International Journal of Offender

Therapy and Comparative

Criminology
http://ijo.sagepub.com/

Personality and Cognitive-Style Profile of Antisocial and Prosocial

Adolescents : A Brief Report
Sharon Lipperman-Kreda and Joseph Glicksohn
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 2010 54: 850 originally published online 11 June
2009
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X09338037
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/54/5/850

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://ijo.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/54/5/850.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Sep 17, 2010

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jun 11, 2009
What is This?

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 12, 2012

Personality and Cognitive-Style

Profile of Antisocial and Prosocial
Adolescents

International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology
Volume 54 Number 5
October 2010 850-856
2010 SAGE Publications
10.1177/0306624X09338037
http://ijo.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com

A Brief Report
Sharon Lipperman-Kreda
Prevention Research Center, Pacific Institute for Research
and Evaluation, Berkeley, CA

Joseph Glicksohn
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

In this brief report, antisocial and prosocial adolescents are contrasted in terms
of impulsivity and venturesomeness, and the cognitive style of field dependence
independence are assessed using the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT). The
data have been collected from a total of 366 youths, ranging in age between 12 and
18 years. Antisocials are found to score below average, whereas the prosocials score
above average on the GEFT.
Keywords: antisocial; prosocial; impulsivity; venturesomeness; field dependence
independence

wo traits that should be useful in contrasting antisocial and prosocial adolescents

are sensation seeking or venturesomeness and impulsivity (Robbins & Bryan,
2004). Conceivably, the antisocial adolescent will be characterized by impulsive
sensation seeking, whereas the prosocial adolescent will be characterized by nonimpulsive sensation seeking (Glicksohn & Bozna, 2000; Gom-i-Freixanet, 1995). We
report on some preliminary findings here, while stressing a third factor, which is
perhaps of even greater research interestthe cognitive style of field dependence
independence (FDI).
FDI is assessed using two methods: the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT),
as used in the present study, and the Rod-and-Frame Test (RFT). According to
Witkin, Oltman, Raskin, and Karp (1971), the GEFT and the RFT both measure the
Authors Note: This article is based on a doctoral dissertation by the first author, supervised by the
second author. We thank Mallie J. Paschall, Jaap Denissen, Galit Nahari, Rotem Leshem, and four
anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on an earlier draft. Please address correspondence to
Joseph Glicksohn, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel; e-mail: jglick@bgu.ac.il.
850

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 12, 2012

Lipperman-Kreda, Glicksohn / Profile of Antisocial and Prosocial Adolescents 851

same construct. However, H. J. Eysenck (1983) argued that although the RFT, but
not the GEFT, includes an impulsive component, the GEFT should indicate that field
dependence (FD) is aligned with sociability. Given the focus here on the relationship
between FDI and social behavior (Bosacki, Innerd, & Towson, 1997; Tamir & Nadler,
2007), GEFT is the more suitable test. Although the task is clearly one of perceptual
disembedding (detecting a simple geometric figure embedded within a complex one),
the style has ramifications for ones sensitivity to, and dependence on, the social field
(Witkin & Goodenough, 1977). To the best of our knowledge, FDI has not previously
been used in studying antisocial or prosocial adolescents. We have opted to run a feasibility study to investigate whether the GEFT will be useful.

Method
Participants
Complete data were collected from 366 participants (181 males, 185 females), from
Grades 7 through 11 (n = 83, 71, 76, 54, 82, respectively; Mage = 12.65, 13.68, 14.86,
15.91, 16.62 years), from two junior high schools in Israel (n = 209 and 157, respectively). The study was approved both by the school principals and the Ministry of
Education. Class recruitment depended on the class teachers agreement to participate.

Measures
Impulsivity (Imp) and venturesomeness (Vent). The Hebrew version (Leshem &
Glicksohn, 2007) of the junior Impulsiveness Questionnaire (I5; S. B. G. Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1980) was administered.
Field dependenceindependence. The GEFT (Witkin et al., 1971) requires one to
detect a simple geometric figure that is embedded within a complex one. The GEFT
is divided into three parts, with 5 minutes to complete each part. The total number
of correct answers in the second and the third sections is the GEFT score (0-18).
Social behavior. (a) The class teachers assessment of antisocial and prosocial
behavior, based on experience with the student (including continuing contact with
the students parents, other teachers, the school consultant, etc.), was used. In School
A, a bipolar scale was used ranging from 1 (antisocial) to 7 (prosocial). In School
B, two separate monopolar scales were used; one ranging from 1 (very antisocial) to
7 (not antisocial at all), and the other ranging from 1 (not prosocial at all) to 7 (very
prosocial). At the beginning of each interview (lasting about an hour for each class),
each teacher was informed that antisocial behavior should be viewed as being any
action performed to the detriment of others; prosocial behavior would be any action
performed to their benefit (Eisenberg, 2003). Teacher nominations of antisocial
students are highly correlated with peer nominations (Henry, Miller-Johnson,

