Background and Significance

From Wikipedia

The central idea of the Background and Significance section is not to provide a review of the literature. Instead, its main role is to make a point about the need for this proposal and also, whenever possible, to emphasize the role the proposing research group had in the development of the field up to this point.

Significance

The first paragraph should present an overview of the proposal and the general importance of the subject.

• In the last decade, there has been an increasing recognition by researchers and policy makers of the problem of aggressive and antisocial behaviors by girls (Gorman-Smith, in press; Pepler & Craig, 1999; OJJDP, 1996). Traditionally, much of the original theoretical work did not include girls, or considered them only peripherally. These behaviors were thought to be fairly uncommon, and therefore girls were not a part of risk studies. To quote a recent OJJDP report: “boys (were) perceived to threaten the community with violent behavior, girls by flouting moral standards. Society (was) presumed to need protection from boys; girls (were) presumed to need protection from themselves” (OJJDP, 1996). However, girls are becoming increasingly violent and delinquent. In addition, although most offenses committed by girls continue to be less serious status offenses, girls are increasingly becoming involved in gangs and more serious crimes (OJJDP, 1996). There is no lack of data showing that relative to boys, girls are becoming increasingly involved in the juvenile justice system. Between 1981 and 1997, while the violent crime arrest rate for juvenile males increased by 20%, the rate for young females nearly doubled (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). Similarly, the arrest rates for “other assaults” for girls increased by 142%, with an increase of 80% for boys. Similar increases are also shown for related problem behaviors of substance use (Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 1999; SAMHSA, 2000), and recent data show that girls’ use is almost equal to that of boys (National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse [NCASA], 2003).
• Because our current intervention models are based on risk and protective studies that were done on boys, it remains unknown whether the antecedents, developmental trajectories, and processes that lead to antisocial outcomes are the same for girls as they are for boys. Recently there has been a wave of interest, both in the popular press (Simmons, 2002; Talbot, 2002; Wiseman, 2002) and in the juvenile justice field (Daniel, 1999; Girls, Incorporated, 1996; Ravoira, 1999) on interventions that are specific to girls. However, since we do not yet know empirically whether boys and girls differ in the way they develop antisocial behavior, we do not know whether it will be necessary to “re-tool” existing interventions to be more gender-sensitive, or whether there is a need for gender-specific programs. Another compelling reason to understand females’ aggression and antisocial behavior more completely is that aggressive girls are the teen mothers of the next generation (Miller-Johnson, Winn, Coie, et al., 1999; Underwood, Coie, & Kupersmidt, 1996). Children of teen mothers are twice as likely to be abused or neglected as compared with children of non-teen mothers (Maynard, 1996). Thus, by better understanding and preventing aggression in girls, which we know is associated with teen pregnancy, this can improve aggressive and violent outcomes in the next generation.

Literature review of each Aim in support of information gap

This section, which is repeated for each one of the aims in the Specific Aims section, provides a literature information in support of the information gap that will be addressed by the respective aim. The reader should therefore be convinced of two main points: (1) that the authors of the proposal do know the topic in depth, and (2) that in the previous literature the aims being proposed have not been previous addressed as proposed by the authors. When possible, the proposal might also argue that the authors of the proposal are uniquely qualified to execute this project by emphasizing their own previous work in the literature review as important contributions to the field, and then convening the aim as the natural next step.

• Longitudinal studies. A small number of longitudinal investigations have shown that a high proportion of antisocial adolescent females continue to be involved in adult antisocial behavior (Robins & Price, 1991; Zoccolillo et al., 1991, 1992). In her review of studies to date, Pajer (1998) found that in comparison with control samples, antisocial adolescent girls were at increased risk in adulthood for continued antisocial behavior, other psychiatric diagnoses, involvement in violent relationships, poor education achievement, and unstable work histories. Similarly, Bardone et al. (1996) used data from the Dunedin sample and found that conduct disordered adolescent girls were more likely during adulthood to evidence greater antisocial and illegal behaviors, to have multiple cohabitation partners, and to be a victim of partner violence. Moffitt et al. (2001) found that gender moderated the impact of having an antisocial partner in adolescence on subsequent antisocial behavior. For girls, having an antisocial partner intensified the likelihood of persistent antisocial behavior, while this was not the case for boys. They speculated a social amplification effect for females whereby social influences within intimate relationships magnify involvement in antisocial behavior. Overall, these studies suggest that delinquent behavior among adolescent females is associated with continued risks in adulthood. However, all of these studies were on adolescent females, and to-date there have been no longitudinal studies of younger conduct problem girls. Moffitt et al.’s study (2001) in particular highlights the need for closer study of the centrality of relationship concerns for girls and how these contribute to girls’ antisocial behavior.

• Another important longitudinal question is the stability and persistence of deviant behaviors. Research has shown that boys andgirls display similar stability of conduct problems (Coie & Dodge, 1998; Huesmann, et al., 1984; Miller-Johnson, et al., in press; Moffitt, et al., 2001). However, this work has been largely based on community-based samples. As already noted, while boys’ deviant behaviors may be due to a combination of both biological and adverse life and parenting experiences, girls’ deviant behaviors may be due primarily to adverse lifeand parenting experiences. One conjecture, then, is that environmental factors may be more malleable than Miller-Johnson, Shari biological influences, and the stability of girls’ conduct problems may be less compared to boys. This is an interesting question that remains unanswered, particularly in a sample of high-risk early-starting boys and girls.

• Implications for prevention. Only limited attention has been paid to violence prevention efforts for girls, and most interventions have been developed based on theoretical models of risk in boys. Furthermore, even when girls have been included in interventions, all too often results have not been carried out separately by gender. Some programs have found that interventions were more effective with boys than with girls. Farrell et al. (2001) looked at the effects of a social-cognitive problem solving classroom curriculum. At one-year follow-up, although boys showed a significant reduction in school suspensions, this effect was not shown for girls. Similarly, long-term follow-up into middle school from a parenting and teacher training program for elementary school children showed that while boys reported less delinquency than the control group, this effect was not significant for girls (Hawkins, et al., 1991; O’Donnell, et al., 1995). Chamberlain and Reid (1994), in their treatment foster care program, found that while males’ problem behavior levels decreased at six-month follow-up, scores for females increased to the one-month follow-up level for males. One potential reason for the lack of effectiveness with girls is that these programs did not target risk factors that may be most relevant for girls. Most noticeable is the role of relationship issues and their salience for girls as an important risk factor. Recently, there have been several promising programs to reduce peer violence by girls that focus on the relationship context (Girls, Incorporated, 1996; Ravoira, 1999). However, none of these programs have been empirically evaluated.

• Feminist framework. Prior to the 1970’s, there was little theoretical discussion of gender and antisocial behavior. At that time, feminist criminologists suggested that increases in females’ arrests were a consequence of the women’s movement and a shift away from stereotyped roles (Adler, 1975; Chesney-Lind, 1973, 1989). However, empirical tests indicated that the women’s movement did not lead to a narrowing of gender differences in antisocial behavior (Steffenmeier & Allen, 1996). More recent perspectives focus on gender inequality as a factor in female crime (Chesney-Lind & Sheldon, 1998). The underlying assumption is that patriarchal power relationships determine gender differences in antisocial behavior and perpetuate women into crime through victimization, for example, teen girls who run away as a result of abuse and drift into prostitution, drug abuse, and drug dealing. Other explanations for gender differences in antisocial behavior include increased drug use by females which amplifies crimes that generate income (Steffenmeier, 1993). However, these theories have not taken a developmental perspective and have generally focused on adult women’s criminal behavior. These theories also do not inform us about the ways that differences in males’ and females’ lives may impact gender differences in violence.