According to Farrington (2005), antisocial behavior is characterized by a style of interpersonal relations seeking group value and recognition, is manipulative and deceitful, lacks empathy, is socially insensitive, impulsive, irresponsible and disobedient. It thus includes “a wide variety of behaviors which reflect violation of societal norms and/or aggression against others" (Kazdin and Buela-Casal, 1996, p. 19). Most authors agree on a series of characteristics that define this type of behavior, such as lack of respect of social norms and the rights of others (Martínez and Gras, 2007), its multifactorial origin (López and Rodríguez-Arias, 2012), and its manifestation linked to the influence of personal variables (such as gender, age, or personality traits) (Pahlavan and Andreu, 2009; Calvete and Orue, 2010; Peña, 2010). As antisocial behavior reaches its maximum expression during adolescence, it becomes of great interest to research on this developmental stage (Pérez-Fuentes et al., 2011; Light et al., 2013; Inglés et al., 2014; Gázquez et al., 2015). Other authors refer to problems in conceptualizing antisocial behavior, differentiating between aggressive forms and rule-breaking (Burt, 2013), since they correlate with different factors, such as proactive aggression (Andreu and Peña, 2013). To the extent that this type of behavior constitutes a risk, not only for the person him/herself, but also for those he/she relates with, effective intervention strategies are necessary not only for its elimination, but also for its prevention (Fernández-Cabezas et al., 2011). Achievement of these goals of intervention and prevention goes through knowledge of antisocial behavior risk and protection factors (López and Rodríguez-Arias, 2012).

The early beginning of antisocial behavior (Loeber and Burke, 2011) makes the family, as the child’s first socialization context, of special relevance and importance in the presence of risk and protection factors (Antolín et al., 2009; Álvarez et al., 2015). Some authors suggest childhood abuse or exposure of minors to domestic violence as risk factors for antisocial behavior in adolescence (Sousa et al., 2011), as well as the presence of antisocial behavior of parents, which has a negative impact on the mental and emotional health of their children (Silberg et al., 2012). Murray et al. (2012) found that sudden changes in family structure, such as incarceration of one of the parents, increased the probability of antisocial behavior in their children by 10%.

Furthermore, regarding the family context as a source of possible protective factors against antisocial behavior, Jaureguizar and Ibabe (2012) suggest that the promotion of prosocial attitudes and acquisition of values in the family maintains an inverse relationship with development of antisocial attitudes in children and adolescents. These benefits are also confirmed in the meta-analysis by Piquero et al. (2009), in which the reduction in problematic behavior, including antisocial and delinquent behaviors, was outstanding after application of several types of family intervention going from training in parenting to house visits. Family support not only has positive effects on children who grow up in socially adequate environments, but also performs a protective function in marginal and disfavored environments (Schofield et al., 2012).

Nor should it be forgotten that the educational context provides opportunities for interaction with the peer group, which can be both a system for protection of and risk to young people developing antisocial and delinquent behaviors, and is therefore also relevant to their study (Gázquez et al., 2011). The presence of a positive school environment is therefore a protective factor against both acquisition and maintenance of problematic behavior (Wu et al., 2010). On the other hand, a negative school climate is characterized by the presence of problems with coexistence and bullying, presents higher prevalence of antisocial behaviors and more motivation problems are observed (Rodríguez and Mora-Merchán, 2014; Rodríguez et al., 2014; Regueiro et al., 2015; Valle et al., 2015a,b). Thus the “aggressive victim” responds to harassment by projecting a self-image as rebellious and antisocial (Emler, 2009), while the aggressor is characterized by being highly impulsive (López et al., 2008) and rejecting norms (Povedano et al., 2012). Finally, some authors find a positive correlation between the role of aggressor and antisocial behavior (Cerezo and Méndez, 2013).

Much of the research on prevalence of antisocial behavior which has analyzed the differences in gender suggests that males show higher rates of antisocial behavior than females (López and Rodríguez-Arias, 2010; Hasking et al., 2011; Viñas et al., 2012). However, although men show more aggressiveness than women (Muñoz et al., 2010), this trend may be changing, since female involvement in violent situations is growing (Pozo, 2012).