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 12, 2012

852 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

Simon, & Schoeny, 2006). Their use of rating scales is acceptable for both antisocial
and prosocial behavior (Carlo, Hausmann, Christiansen, & Randall, 2003; Gest,
2006), even when a minimal number of scales is used (Aluja-Fabregat, BallestAlmacellas, & Torrubia-Beltri, 1999). There is a caveat here: Ratings might well be
influenced by academic achievement, which correlates positively with prosocial and
negatively with antisocial behavior (Ma, Shek, Cheung, & Lee, 1996). A self-rating
scale (see below) was therefore also used.
(b) A Hebrew version of Rushton, Chrisjohn, and Fekkens (1981) Altruism Scale
was used. Altruism serves as a convenient filter when screening the class teachers
assessment (see below).
Procedure. The study was run by the first author in two sessions in each class.
The participants completed the GEFT in the first session, and the questionnaires in
different orders in the next. A teacher was present in the classroom throughout.
Interviews with each class teacher were conducted at the end of data collection.

Results
Rating Antisocial and Prosocial Behavior
For School A, the following cutoff points were used: 1, 2 = antisocial (n = 14,
6.7%); 3, 4, 5 = normative (n = 136, 65.1%); 6, 7 = prosocial (n = 59, 28.2%). For
School B, the average of both scales was computed, resulting in a single prosocial
antisocial rating, with cut-off points as follows: 1 to 2.49 = antisocial (n = 6, 3.85%);
2.50 to 5.49 = normative (n = 112, 71.8%); 5.50 to 7 = prosocial (n = 38, 24.4%).
Although the percentage of antisocials conforms to that which is expected (Moffitt,
1993), the percentage of prosocials seems to be quite high. Now, prosocial individuals
should score relatively high on the Altruism Scale (Carlo, Eisenberg, Troyer, Switzer,
& Speer, 1991), whereas antisocial individuals should score relatively low here. The
new criteria for exclusion were as follows: prosocials scoring less than 3.5 on the
scale, and antisocials scoring more than 2.5. The frequency of antisocial behavior was
now set at 3.21% (n = 9), and for prosocial behavior, 8.21% (n = 23).
The distribution of antisocials, normatives, and prosocials in both schools shows
that irrespective of whether individuals are excluded, the two distributions are quite
similar, 2(2) < 1, or 2.4, respectively (both ns). The prosocialantisocial rating for
School A (M = 4.22, SD = 0.99) did not significantly differ from that of School B
(M = 4.11, SD = 0.95; t < 1, df = 278), allowing pooling of the data.

Relating Social Behavior to Differential Profiles

Imp, Vent, and GEFT may be viewed as comprising a profile having three repeated
measures, and a Group (antisocials, normatives, prosocials) Profile ANOVA can be

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 12, 2012

Lipperman-Kreda, Glicksohn / Profile of Antisocial and Prosocial Adolescents 853

Table 1
Profiles for Antisocial, Normative, and Prosocial Groups


Impulsiveness (0-22)
Venturesomeness (0-19)
Group
Antisocial
(n = 9)
Normative
(n = 248)
Prosocial
(n = 23)

SD

SD

Group Embedded
Figures Test (0-18)
M

SD

15.33 (13.55) 2.45 (3.86) 14.56 (14.10) 2.30 (2.49) 5.22 (6.05)
3.77 (4.61)
69.70
11.14
76.61
12.09
29.01
20.93
13.11
4.37
12.51
3.32
8.49
5.30
59.61
19.86
65.86
17.49
47.13
29.43
11.44 (12.47) 4.44 (4.27) 13.04 (12.56) 3.24 (3.58) 10.18 (10.07) 5.99 (5.35)
51.98
20.18
68.65
17.05
56.52
33.28

Note: The first row of values for each group is based on the raw data, the second on the percentage value.
The value in parentheses refers to the original group of antisocials (n = 20) and prosocials (n = 97), prior
to the exclusion of individuals (including one who scored as both antisocial and prosocial).

conducted. The Group Profile interaction was significant, F(4, 554) = 4.58,
MSE = 16.66, p < .005, indicating different profiles for antisocial, normative, and
prosocial adolescents (see Table 1). The value of transforming the data into a percentage score should also be considered, by dividing the raw data by the (theoretical)
maximum of the scale. Both approaches were adopted and it was seen that for each
case there is a significant interaction.
The ample size of the normative group allows the use of a 95% confidence interval for the normative population mean for each of Imp (12.56, 13.66), Vent (12.10,
12.92), and performance on the GEFT (7.82, 9.14). Relative to these values (see
Table 1), it can be concluded that the antisocials score above the normative mean in
both Imp and Vent and well below the normative mean on the GEFT. The prosocials
score below the normative mean in Imp and above the normative mean on both Vent
and the GEFT. On reinstating individuals previously excluded, it was found that the
antisocials score above the normative mean in Vent and below the normative mean
on the GEFT. The prosocials score below the normative mean in Imp and above the
normative mean on the GEFT. Thus, it can be concluded that antisocials score low
on the GEFT, whereas prosocials score high on the GEFT.

Discussion
One may argue whether antisocial and prosocial behaviors should be viewed as
two poles of the same underlying dimension (hence the use of a bipolar rating scale
in School A) or different dimensions (hence the use of two separate monopolar
scales in school B). Given that this is a feasibility study, it is not in a position to
adequately address these issues. Indeed, a major weakness of the study is the small

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 12, 2012

854 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

number of antisocials and prosocials uncovered, hence raising a further question

regarding the viability of using ANOVA with such sample sizes. However, even
though the antisocial n is 9, the ratio of measures to smallest group size is acceptable
(Keselman, Kowalchuk, Algina, Lix, & Wilcox, 2000). If one is convinced by the
argument that the incidence of antisocial individuals in the general population
should be around 5% (Moffitt, 1993), and assuming a normal and symmetric distribution, which is quite standard in personality theory (H. J. Eysenck & Eysenck,
1985), then the incidence of prosocial individuals should also be around 5%. Thus,
if one wishes to work with a minimal n of, say, 40 antisocials and 40 prosocials, then
a sample in excess of 800 is in order, such as used by Duncan, Duncan, and Strycker
(2000) and Romano, Tremblay, Boulerice, and Swisher (2005).
How would FD relate to familiar risk factors for antisocial behavior? Risk factors
include having antisocial peers and poor academic performance (Bassarath, 2001;
Pettit, 2004), both of which invite a consideration of FD as a predisposing factor.
Given that the effects of impulsivity on juvenile offending are stronger in poorer
neighborhoods (Lynam et al., 2000), together with the hypothesized relationship
between impulsivity or impulse control and FD (Nigg, 2000), it is conceivable that
the effects of FD on antisocial behavior should also be stronger in poorer neighborhoods. Further implications can be drawn with respect to such risk factors as low IQ
(Raine, Yaralian, Reynolds, Venables, & Mednick, 2002), low socioeconomic status,
large family size, family stress, discord, and broken home (Bassarath, 2001)all of
which tie in well both with FD and with the neighborhood from which the antisocial
adolescent emerges.
Given that the antisocials tend to be FD, it is quite possible that they belong to
the adolescence-limited type (Moffitt, 1993) and would be quite willing to team up
with other antisocials in their environment. Admittedly, this is quite speculative.
Nevertheless, given a larger sample of antisocials, this would be a testable hypothesis. Yet one should also consider alternative explanations here. FDI could well
implicate a perceptual ability (Zhang, 2004) distinguishing between prosocial and
antisocial adolescents, and/or one implicating selective attention (Martin, 1985). If
antisocial adolescents were to suffer from some form of attentional problemone
that also results in impulsivity, such as ADHD (Nigg, 2001)then this would certainly affect their academic performance (Pramo & Tinajero, 1990) and social
behavior. Indeed, early spatial deficits have been found to contribute to persistent
antisocial behavior (Raine et al., 2002), and spatial ability is of course correlated
with performance on the GEFT (MacLeod, Jackson, & Palmer, 1986). This is a line
worth considering in future research.

References
Aluja-Fabregat, A., Ballest-Almacellas, J., & Torrubia-Beltri, R. (1999). Self-reported personality and
school achievement as predictors of teachers perceptions of their students. Personality and Individual
Differences, 27, 743-753.

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 12, 2012

Lipperman-Kreda, Glicksohn / Profile of Antisocial and Prosocial Adolescents 855

Bassarath, L. (2001). Conduct disorder: A biopsychosocial review. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 46,
609-616.
Bosacki, S., Innerd, W., & Towson, S. (1997). Field independence-dependence and self-esteem in preadolescents: Does gender make a difference? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 691-703.
Carlo, G., Eisenberg, N., Troyer, D., Switzer, G., & Speer, A. L. (1991). The altruistic personality: In what
contexts is it apparent? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 450-458.
Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A. (2003). Sociocognitive and behavioral correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies for adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 107-134.
Duncan, S. C., Duncan, T. E., & Strycker, L. A. (2000). Risk and protective factors influencing adolescent
problem behavior: A multivariate latent growth curve analysis. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 22,
103-109.
Eisenberg, N. (2003). Prosocial behavior, empathy, and sympathy. In M. H. Borenstein, L. Davidson,
C. L. M. Keyes, & K. A. Moore (Eds.), Well-being: Positive development across the life course
(pp. 253-265). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eysenck, H. J. (1983). A reply to Fine. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 361.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science
approach. New York: Plenum.
Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1980). Impulsiveness and venturesomeness in children. Personality
and Individual Differences, 1, 73-78.
Gest, S. D. (2006). Teacher reports of childrens friendships and social groups: Agreement with peer
reports and implications for studying peer similarity. Social Development, 15, 248-259.
Glicksohn, J., & Bozna, M. (2000). Developing a personality profile of the bomb-disposal expert: The
role of sensation seeking and field dependence-independence. Personality and Individual Differences,
28, 85-92.
Gom-i-Freixanet, M. (1995). Prosocial and antisocial aspects of personality. Personality and Individual
Differences, 19, 125-134.
Henry, D. B., Miller-Johnson, S., Simon, T. R., & Schoeny, M. E. (2006). Validity of teacher ratings in
selecting influential aggressive adolescents for a targeted preventive intervention. Prevention Science,
7, 31-41.
Keselman, H. J., Kowalchuk, R. K., Algina, J., Lix, L. M., & Wilcox, R. R. (2000). Testing treatment effects
in repeated measures designs: Trimmed means and bootstrapping. British Journal of Mathematical and
Statistical Psychology, 53, 175-191.
Leshem, R., & Glicksohn, J. (2007). The construct of impulsivity revisited. Personality and Individual
Differences, 43, 681-691.
Lynam, D. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Wikstrm, P. O. H., Loeber, R., & Novak, S. (2000). The interaction between impulsivity and neighborhood context on offending: The effects of impulsivity are
stronger in poorer neighborhoods. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 563-574.
Ma, H. K., Shek, D. T. L., Cheung, P. C., & Lee, R. Y. P. (1996). The relation of prosocial and antisocial
behavior to personality and peer relationships of Hong Kong Chinese adolescents. The Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 157, 255-266.
MacLeod, C. M., Jackson, R. A., & Palmer, J. (1986). On the relation between spatial ability and field
dependence. Intelligence, 10, 141-151.
Martin, M. (1985). Individual differences in sensation seeking and attentional ability. Personality and
Individual Differences, 6, 637-639.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.
Nigg, J. T. (2000). On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: Views from cognitive and
personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 220-246.
Nigg, J. T. (2001). Is ADHD a disinhibitory disorder? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 571-598.
Pramo, M. F., & Tinajero, C. (1990). Field dependence/independence and performance in school: An
argument against neutrality of cognitive style. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 1079-1087.

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 12, 2012

856 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

Pettit, G. S. (2004). Violent children in developmental perspectiveRisk and protective factors and the
mechanisms through which they (may) operate. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 194-197.
Raine, A., Yaralian, P. S., Reynolds, C., Venables, P. H., & Mednick, S. A. (2002). Spatial but not verbal
cognitive deficits at age 3 years in persistently antisocial individuals. Development and Psychopathology,
14, 25-44.
Robbins, R. N., & Bryan, A. (2004). Relationships between future orientation, impulsive sensation seeking, and risk behavior among adjudicated adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 428-445.
Romano, E., Tremblay, R., Boulerice, B., & Swisher, R. (2005). Multilevel correlates of childhood
physical aggression and prosocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 565-578.
Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self-report
altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 1-11.
Tamir, Y., & Nadler, A. (2007). The role of personality in social identity: Effects of field-dependence and
context on reactions to threat to group distinctiveness. Journal of Personality, 75, 927-953.
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1977). Field dependence and interpersonal behavior. Psychological
Bulletin, 84, 661-689.
Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). Manual for Embedded Figures Test,
Childrens Embedded Figures Test, and Group Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Zhang, L.-F. (2004). Field-dependence/independence: Cognitive style or perceptual ability?Validating
against thinking styles and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 37,
1295-1311.

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at Universitas Pendidikan Indone on May 12, 2012