of a characteristic pattern of conflict resolution for participants over a period of time, as opposed to a ‘one of’ event. Higher scores indicate higher frequency of use of a tactic or domain of tactics (Straus, 1979; Straus, 1990a). Factor analytic procedures were used to establish the factor structure CTS as reported by Unger et al. (2003), given that this measure has mainly been used to assess interpersonal conflict resolution tactics in the context of intimate partner relationships (Archer, 2000), whereas this study sought to assess the conflict tactics reported by young adults used in interpersonal conflicts with their close friends and family members.

Procedures

In 2005, a subsample (N = 138) of the ATP cohort was invited to participate in the present study. At the time of recruitment, participants were 22–23 years of age. A letter of invitation outlining the relevant consent details was sent to participants inviting them to take part in the study by means of a telephone interview. The ATP letter informed participants that the current study was conducted in conjunction with the ATP. It was also highlighted that participation was voluntary and participants were informed that their responses were confidential and that participants would be free to withdraw their consent at any time. A plain language statement was further issued to all participants informing them of the purpose of the sub-study that all the data collected would be treated confidentially and de-identified and that the data collected related to my doctoral thesis enquiry and were purely for research purposes. Participants were also asked to sign an informed consent form where they were again advised confidentiality would be safeguarded and in the event of research publication and/or presentations that arise from this study, confidentiality will still be maintained and no participants would be identified.

After the ATP letter inviting participation had been mailed to participants, follow-up phone calls seeking the participants' consent to take part in the study were made. A convenient interview time was subsequently set with participants who consented to take part in the study. At the time the phone interviews were conducted, the investigator was unaware of the group status of the participants being interviewed. Each participant was allocated an identification number to ensure confidentiality. At the end of the interview process, participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation.

Approval was received from both the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC No. 040002) of the University of Melbourne and the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Main findings

Structure of the CTS

This section examines the factor structure of the CTS as modified by Unger et al. (2003). The modified CTS is a 14-item scale comprising of three subscales originally designated as PA, NPA and NA. The factor structure of the 14-item CTS as originally used by Unger et al. (2003) was then examined using principal component analysis. The Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was greater than the recommended value of 0.7 (Field, 2004). Kaiser's criterion, scree plots and Velicer's minimum average partial (MAP) test were again used to decide the number of factors to be extracted. When the 14 items were factored, four factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (4.85, 1.85, 1.30, 1.10), which together accounted for 65.0% of the variance. Velicer's MAP test for the 14-item CTS supported the extraction of two components or factors for this sample. An examination of the scree plots showed the ‘elbow’ at two factors, which further supported the extraction of a two-factor solution. The two-factor solution accounted for 47.87% of the total variance, with the two factors explaining 34.70% and 13.18% of the variance, respectively. The factor loadings greater than 0.40 for the two-factor solution of the CTS presented in Table 2 are ordered according to the strength of the factor loadings.

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.

Factor 1, originally designated as PA, showed that six items had significant factor loadings while Factor 2, designated as NPA, was comprised of six items with significant factor loadings. Although the simple structure of this solution closely resembled the factor structure of the CTS as modified by Unger et al. (2003), consisting of PA and NPA subscales, Factor 2 indicated a bipolar factor consisting of six items ranging from positive or constructive verbal tactics on one end to negative or more verbally aggressive tactics on the other. Accordingly, a high score on this bipolar scale represents a greater use of NPA to resolve interpersonal conflicts. Two items originally designated as NA items on the CTS scale did not load on either factor. Accordingly, an analysis of the factor structure of the set of conflict tactics items as used by Unger et al. (2003) yielded two factors, which were labelled physical aggression tactics (PAT) and non-physical tactics (NPT), respectively.

Overall, this two-factor solution of the 14-item CTS indicated that the scale was comprised of two underlying dimensions, each consisting of six items with strong factor loadings and no cross loadings. The intercorrelation between the two factors was − 0.24. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated for each set of items. Alpha reliabilities were 0.90 and 0.70 for the six PAT items and six NPT items, respectively, indicating sound internal consistency for these subscales. Participants' ratings for the items making up the two factors were calculated as average item scores to be used in further analyses involving conflict resolution tactics.

Group and gender differences for interpersonal conflict resolution

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to test for group and gender differences in relation to interpersonal conflict resolution as measured by CTS. Conflict tactics (PAT and NPT) scores were obtained using the mean item scores for each subscale respectively. A MANOVA analysis was conducted using conflict tactics (PAT and NPT) as the dependent variables and group and gender as the independent variables. The multivariate and univariate MANOVA results are summarised in Table 3. Bonferroni adjusted alpha levels were used for all univariate level tests. A preliminary chi-square test was conducted to test for contingency between gender and group. No significant contingency was found between these two variables (χ² (2.138) = 0.79, p > 0.05).

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.

For the two conflict resolution tactics (PAT and NPT), a 3 ×  2 MANOVA was undertaken. A significant multivariate gender effect suggested that male and female participants differed in their use of conflict resolution strategies. Univariate F-tests (using a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of 0.025) revealed that significant gender differences only occurred for NPT. Female participants reported higher levels of NPT than male participants (M = 2.20, SD = 0.73; M = 1.91, SD = 0.65). In addition, a significant multivariate group effect was found, indicating that the three status groups significantly differed on the type of conflict resolution strategies used, as measured by the CTS. Univariate F-tests revealed significant group differences for both PAT and NPT (see Table 3). Post hoc analyses (Tukey's LSD) indicated that the high-risk persistently antisocial group reported using significantly more PAT when compared to the non-antisocial group (p <  0.01). A high score on the NPT subscale represented a higher endorsement of NPA. The low-risk persistently antisocial group also reported using significantly more PAT when compared to the non-antisocial group (p <  0.05). In addition, the high-risk persistently antisocial group reported using significantly more NPA on the NPT subscale, compared to the non-antisocial group (p <  0.01).

Discussion

The current study contributes to the growing body of research concerned with identifying the mechanisms or processes associated with persistent antisocial behaviour and discerning the differential impact that high-risk and low-risk persistent antisocial behaviour may have on young adult psychosocial outcomes.

Interpersonal conflict resolution: group and gender differences

The current study investigated gender- and group-related differences in interpersonal conflict resolution as measured by the subscales of PAT and NPT on the CTS. Significant group- and gender-related differences were also found in relation to interpersonal conflict resolution. Specifically, in terms of group-related differences, high-risk persistently antisocial youth reportedly endorsed higher levels of both physically aggressive and non-physically aggressive conflict resolution strategies in their interpersonal interactions with close family members or friends than their non-antisocial peers, as measured by the PAT and NPT subscales on the CTS, respectively. It is important to note that low-risk persistently antisocial youth also endorsed higher levels of physically aggressive conflict resolution tactics, as measured by the PAT subscale on the CTS, than non-antisocial youth.

These findings are largely consistent with previous research demonstrating that young adults with histories of persistent antisocial behaviour are at an increased risk of resorting to physical aggression (PA) or violence in dealing with interpersonal conflict in their interpersonal relationships in young adulthood (Woodward et al., 2002). This study also supports research findings that have demonstrated the continuity in aggression and interpersonal conflict over the life course (Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984; Mata & van Dulmen, 2012).

Furthermore, in considering gender differences, the current results indicated that young adult females reported higher levels of NPA in their interpersonal relationships than young adult males (as measured by NPT on the CTS). By comparison, no gender differences were found in relation to physically aggressive strategies (as measured by the PAT subscale on the CTS), suggesting that young male adults in the current study were no more likely than their female counterparts to endorse PA in their reported interpersonal conflict resolution tactics. Taken together, these findings nonetheless are consistent with prior research that has shown that with the transition into young adulthood, individuals tend to display a reduction in physically aggressive behaviours, with young women in particular favouring an endorsement of non-physical forms of aggression (Björkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiaine, 1992).

Theoretical and practical implications

In terms of implications stemming from gender and group differences found in relation to interpersonal conflict resolution, it seems reasonable to suggest that both high-risk and low-risk persistently antisocial youth are likely to demonstrate a continuity of antisocial behaviour problems in young adulthood, as evidenced by their respective significantly higher endorsement of aggressive interpersonal conflict management strategies than their non-antisocial peers. As Woodward et al. (2002) suggest, the persistence of antisocial behaviour may in part be maintained by the tendency for persistently antisocial youth to characteristically adopt physically aggressive or violent behaviour as part of their behavioural repertoire in resolving interpersonal conflicts, which in turn may impair their capacity to adopt more prosocial or constructive alternatives. These findings are also consistent with the research evidence suggesting that persistently antisocial youth tend to display a continuity of significant deficits in psychosocial maturity from adolescence to young adulthood (Monahan et al., 2009). It seems plausible that these maladaptive interactional styles may constitute one of the potential mechanisms or processes associated with the continuity of persistent antisocial behaviour into young adulthood.

Not surprisingly, these findings further suggest that young adults characterised by high-risk persistent antisocial behaviour are more likely to endorse a wider range of aggressive tactics in conflict management as evidenced by their additional endorsement of non-physically aggressive conflict resolution strategies in addition to physically aggressive strategies in their interpersonal conflict resolution, than non-antisocial youth. Accordingly, these findings suggest that the interpersonal relationships of high-risk persistently antisocial young adults, who arguably have a relatively more extensive history of antisocial behaviour problems, seem to be characterised by more pervasive difficulties in relation to interpersonal conflict management in young adulthood.

Moreover, the current results have important implications for treatment planning and/or intervention in the area of interpersonal conflict resolution for persistently antisocial youth. In particular, the current findings raise clear concerns about the long-term impact of the use of interpersonal violence or physical aggression in interpersonal conflict resolution, as characteristically reported by high-risk and low-risk persistently antisocial youth in the current study, which in turn may play an influential role in the maintenance of persistent antisocial behaviour. Clearly, the use of physical aggression in the resolution of interpersonal conflicts of persistently antisocial youth seems to be a viable target in any future treatment initiatives aimed at the prevention of persistent antisocial behaviour and interpersonal violence.

Indeed, for high-risk persistently antisocial youth who seem to be characterised by more pervasive difficulties in their interpersonal conflict management, as evidenced by higher reported levels of both physically aggressive and non-physical conflict resolution tactics, it would be important for preventative treatment to target both these types of maladaptive conflict resolution strategies. Nonetheless, it is envisaged that for any preventative treatment to be effective in curbing the tide of interpersonal violence, persistently antisocial youth would potentially benefit from learning to implement constructive or prosocial strategies as viable alternatives to aggression or violence, in dealing with interpersonal conflicts.

Given the additional finding that young adult females endorsed higher levels of non-physical aggression in their use of interpersonal conflict resolution strategies than male participants, it would be important to address this potential gender discrepancy in any treatment planning or intervention aimed at optimally enhancing the interpersonal conflict resolution of antisocial young females. Gender differences in the use of interpersonal conflict management may reflect gender differences in interactional styles, which in turn has the potential to inform research and provide useful insight regarding the implementation of appropriate treatment interventions (Murphy & Eisenberg, 2002).

Limitations and directions for future research

The findings from the current study need to be qualified by several potential limitations. First, the current research findings are based on self-report data, which allow for the possibility that participants' responses in the present study may have been affected by a number of problems inherent in the use of self-report measures, such as social desirability. Given that the present study addresses young adults, it would be expected that participants may have been reticent to disclose information that was negative or deemed to be socially undesirable, a phenomenon that is well documented in the research literature (Frey, Nolen, Edstrom, & Hirschstein, 2005; Orobio de Castro, 2004). Despite this limitation, for the purposes of the current study, it was decided to proceed with self-report measures that have the advantage of being able to gauge young people's deeper knowledge, insight and motivations for their own behaviour, psychosocial adjustment and life experiences. Also encouraging was the reported accuracy of self-reports of risk behaviours in the context of confidential survey conditions (Dent, Sussman, & Stacy, 1997). The ATP study, for instance, has extensively utilised multiple sources of report (parents, maternal child health nurses, elementary school teachers and child/adolescent self-reports). Group differences have generally been found to be more extensive and diverse using self-report than other sources (Smart et al., 2005). Furthermore, a recent comparison of official criminal records with the self-report measures of antisocial activities from participants in the ATP suggests very high concordance rates between these two sources of information, with the average rate of agreement over the different types of offences examined found to be 80.7% (Smart et al., 2005).

Furthermore, persistently antisocial youth (whether high- or low-risk) in this sample are not necessarily homogeneous groups, and may not have been exposed to the same types of family experiences or level of psychosocial adversity, which may in turn differentiate antisocial youth from their non-antisocial peers (Price & Glad, 2003). Indeed, earlier research findings often involved comparisons of relatively extreme or clinically aggressive groups (e.g. Dodge et al., 1986; Slaby & Guerra, 1988), which may have resulted in the attenuation of stronger group differences than may be warranted in representative- or general population-based studies such as the present study.

In terms of assessing interpersonal conflict resolution, it is important for researchers to assess whether persistently antisocial youth actually lack constructive strategies in their behavioural repertoire thereby making it difficult to resort to more prosocial conflict resolution strategies, or whether they do have more constructive strategies at their disposal, but nonetheless tend to rely on more aggressive conflict strategies in certain interpersonal conflict situations. Thus, an area requiring additional research is whether aggression-prone individuals experience higher levels of self-focussed arousal, which may in turn impede their ability to consider prosocial conflict resolution strategies when resolving interpersonal conflicts.

In conclusion, the current findings indicate that interpersonal conflict resolution represents a promising target for interventions designed to prevent or reduce persistent antisocial behaviour. Interpersonal conflict resolution deficits may well constitute a key mechanism that is implicated in perpetuating persistent patterns of antisocial behaviour, which may in turn undermine psychosocial maturation thereby compromising the ability of antisocial youth to acquire the social and behavioural competencies required for constructive conflict resolution as adolescents transition into young adulthood. An important challenge for future research is understanding how conflict resolution deficits interact with other risk factors in influencing different trajectories of persistent antisocial behaviour.

Acknowledgements

I acknowledge the invaluable assistance provided during my doctoral candidature by my supervisors, Dr Mary Ainley, Associate Professor, University of Melbourne, and Ms Diana Smart, Project Manager (at the time of the project), Australian Temperament Project, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, Australia. This paper is based on the author's doctoral research findings conducted at the University of Melbourne in affiliation with the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Effie Zafirakis

Effie Zafirakis is currently lecturing at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, in the Justice & Legal Studies and Juris Doctor programs in law. Dr Zafirakis qualified as a lawyer and as a forensic psychologist and has a keen interest in the interface between psychology and law. Dr Zafirakis holds degrees in science majoring in psychology (BSc) and in law (LLB) from Monash University, and a doctorate in psychology (DPsych- Forensic) from the University of Melbourne. Dr Zafirakis has previously practiced as a criminal lawyer with Victoria Legal Aid.

Appendix 1. Conflict tactics scale

Participant ID#:_____________ Date:_______________

No matter how well we may get along with family members or close friends, there are times when we may disagree on major decisions, get annoyed about something the other person does, or just get into fights because we are in a bad mood or tired, or for some other reason. People also use different ways of trying to settle their differences. Here is a list of things that you might have done when having a conflict. Thinking about all the disagreements you have had during the last year (not just the most serious ones), how often did you do the following things when disagreeing?

	0 =  Never
	1 =  Very rarely
	2 =  Less than half the time
	3 =  About half the time
	4 =  Most of the time
	5 =  Every time

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

Appendix 2. Tukey's LSD for conflict tactics

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.