Martí and Palma (2010) thought that sex and age have a significant effect on adolescent preferences for values: Girls prefer more abstract, interiorized values and are prone to instrumental values with a more egocentric and material load. As age advances, adolescents prefer values more in harmony with personal dignity and equality rather than those focusing on oneself or on confrontation with others. More recently, Garaigordobil et al. (2014) observed that males involved in bullying tend toward domination and are more aggressive than women.

Regarding the age variable, no one moment has been agreed upon for either appearance of antisocial behavior or its prevalence during an individual’s development. Some have placed its appearance at around 13 years of age (Rechea, 2008), while others like Tresgallo (2011) have suggested that first manifestations appear at 6–7 years, intensifying in late adolescence (Cifuentes and Londoño, 2011), and still others have suggested that it is relatively stable through adulthood (Estévez et al., 2007). More recently, findings in a sample of adolescents aged 13–18 showed that older adolescents exhibit antisocial behavior more often than younger adolescents. Thus the stage of psychological development, and not just age, is of especial importance in the analysis of origin and maintenance of antisocial behavior.

Finally, another of the aspects analyzed is the school year, which is of interest for studying transitions, since this is where the appearance of behavior negative to the school climate becomes most likely (Pellegrini et al., 2010). The prevalence of such behavior in each school year is also studied, because there is a positive correlation between its prevalence and subject age, and also with school year. And the older they are, that is, in higher school years, student justification of violence decreases and is there is more of it among males (Garaigordobil et al., 2013).

Interpersonal values are defined as factors determining human behavior, aspects by which each person behaves one way or another when relating to others, depending on their system of values (Gordon, 1979). Thus, throughout development, and especially during adolescence, where interpersonal relations start to become more important, decisions made in different moral dilemmas are of significant importance (Paciello et al., 2013). Therefore, in recent years, several studies associated with this stage of development have analyzed the protective variables avoiding the appearance of antisocial behavior (Inglés et al., 2013) and those which could attenuate its manifestations once they have appeared (Loeber and Farrington, 2012). Thus attitudes and values, such as social sensitivity, prosocial leadership, or security in interpersonal relationships, have been related to social competency in adolescents (Jiménez and López-Zafra, 2011). Other studies have found association of certain interpersonal values and aggressive behavior in the school. Fossati et al. (2012) suggested that low scores in friendliness/benevolence are closely related to participation in violence against schoolmates. According to Georgiou et al. (2013), individualism as a cultural value could be related to an authoritarian style and proneness to intimidation.

After reviewing the literature on the subject in the study in hand, the following research hypotheses were posed: H₁: More antisocial behavior in males in higher grades; H₂: Antisocial behavior differs depending on the higher/lower interpersonal value scores; and H₃: Interpersonal values have different weights on the scale as predictors of antisocial behavior.

In spite of the history of research in antisocial behavior in its role as a predictor of other repertoires of problematic behavior, such as substance abuse (Clark et al., 2002) and its clinical applications (Yakeley and Williams, 2014), this study attempts to clarify the weight of other variables, such as interpersonal values, susceptible to early intervention. Better understanding of these variables during adolescence is essential to progress in research on the causes of these behaviors and for the development of prevention programs addressing antisocial behavior at the youngest ages. Acquisition of interpersonal values is therefore presented as a tool for the prevention of violent behaviors, but unlike the traditional trend of research on the subject, in this case, from a more positive focus. Work is therefore concentrated on identifying those values which make the adolescent a competent social being (Oliva et al., 2010).

This study pursues a better explanation in this regard by analyzing the characteristics of antisocial behavior and interpersonal values based on gender and school year, describing the interpersonal value profile of individuals with high levels of antisocial behavior, and finally, to what extent interpersonal values protect against antisocial behavior.

With regard to the first of the goals of this study, it is observed that males showed higher mean scores on antisocial behavior, coinciding with previous results (López and Rodríguez-Arias, 2010; Hasking et al., 2011; Viñas et al., 2012). Furthermore, in the analysis of interpersonal values, females showed significantly higher mean scores than males in conformity and benevolence with small effects of gender (d ≤ 0.50) in both cases.

In the analysis of the influence of school year, its effect was also small, and it was the fourth year students who showed significantly higher scores in Antisocial Behavior, which suggests an increase in frequency of negative, violent or antisocial behavior with year (Cifuentes and Londoño, 2011; Pérez-Fuentes et al., 2011; