Delinquency, Victimization, and the 

Developing Brain: Results from the ABCDSocial Development Study 

Barbara Tatem Kelley, M.A., M.Ed. 

Social Science Research Analyst, National Institute of Justice 

December 2, 2020 
Early Adolescent Delinquency and Victimization 

from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study 

Presenter: Duncan B. Clark, M.D., Ph.D. 

Delinquency, Victimization, and the Developing Brain 

National Institute of Justice 

December 2, 2020 
 

 

Contributors 

University of Pittsburgh University of Michigan 

Duncan B Clark MD PhD Brian Hicks PhD 

Lia Ahonen PhD David Clark PhD 

Doug Fitzgerald Sarah Brislin PhD 

Kaylee Klingensmith 

Support provided by 

NIJ CDC 

Barbara Tatem Kelley Chris Harper PhD 

ABCD organization, faculty & staff 

Grants: NIJ & CDC 2017-MU-CX-0044 & ABCD 
ABCD Study® Aims 

1. Describe individual developmental pathways: 

Neural, cognitive, emotional, academic 

2. National standards of healthy brain development 

3. Interaction of genes and environment on development 

4. Influences on brain development: Physical activity, 

sleep, screen time, traumatic brain injuries 

5. Influences on mental health from childhood to young 

adulthood 

6. Relationships between mental health and substance 

use 

7. Substance use influences on developmental outcomes 

Volkow et al. (2018): ABCD Special Issue: Developmental 

Cognitive Neuroscience 2018 [available at abcdstudy.org] 



ABCD assessment protocol Visit 1 (Baseline) 

Mental Health Y P 

Total time: minutes 30 105 

ABCD Higher Risk Screener 

DSM-5 Diagnoses and Symptoms  

UPPS-P for Children – Short Form 

BIS/BAS Scales 

Achenbach scales: CBCL 

parent ASR 

Prodromal Psychosis Scale 

Parent General Behavior (mania) 

Youth Resilience Scale (friends) 

Family History (psychopathology, SU) 

7
ABCD assessment protocol Visit 1 (Baseline) 

Physical Health Y P 

Total time 15 63 

Anthropometrics 

Snellen Vision Screen 

Edinburgh Handedness 

YRBS: Exercise 

Sports & activities 

Pubertal Development  

Screen Time Survey  

Sleep Disturbances Scale 

Medical History, medications 

Developmental history, prenatal 

Ohio State TBI Screen 

8
 

 

ABCD assessment protocol Visit 1 (Baseline) 

Culture & Environment Y P 

Total time 9 22 

Parental Monitoring Survey 

School Risk & Protective Factors 

Prosocial Behavior Survey  

Acculturation Survey  

FES: Family Conflict  

Neighborhood Safety  

Multi-Group Ethnic Identity 

9
ABCD assessment protocol Visit 1 (Baseline) 

Biospecimens Y P 

Total time 22 5 

Alcohol Screen (Breathalyzer) 

Drug Screen (oral fluid – Drager) 

Substance Use (hair) 

Pubertal hormones (oral fluid) 

DNA (oral fluid/blood) 

Baby teeth 

Other Data Sources P T 

Total time 8 2 

Residential History: Geocoding 

School Records 

Brief Problem Monitor (teacher) 

10
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABCD assessment protocol Visit 1 (Baseline) 

Neurocognition - Y Total time: 60 minutes 

NIH Toolbox Tasks 

Flanker Inhibitory Control

Picture Vocabulary

List Sorting Working Memory

Dimensional Change Card Sort

Pattern Comparison Processing Speed

Picture Sequence Memory 

Oral Reading Recognition 

Other tasks 

Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test

Cash Choice Task 

Little Man Task 

Matrix Reasoning Task

RAVLT Delayed Recall 

11
 

 

 

ABCD assessment protocol Visit 1 (Baseline) 

Brain Imaging Protocol - Y Total time: 120 minutes 

Pre Scan: Screen, MR Simulator, PS Questionnaire 

Setup, Localizer 

3D T1 (show child movie) 

rs fMRI (10 minutes x 2) 

Diffusion Tensor Imaging (show child movie) 

3D T2 (show child movie) 

fMRI Monetary Incentive Delay Task 

fMRI Stop Task 

fMRI Emotional N-Back Task 

Post Scan: N-Back Recognition, MID Survey, Post Q 

12
 

 

ABCD measures: Delinquency & Victimization 

Mental Health 

v2 Y Brief Delinquency Measure 

v1 P ABCD Higher Risk Screener 

v1 P KSADS Diagnoses and Symptoms 

v1 P Achenbach scales: Child Behavior Checklist 

v1 Y UPPS-P for Children – Short Form 

Physical Health 

v1 P Ohio State TBI Screen - Short 

Neurocognitive 

v1 Y Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention 

Culture & Environment 

v1 G Area Deprivation Index 

v2 P Life Events 

[P: parent; Y: youth; G: geocoding; v1, v2: ABCD visit] 

13
 

 

 

 

 

 

ABCD Brief Delinquency Measure items 

Items from Self Report of Delinquency: Loeber et al. 1989 

Have you hit someone with the idea of hurting them... [assault] 

Have you been loud, rowdy, or unruly in a public place...so that 

people complained about it or you got in trouble [disorderly] 

Have you thrown objects such as rocks or bottles at people... 

Have you purposely damaged or destroyed property that did not 

belong to you... 

Have you taken something from a store without paying for it... 

Have you stolen or tried to steal things worth $5 or less... 

Have you stolen or tried to steal things worth between $5 and $50... 

Have you carried a hidden weapon... 

Have you been involved in a gang fight... 

Have you been arrested or picked up by police...for other than minor 

traffic offense 

Qualifier: “...in the past year?” Response options: yes or no; # times 

Piquero et al. (2002) The validity of a Self-Reported Delinquency 

Scale. Sociological Methods & Research 30(4), 492-529 

14 
 

ABCD BDM (v2 Y) psychometric analyses 

Item Rate EFA IRT 

(%) factor β α

loadings 

assault 9.3 .61 2.1 1.4 

disorderly 4.4 .57 2.7 1.5 

thrown object 3.2 .69 2.5 2.0 

property damage 1.9 .73 2.6 2.3 

store theft 1.6 .88 2.5 3.1 

theft <$5-$501 1.4 .84 2.5 2.8 

weapon 1.0 .66 3.3 1.9 

gang fight 1.0 .68 3.1 2.2 

police 0.3 .68 3.6 2.3 

ABCD Visit 2: n=11235; 1. theft <$5 & theft $5-50 combined 

EFA: Exploratory Factor Analysis, tetrachoric matrix 

Eigenvalues: 4.9, 0.9, 0.8, 0.6, 0.5 

IRT: β: difficulty or severity; α: discrimination 

15 
 

 

 

ABCD BDM: Differential Item Functioning 

Candidate Items: Qualitative review: disorderly, police 

Have you been loud, rowdy, or unruly in a public place...so 

that people complained about it or you got in trouble 

[disorderly] 

Have you been arrested or picked up by police...for other 

than minor traffic offense 

BDM 10 items x BDM 8 items: r=0.95 (n=11,311; p<.001) 

DIF statistical analyses 

DIF: a statistical characteristic showing an item may be 

measuring different “abilities” in identified subgroups 

Sequential DIF flexMIRT analysis conducted 

16 
 

 

ABCD BDM DIF thresholds by race 

Item white 

β 

black 

β p 

assault 2.20 1.76 0.12 

disorderly

thrown object

property damage

store theft 

3.17 

2.62 

3.02 

2.70 

2.10 

2.29 

2.24 

2.02 

0.44 

0.03 

0.28 

0.89 

theft <$5-$501 2.63 2.19 0.39 

weapon

gang fight

police 

3.32 

3.47 

3.74 

2.68 

2.69 

3.16 

0.03 

0.03 

0.009 

disorderly: no significant differences 

police: black youth showed lower “difficulty” 

flexMIRT DIF analysis; DIF: β: difficulty or severity 

17 
 

 

 

ABCD Higher Risk Index (HR) & KSADS: parent at ABCD v1 

HR items derived from Loeber et. (2018) & anxiety/depression/protective 

HR Item GAMM1 (n=4479) 

F p ∆R2

lie or cheat 17.2 <.001 0.8% 

property 26.0 <.001 1.2% 

disobey 54.1 <.001 2.4% 

steal 21.2 <.001 0.9% 

Household smoke 12.7 <.001 0.3% 

ANOVA2 (n=11,235) 

ABCD HR2 26.9 <.001 

KSADS ADHD 32.7 <.001 

KSADS ODD 48.9 <.001 

KSADS CD 75.8 <.001 

1. ABCD NDA 2.0: DEAP GAMM:

Fixed Effects: age/sex/race/ethnicity/income/marital status

Random Effects: family/site

Propensity weight: American Community Survey 

2: ABCD NDA 3.0: ANOVA: covariates: age/sex/race/ethnicity/income 

18 
 

 

 

ABCD UPPS (Yv1) x BDM (Yv2) 

UPPS-P Short Youth Version: impulsivity as a multi-faceted, 

multi-dimensional construct with five impulsive personality traits; 

4 items per scale [4-point: agree strongly ... disagree strongly] 

Subscale ANOVA1 GAMM2

(n=11,235) (n=4473) 

F p F p ∆R2

Negative Urgency 15.9 <.001 62.7 <.001 1.4% 

Positive Urgency 12.5 <.001 63.0 <.001 1.4% 

Lack of Perseverance 17.4 <.001 47.8 <.001 1.1% 

Lack of Planning 9.0 <.001 99.6 <.001 

2.2% 

Sensation Seeking 2.9 .001 16.3 <.001 0.3% 

[1: ABCD NDA 3.0: ANOVA: covariates: age/sex/race/ethnicity/income]

[2: ABCD NDA 2.0: Data Exploration and Analysis Portal GAMM: 

Fixed Effects: age/sex/race/ethnicity/income/education/marital

Random Effects: family/site

Propensity weight: American Community Survey 

Reference: Watts et al. (2019) ...UPPS-P... Psychological Assessment 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

ABCD Life Events (Pv2) x BDM (Yv2) 

PhenX Life Events: parent at ABCD v2 (n=11,235): “ever” 

% yes 

Example items: youth was victim of crime or violence 1.4 

someone in family arrested 5.6 

caregiver went to jail 3.5 

ANOVA1

F p 

Life Events Pv2: adverse sum 2.1 .008 

The Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire 

Kubany et al (2000) Psychological Assessment 

1. ABCD NDA 3.0: ANOVA: covariates: age/sex/race/ethnicity/income

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

ABCD KSADS PTSD trauma items (Pv1) 

KSADS trauma history items: parent at ABCD v1 (n=11,878): 

17 traumatic events: present/past (“yes” 1%) 

Example items: parent about youth history 

More frequent events 

24% Unexpected death of loved one 

8% Witness grownups in home push, shove or hit one another 

4% accident requiring medical attention 

Less frequent events (yes ≤ 1%)

witnessed someone shot or stabbed in the community 

shot, stabbed or beaten by non-family member 

shot, stabbed, or beaten by grown up in the house 

family/non-family member threatened to kill your child 

sexual abuse (3 items) 

Kauffman et al. (1997, 2000) Schedule for affective disorders and 

schizophrenia for school-age children (K-SADS-PL). JAACAP 36(7); 39(10) 

Clark et al. (2010) Child abuse and other traumatic experiences... Journal of

Pediatric Psychology 35(5), 499-510 

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Culture & Environment: Area Deprivation Index (ADI ) 

Geocoding from residential history (multiple residences) 

17 census measures: weighted sum (V1 primary residence here) 

Characteristics determined for area residences 

 housing [multiple indicators: e.g., without complete plumbing

income / below poverty threshold [multiple indicators]

occupation/employment status [multiple indicators]

marital status; education

GAMM1 (n=4473) 

F p ∆R2

ADI 19.5 p<.001 0.4% 

ABCD NDA 2.0: DEAP GAMM: Fixed Effects: age/sex; 

Random Effects: family/site; Propensity weight: American Community Survey 

Singh (2003) AJPH; Kind et al. (2014) Annals of Internal Medicine 

22 
 

 

 

Neurocognition: Flanker (Yv1) x BDM (Yv2) 

NIH Toolbox Flanker: youth at ABCD v1 

NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery: Executive Function 

Construct: inhibitory control and attention 

Task: indicate left-right orientation of central stimulus 

inhibit attention to incongruent surrounding stimuli 

GAMM1 (n=4440) 

F p ∆R2

Flanker task 0.9 .38 0.0% 

Zelazo et al. (2014) J Int Neuropsychol Soc 

1. ABCD NDA 2.0: DEAP GAMM: flanker task (age corrected)

Fixed Effects: age/sex/race/ethnicity/income/marital status 

Random Effects: family/site 

Propensity weight: American Community Survey 

23 
 

 

 

Physical Health: TBI (Pv1) x BDM (Yv2) 

Ohio State Traumatic Brain Injury: parent at ABCD v1 

TBI worst: improbable 

possible 

mild 

n (11,870) 

11,414 

322 

127 

% 

96 

3 

1 

moderate 4 .03 

severe 3 .03 

TBI worst 

GAMM1 (n=4479) 

∆R2 F p

0.9 .43 0.0% 

Bogner et al. (2017) J Head Trauma Rehabil 

1. ABCD NDA 2.0: DEAP GAMM: 

Fixed Effects: age/sex/race/ethnicity/income/marital status

Random Effects: family/site

Propensity weight: American Community Survey 

24 
 

Summary 

ABCD data overview and examples 

BDM psychometric analyses 

BDM risks: impulsivity personality traits

adverse life events 

negative results 

Area Deprivation Index 

Flanker inhibitory control 

TBI in ABCD sample 

Future research scale development

BDM – brain development

developmental outcomes

criminal behavior 

victimization 

victimization effects 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data used in the preparation of this article were obtained from the 

Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study 

(https://abcdstudy.org), held in the NIMH Data Archive (NDA). This is 

a multisite, longitudinal study designed to recruit more than 10,000 

children aged 9-10 years and follow them over 10 years into early 

adulthood. The ABCD Study is supported by the National Institutes of 

Health and additional federal partners under award numbers 

U01DA041022, U01DA041025, U01DA041028, U01DA041048, 

U01DA041089, U01DA041106, U01DA041117, U01DA041120, 

U01DA041134, U01DA041148, U01DA041156, U01DA041174, 

U01DA041093, U24DA041123, and U24DA041147. A full list of 

supporters is available at https://abcdstudy.org/nih-collaborators. A 

listing of participating sites and a complete listing of the study 

investigators can be found at https://abcdstudy.org/principalinvestigators.html. ABCD consortium investigators designed and 

implemented the study and/or provided data but did not necessarily 

participate in analysis or writing of this report. This manuscript 

reflects the views of the authors and may not reflect the opinions or 

views of the NIH or ABCD consortium investigators. The ABCD data 

repository grows and changes over time. The ABCD data used in this 

report came from the ABCD Data Release 2.0 (DOI: 10.15154/1503209, 

March 2019) and ABCD Fix Release 2.0.1 (DOI: 10.15154/1504041, 

July 2019), and ABCD Data Release 3.0 (DOI: 10.15154/1519007). 
 

 

 

 

ABCD Example Publications 

ABCD PublicationTopics: First Author, Year 

ABCD Special Issue: Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 

The conception of the ABCD Study: Volkow et al., 2018 

Design: Garavan et al., 2018 

Physical and mental health assessment: Barch et al., 2018 

Screen for early marijuana use: Loeber et al., 2018 

Imaging acquisition: Casey et al., 2018. 

Neurocognition battery: Luciana et al., 2018. 

Assessment of culture and environment: Zucker et al., 2018 

Biomedical ethics and clinical oversight: Clark et al., 2018 

Recent publications (70 in 2020 to date) 

Neighborhood poverty and brain: Taylor et al., 2020 

Behavior and brain substance use risks: Rapuano et al., 2020 

Prenatal substance exposure: Lees et al., 2020; Paul et al., 2020 

Neuroanatomy and impulsvity: Owens et al., 2020 

Brain, behavior, environment: Modabbernia et al., 2020 

Reward processing and disruptive behaviors: Hawes et al., 2020 

Available at https://abcdstudy.org 

27 
 

 

ABCD Study ® Additional information 

ABCD Study information: https://abcdstudy.org 

Study design & protocol descriptions

Workgroups

fMRI Tasks & Tools

Data sharing instructions

Publications

ABCD Special Issue: 

Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience: August 2018 

ABCD Data Use: https://nda.nih.gov/abcd 

Contact Duncan Clark at clarkdb@upmc.edu 

28 
 

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA 

The ABCD- Social 

Development Study 

Supported by The National Institute of Justice and the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention 

Presenter: 

Lia Ahonen, Ph.D, 

Department of Psychiatry 

University of Pittsburgh 
 

 

Acknowledgements 

 This presentation is done in collaboration with Duncan B. Clark, Douglas

Fitzgerald, & Kaylee Klingensmith.

 Investigators and staff of the data collection sites.

 Dr. Rolf Loeber who designed the SD Study together with Dr. Ahonen in 2014.

 Dr. David Farrington, Dr. Kevin Conway, Dr. Finn-Age Esbensen, Dr. Brant

Hasler, Dr. Rick Rosenfeldt, & Dr. Helene Raskin-White for their initial support

and guidance.
 

 

Participating ABCD-SD Sites & Faculty; NIJ 

& CDC support 

 Site Faculty 

 Pittsburgh Clark [PI], Ahonen [Co-PI]

 Michigan Hicks [SPI], Heitzeg, Hyde, Zucker

 Maryland Chang [SPI], Cloak

 Florida Cottler [SPI], Striley, Gurka 

 Yale Casey, Baskin-Sommers: [Co-SPIs] 

 Scientific officers

 NIJ Barbara Tatem Kelly 

 CDC Chris Harper 
 

 

Description of the Study 

 Up to 2500 participants

 Age at first in person assessment: 10-12 (baseline)

 Planned annual assessments over 10 years

 Main constructs:

 Delinquency

 Victimization

 Protective factors
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aims of the 

ABCD-SD study 

 1. Examine the extent to which

premorbid brain structure and function

deficits, expressed through

neurocognitive and executive

dysfunction, identify vulnerabilities for

delinquency and substance use.

 2. Investigate the adverse effects of

substance use trajectories on adolescent

brain and cognitive development, and

whether neurodevelopmental deficits are

implicated in the onset and persistence

of delinquent acts, as well as the

probability of victimization.

 3. Investigate brain maturation and its

associations with early forms of

desistance from delinquency and

cessation of victimization.
Conceptual model 
 

 

 

 

The assessment protocol 

Was carefully developed in close collaboration with the National Institute of 

Justice, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and all the site faculty 

and investigators. 

The protocol is dynamic and revised annually to collect high priority data that 

complement the parent study, without being redundant and burdensome for the 

participants. 
The assessment protocol 

Child assessment 

Instrument Constructs Items 

Self-reported delinquency Property crime, Violence, Internet 

Harassment, Police Contact 

50 

Parent assessment 

Instrument Items 

Parent-reported delinquency 50 

Firearm carrying and access 

(YRBS) 

Firearm access, safety 3 Firearm safety 

(BRFSS) 

3 

Victimization (JVQ) Conventional crime, Peer and Sibling 

Victimization, Peer Aggression, Witnessing 

and Indirect Victimization, Gun Violence, 

School Violence and threat, Internet 

Victimization 

32 Victimization 

(JVQ-P) 

32 

Youth Psychopathy Inventory 

(YPI) 

Psychopathy 50 Not applicable 

CADS Prosociality 12 CADS 12 

ICU Callous unemotional traits 17 ICU 17 

Fear trait (TFQ-20) Fearlessness 20 Not applicable N/A 

Aggression Pro-, reactive aggression 23 Pro-, reactive aggression 23 

Peer behavior profile Peer negative and positive behavior 17 Not applicable N/A 

Emotion regulation (DERS) Emotion regulation 36 Emotion regulation (DERS) 36 

Alabama Parenting Questionnaire Parenting 42 Parenting 42 

Neighborhood Efficacy, 

Neighborhood disorder 

Not applicable N/A CE-SC Scale, PND 10+15 

 

 

 
A selection of 

the first 

descriptive 

data from 

baseline 
 

 

 

 

 

Demographics of the sample 

Social Development Study (First half of the baseline sample, n=989) 

Average age at SD baseline in years (child) 10.8 

Male % 51 

White % 40.6 

ABCD 

High Risk for Marijuana use% (int. & ext). 

40.5 

Biological mother % 84.9 

Caregiver informant age (years) 38.85 

(median 38.0) 

Caregiver BA degree or higher % 23.1 

No High School Diploma % 7.5 

Median total household income $ 50- 75 000 

Families reporting income < poverty line ( 2019, 2 adults, 2 children) % 26.4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SD Demographics compared to national 

statistics 2019. 

 In comparison, the gender distribution of the SD Study and the national 

census survey corresponds perfectly (51% male). 

 Slightly smaller proportion of white children (40.6%) compared to the national 

average (50%). 

 The total median household income ($50-75,000) is similar to the national 

average ($68,703), but lower than the national average for households with 

children ($78,000). 

 More than a quarter of the SD families (26.4%) reported incomes under the 

poverty line as compared to the national figures (10.5%) (4 people, $25,926). 

Data Source: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau: The Annie Casey 

Foundation Kids Count Data center. 
Prevalence delinquency (child/parent report)

Any Delinquency % (SD combined parent/child report) 

Florida 

(n=130) 

% 

Maryland 

(n=246) 

% 

Michigan 

(n=307) 

% 

Pittsburgh 

(n=157) 

% 

Yale 

(n=149) 

% 

Total 

(n=989) 

32.1% 

0.2 6.2% 2.8% 3.3% 5.1% 7.4% 

6.9% 

78.5% 

23.8% 

42.3% 

SD Total 

signif. † 

Chi-sq 

Vandalism 31.3% 23.5% 43.9% 29.5% 

< 0.001 

Theft 19.9% 23.1% 43.3% 26.2% 

< 0.001 

26.1% 

Violence 76.0% 74.3% 87.3% 66.4% 

0.001 

76.1% 

Police Contact 4.5% 3.3% 14.6% 2.7% 

< 0.001 

5.8% 

Hidden Weapon 

Carrying 4.4% 
Florida 

(n=130) 

% 

Maryland 

(n=246) 

% 

Michigan 

(n=307) 

% 

Pittsburgh 

(n=157) 

% 

Yale 

(n=149) 

% 

Conventional Crime 73.1% 67.5% 63.7% 70.1% 65.1% 

Peer & Sibling (physical) 

Victimization 

86.2% 79.3% 86.9% 87.3% 73.8% 

Peer & Sibling (social) 

Intimidation 

56.2% 51.6% 52.3% 55.4% 47.7% 

Witnessing /Indirect 

Victimization 

60.0% 63.0% 40.5% 77.1% 49.7% 

Exposure to Gun Violence 0.8% 8.5% 2.9% 15.9% 2.7% 

School Violence and 

Threats 

29.2% 22.4% 26.8% 30.6% 19.5% 

Internet Victimization 

9.2% 9.8% 6.9% 13.5% 14.1% 

Prevalence victimization (child/parent) 

Any Victimization % (SD combined parent/child report) 

SD Total 

signif. † 

Chi-sq 

Total 

(N=989) 

0.3 

67.1% 

0.001 

83.0% 

0.6 

52.4% 

< 0.001 

55.9% 

< 0.001 

6.1% 

0.1 

25.5% 

0.08 

10.0% 
 

 

 

 

Personality features 

 We do know that callous unemotional traits and psychopathic personality

features are associated with delinquency.

 We don’t know if, and to what extent, individual emotion regulation is

associated with delinquency and victimization, and if emotion regulation is

qualitatively distinct from psychopathic traits.

 In the SD study we are measuring both.
 

 

 

Any Serious 

Violence 

0.21** 

Non-acceptance of 0.11** 0.11** ns 0.11** 

emotional responses 

Non goal directed behavior 0.07* ns 0.08* 0.10** 

Impulse control diff. 0.14** 0.08* 0.15** 0.26** 

Lack of emotional 0.06* ns ns 0.12** 

awareness 

Lack of ER strategies 0.13** 0.12** 0.10* 0.17** 

Lack of emotional clarity 0.12** 0.16** 0.10* 0.11** 

Associations between delinquency and emotion regulation (ER) 

ER ( worst quartile) Any Moderate 

Theft 

Any Serious 

Theft 

Any Moderate 

Violence 

Difficulties in ER (Full 

scale) 

0.14** 0.13** 0.12** 

Note: ** p< .001, * p< .05 Kendall’s Tau b. 

Delinqency= self and parent reported best estimate 

Emotion regulation= self reported, worst quartile= 25% highest score. 
Associations between victimization and emotion regulation 

Any victimization 

ER (worst quartile) 

Difficulties in ER 

(Full scale) 

Conventional 

crime 

0.15** 

Peer or 

sibling 

ns

Peer social 

ostracism 

0.10* 

Witnessing 

or indirect 

0.11** 

Gun 

violence 

0.08* 

Internet 

harassment 

0.07* 

Non-acceptance of emotional 

responses 

ns ns 0.10* 0.12** ns 0.03* 

Non goal directed behavior 0.13** 0.11** 0.13** 0.07* ns ns

Impulse control diff. 0.16** 0.09* 0.14** 0.12** 0.08* 0.12** 

Lack of emotional awareness ns ns -0.09* ns 0.09* ns

Lack of ER strategies 0.14** 0.07* 0.18** 0.13** 0.06* 0.09* 

Lack of emotional clarity 0.10* ns ns 0.07* ns 0.05* 

Note: ** p< .001, * p< .05 Kendall’s Tau b. 

Victimization= self and parent reported best estimate, Emotion regulation= self reported, worst quartile= 25% highest score. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Associations between emotion regulation and the YPI 

The Youth Psychopathy Inventory (worst quartile)

ER (worst quartile) Youth 

Psychopathy

Inventory 

YPI impulsive 

irresponsible 

dimension 

YPI grandiose 

manipulative

dimension 

YPI callous 

unemotional 

dimension 

Difficulties in ER 

(Full scale) 

Non-acceptance of emotional 

responses 

Non goal directed behavior 

Impulse control diff. 

Lack of emotional awareness 

Lack of ER strategies 

Lack of emotional clarity 

The Youth Psychopathy Inventory (worst quartile) 

ER (worst quartile) Youth 

Psychopathy 

Inventory Total 

YPI impulsive 

irresponsible 

dimension 

YPI grandiose 

manipulative 

dimension 

YPI callous 

unemotional 

dimension 

Difficulties in ER 

(Full scale) 

0.31** 0.22** 0.23** 0.26** 

Non-acceptance of emotional 

responses 

0.19** 0.15** 0.18** 0.19** 

Non goal directed behavior 0.09* 0.13** ns 0.11** 

Impulse control diff. 0.31 ** 0.24** 0.22** 0.29** 

Lack of emotional awareness 0.09* 0.12** 0.16** ns 

Lack of ER strategies 0.26** 0.22** 0.17** 0.27** 

Lack of emotional clarity 0.17** 0.12** 0.18** 0.12** 

Note: ** p< .001, * p< .05 Kendall’s Tau b. 

ER & YPI= self reports, worst quartile= 25% highest score. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

Conclusions 

 The ABCD-SD Study is a unique development of the merging of life course

criminology and neurodevelopment.

 The overall sample will be a decent representation of the national group of

children in the overall population, with a slight skewness towards high risk

and low socio-economic status.

 Personality features such as psychopathic traits are well known as a precursor

of delinquency, but also emotion regulation plays an important role.

 There are important differences between data collection sites that need

consideration in future analyses.
 

 

 

A word of caution 

 The results should be used with caution. Data should not be used out of

context.

 For example, there are significant differences in race in prevalence, and

frequency, of delinquency as well as victimization.

 Previous studies have shown that race is not a significant independent

precursor of, for example, violence, when other environmental factors were

taken into account.

 The SD assessment protocol is revised annually to better reflect social justice

issues, and inclusiveness.

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The future 

 This study has the potential to significantly contribute to our understanding of 

organic brain development and how this relates to delinquent or norm 

breaking behavior over time. 

 We will learn about if, and how, early onset of Marijuana use affects both 

brain development and behavioral problems. This is crucial information in the 

current climate of legalization of Marijuana across nations. 

 Data will be deposited with NIJ and the ABCD Consortium for public access. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Final words 

 This is the first study on brain development, delinquency, victimization and 

protective factors to date, with a large enough sample to differentiate race, 

gender, and other demographic factors. 

 This is our opportunity to carry Rolf Loeber’s legacy into the future, and to 

celebrate all the knowledge that he and Magda Stouthamer-Loeber have 

contributed through their long-term collaboration and organization of 

longitudinal studies. 

If you have any questions about this presentation or study, please contact: 

Lia Ahonen ahonenl@upmc.edu 
 

 

 

 

Delinquency, victimization, and the developing brain: 

Results from the ABCD-Social Development study 

A neurodevelopmental approach to 

understanding the emergence and persistence 

of delinquency behaviors 

Ashley C. Parr, PhD 

Laboratory of Neurocognitive Development (LNCD), University of Pittsburgh 
 

 

 

Roadmap 

• Adolescence is a period of heightened plasticity, and a period of 

vulnerability to the emergence of delinquency and exposure to 

victimization 

• But also a window of opportunity for rehabilitation 
 

 

 

 

Roadmap 

• Adolescence is a period of heightened plasticity, and a period of 

vulnerability to the emergence of delinquency and exposure to 

victimization 

• But also a window of opportunity for rehabilitation 

• Changes in the brain during adolescence contribute to a normative 

peak in impulsive sensation seeking 
 

 

 

 

 

Roadmap 

• Adolescence is a period of heightened plasticity, and a period of 

vulnerability to the emergence of delinquency and exposure to 

victimization 

• But also a window of opportunity for rehabilitation 

• Changes in the brain during adolescence contribute to a normative 

peak in impulsive sensation seeking 

• Differences in brain function may confer risk for delinquency and 

victimization behaviors in adolescence 

• Dopamine: The main neurotransmitter underlying reward 

• Tissue-iron: dopamine imaging using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 

• Sex differences 
 

 

 

Examples of vulnerabilities in adolescence 

• Peak in sensation seeking that can lead to risk-taking behaviors 

• Present across societies and species - Adaptive period to acquire skills needed to survive as an independent adult 

(exploration, experience-dependent plasticity) 

• Despite peak physical health, there is a twofold increase in mortality (Dahl, 2004) - substance use, unprotected sex, 

extreme sports, suicide 
Reward processing

Prefrontal systems Striatum systems 

Planning, impulse control Reward processing 
Dopamine and development 

Striatum systems 

Reward processing 

Elevated in adolescence 

Striatum 

(Galvan et al., 2006; Geier et 

al., 2009) 
 

 

Dopamine and development 

Striatum systems 

Reward processing 

Striatum 

Elevated in adolescence Dopamine: the main neurotransmitter 

(Galvan et al., 2006; Geier et underlying reward function al., 2009) 

• Imaging dopamine in human adolescence has been limited by restrictions on the use of 

PET in pediatric populations 
 

 

Dopamine and development 

Striatum systems Dopamine availability across 

Reward processing 

Striatum 

Elevated in adolescence Dopamine: the main neurotransmitter 

(Galvan et al., 2006; Geier et underlying reward function al., 2009) 

• Imaging dopamine in human adolescence has been limited by restrictions on the use of 

PET in pediatric populations 

development 

(largely from animal studies) 

Childhood Adolescence Early adulthood 

Dopamine availability 

Adapted from Larsen et al., 2020 
 

 

 

 

 

Dopamine and development 

Striatum systems Dopamine availability across 

Reward processing 

Striatum 

Elevated in adolescence Dopamine: the main neurotransmitter 

(Galvan et al., 2006; Geier et underlying reward function al., 2009) 

• Imaging dopamine in human adolescence has been limited by restrictions on the use of 

PET in pediatric populations 

• Addressing these limitations, we use brain tissue iron (Ferritin), which is critical for 

dopamine production, is concentrated in the striatum, and can be measured noninvasively using MRI (Ortega et al., 2007; Zucca et al., 2017; Connor et al., 1996; Ward et al., 2014) 

development 

(largely from animal studies) 

Childhood Adolescence Early adulthood 

Dopamine availability 

Adapted from Larsen et al., 2020 
Tissue-iron as a marker for dopamine availability 

 

Striatum tissue iron 

Tissue iron across adolescence 

Adolescent sample: N=177, 12-31 YO (1-3 visits each) 

Parr et al., 2020, in revision 

Tissue iron concentration increases through adolescence, stabilizing into adulthood. 
Tissue-iron as a marker for dopamine availability Striatum tissue iron 

Tissue iron across adolescence 

 

Adolescent sample: N=177, 12-31 YO (1-3 visits each) 

Parr et al., 2020, in revision 

Tissue iron concentration increases through adolescence, stabilizing into adulthood. 
Tissue-iron as a marker of dopamine availability Striatum tissue iron 

Correspondence between striatum 

dopamine availability and tissue iron 

Tissue iron 

Dopamine availability 

Tissue iron across adolescence 

 

 

 

Adolescent sample: N=177, 12-31 YO (1-3 visits each) Adult sample: n=80, 18-30 YO (1-2 visits each) 

Parr et al., 2020, in revision Larsen et al., 2020 

Tissue iron concentration increases through adolescence, stabilizing into adulthood. 

Tissue iron corresponds most closely to indices of dopamine availability. 
 

 

 

 

Dopamine and development: brain circuitry 

• We have recently shown that striatum dopamine (tissue iron) 

mediates developmental changes in brain connectivity, including 

communication between the prefrontal cortex and the striatum, 

which is heightened in adolescents (Parr et al., in revision) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Dopamine and development: brain circuitry 

• We have recently shown that striatum dopamine (tissue iron) 

mediates developmental changes in brain connectivity, including 

communication between the prefrontal cortex and the striatum, 

which is heightened in adolescents (Parr et al., in revision) 

• Increased dopamine function in adolescence, coupled with increased 

communication between the PFC and the striatum, may reflect a 

mechanism underlying sensation seeking 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dopamine and development: brain circuitry 

• We have recently shown that striatum dopamine (tissue iron) 

mediates developmental changes in brain connectivity, including 

communication between the prefrontal cortex and the striatum, 

which is heightened in adolescents (Parr et al., in revision) 

• Increased dopamine function in adolescence, coupled with increased 

communication between the PFC and the striatum, may reflect a 

mechanism underlying sensation seeking 

• Decreases into adulthood may reflect decreased influence of reward 

(dopamine and striatum) on prefrontal cortex cognitive function 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dopamine and development: brain circuitry 

• We have recently shown that striatum dopamine (tissue iron) 

mediates developmental changes in brain connectivity, including 

communication between the prefrontal cortex and the striatum, 

which is heightened in adolescents (Parr et al., in revision) 

• Increased dopamine function in adolescence, coupled with increased 

communication between the PFC and the striatum, may reflect a 

mechanism underlying sensation seeking 

• Decreases into adulthood may reflect decreased influence of reward 

(dopamine and striatum) on prefrontal cortex cognitive function 

• Hypothesis: Abnormally elevated dopamine function may lead to 

exacerbated sensation seeking behaviors, reflected as delinquency 
The Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development 

Social Development Study (ABCD-SD) 
Does brain function and maturation predict delinquency? 

Measure brain function prior 

to or at onset of delinquency 

Late childhood 

(9-11 years-old) 

Emergence 
Does brain function and maturation predict delinquency? 

Measure brain function prior 

to or at onset of delinquency 

Late childhood 

(9-11 years-old) 

Emergence 
Does brain function and maturation predict delinquency? 

Measure brain function prior Measure brain function 

to or at onset of delinquency during adolescence 

Late childhood Adolescence 

(9-11 years-old) (12-17 years-old) 

Emergence Potential escalation 
Does brain function and maturation predict delinquency? 

Measure brain function prior Measure brain function Measure brain function in 

to or at onset of delinquency during adolescence early adulthood 

Late childhood Adolescence Early adulthood 

(9-11 years-old) (12-17 years-old) (18-19 years-old) 

Emergence Potential escalation Persistence or desistance 
 

Does brain function and maturation predict delinquency? 

Early adulthood 

(18-19 years-old) 

Persistence or desistance 

Adolescence 

(12-17 years-old) 

Potential escalation 

1.Does brain function predict 

the onset of delinquency and 

victimization? 

Late childhood 

(9-11 years-old) 

Emergence 

2. Do brain maturation 3.Do adolescent behaviors 

processes in adolescence interact with the 

predict delinquency and environment and impact 

desistance? brain maturation itself? 
 

 

Methods: The ABCD-SD dataset 

• Wave 1: Baseline data 

• 586 participants (285 f, age range, 9-11) 

• Balanced for sex and across ethnicities 
 

 

Methods: The ABCD-SD dataset 

• Wave 1: Baseline data 

• 586 participants (285 f, age range, 9-11) 

• Balanced for sex and across ethnicities 

• Striatal tissue iron 
 

 

 

 

Methods: The ABCD-SD dataset 

• Wave 1: Baseline data 

• 586 participants (285 f, age range, 9-11) 

• Balanced for sex and across ethnicities 

• Striatal tissue iron 

• ABCD-SD measures of delinquency, victimization, personality characteristics 

(prosociality, callous unemotional traits), psychopathy (YPI), emotional regulation 

(DERS), and demographic factors (parental education) 
 

 

 

 

 

Methods: The ABCD-SD dataset 

• Wave 1: Baseline data 

• 586 participants (285 f, age range, 9-11) 

• Balanced for sex and across ethnicities 

• Striatal tissue iron 

• ABCD-SD measures of delinquency, victimization, personality characteristics 

(prosociality, callous unemotional traits), psychopathy (YPI), emotional regulation 

(DERS), and demographic factors (parental education) 

• Linear models (LM) included age, sex, and parental education as covariates and 

tested for interactions with sex 
Initial Findings: 

Tissue-iron distributions 
* p < .05 

Males have higher tissue iron as compared to ** p < .01 females 

*** p < .001 

Male 

Sex 

 

Female 

Consistent with Persson et al., 2015 & Bartzokis et al., 2007, but see Peterson et al., 2018 
* p < .05

Males have higher tissue iron as compared to ** p < .01 females 

*** p < .001 

Striatal tissue iron High 

Low 

t = -7.62, p < .001, Cohen’s D =.32 

 

Sex 

*** 

Male 

Female 

Sex 

Consistent with Persson et al., 2015 & Bartzokis et al., 2007, but see Peterson et al., 2018 
Initial Findings: 

Associations between high-risk

characteristics and tissue iron across genders 
In males, lower striatal tissue iron is associated with increased delinquency, 

psychopathy, and fearlessness 

* p < .05

** p < .01 

*** p < .001 

** 

 

 

Male 

Female 

Sex 

Low High Striatal tissue iron 

*Vertical axes reflect higher scores on the instruments used to measure each construct
** 

 

 

Male 

Female 

Sex 

In males, lower striatal tissue iron is associated with increased delinquency, 

psychopathy, and fearlessness 

* p < .05

** p < .01 

*** p < .001 

Low High Low High Psychopathy *** 

Striatal tissue iron Striatal tissue iron 

*Vertical axes reflect higher scores on the instruments used to measure each construct
In males, lower striatal tissue iron is associated with increased delinquency, 

psychopathy, and fearlessness. No associations found here for females. 

* p < .05

** p < .01 

*** p < .001 

Low High Low High *** 

Striatal tissue iron Striatal tissue iron 

** 

Low High Striatal tissue iron 

 

 

 

Psychopathy 

Male 

Female 

Sex 

*** 

*Vertical axes reflect higher scores on the instruments used to measure each construct
In females, higher striatal tissue iron is associated with increased aggression, 

victimization, and difficulties in emotional regulation 

* p < .05

** p < .01 

*** p < .001 

*

 

 

Male 

Female 

Sex 

Low High Striatal tissue iron 

*Vertical axes reflect higher scores on the instruments used to measure each construct
In females, higher striatal tissue iron is associated with increased aggression, 

victimization, and difficulties in emotional regulation 

* 

* 

 

 

Male 

Female 

Sex 

* p < .05

** p < .01 

*** p < .001 

Low High Low High Striatal tissue iron Striatal tissue iron 

*Vertical axes reflect higher scores on the instruments used to measure each construct
* 

 

 

 

Male 

Female 

Sex 

In females, higher striatal tissue iron is associated with increased aggression, 

victimization, and difficulties in emotional regulation. 

No associations found here for males. * p < .05

** p < .01 

*** p < .001 

* 

***

Difficulties in emotional regulation 

Low High Striatal tissue iron Low High Low High Striatal tissue iron Striatal tissue iron 

*Vertical axes reflect higher scores on the instruments used to measure each construct
 

Variation in striatal tissue iron, reflecting dopamine function,

is associated with aspects of delinquency in late childhood 

• Males endorse more high-risk 

behaviors (and traits), including 

delinquency 

• Females endorse less high-risk 

behaviors (and traits), which 

may emerge later in 

development 
 

 

 

Variation in striatal tissue iron, reflecting dopamine function,

is associated with aspects of delinquency in late childhood 

• Males endorse more high-risk 

behaviors (and traits), including 

delinquency 

• In males, less tissue iron • Females endorse less high-risk 

corresponds to higher risk for: behaviors (and traits), which 

• Delinquency, fearlessness, and may emerge later in 

psychopathy development 

• In females, more tissue iron 

corresponds to higher risk for: 

• Victimization, aggression, 

difficulties with emotion 

regulation 
 

 

 

Variation in striatal tissue iron, reflecting dopamine function,

is associated with aspects of delinquency in late childhood 

• Males endorse more high-risk 

behaviors (and traits), including 

delinquency 

• In males, less tissue iron 

corresponds to higher risk for: 

• Delinquency, fearlessness, and 

psychopathy 

Though speculative, it is possible tissue iron 

plays an important role in male delinquency, 

and female victimization. Future work will 

interrogate the specificity of these associations 

• Females endorse less high-risk 

behaviors (and traits), which 

may emerge later in 

development 

• In females, more tissue iron 

corresponds to higher risk for: 

• Victimization, aggression, 

difficulties with emotion 

regulation 
 

Planned analyses 

• Predictive models will identify patterns among brain markers that correspond to 

different trajectories of high-risk behavior (i.e., adolescent-limited versus life-course 

persistent) 
 

 

 

Planned analyses 

• Predictive models will identify patterns among brain markers that correspond to 

different trajectories of high-risk behavior (i.e., adolescent-limited versus life-course 

persistent) 

• Longitudinal models (with future timepoints) will identify patterns among 

predisposing brain markers and deviations from normative development that lead to 

the persistence of high-risk behaviors 
 

 

 

 

Planned analyses 

• Predictive models will identify patterns among brain markers that correspond to 

different trajectories of high-risk behavior (i.e., adolescent-specific versus life-course 

persistent) 

• Longitudinal models (with future timepoints) will identify patterns among 

predisposing brain markers and deviations from normative development that lead to 

the persistence of high-risk behaviors 

• The first of its kind ABCD-SD dataset will allow us to identify robust associations 

between brain, development, and the emergence, persistence, and desistance of 

delinquency and victimization 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Planned analyses 

• Predictive models will identify patterns among brain markers that correspond to 

different trajectories of high-risk behavior (i.e., adolescent-specific versus life-course 

persistent) 

• Longitudinal models (with future timepoints) will identify patterns among 

predisposing brain markers and deviations from normative development that lead to 

the persistence of high-risk behaviors 

• The first of its kind ABCD-SD dataset will allow us to identify robust associations 

between brain, development, and the emergence, persistence, and desistance of 

delinquency and victimization 

• Results from the ABCD-SD can inform how we intervene in the lives of high-risk 

youth, and how to better protect young people from victimization 

• Brain is amenable to change! 
THANK YOU! 

Contact: acp73@pitt.edu 
 

Thank you 

Questions and Answers 

Duncan B. Clark, Phd, MD., clarkdb@upmc.edu 

Lia Ahonen, Phd., ahonenl@upmc.edu 

Ashley Parr, Phd., parrac@upmc.edu 

Please submit questions to “all panelists” in the Q&A box and indicate 

which presenter the question is for. 
 

Stay Connected 

NIJ Website: 

• nij.ojp.gov

Subscribe: 

• Receive email updates on publications, videos, webinars, and solicitations.

Text OJP NIJ [your email address] to 468-311 to subscribe. *Message and

data rates may apply.

Social Media: 

• Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/OJPNIJ

• Twitter – https://twitter.com/OJPNIJ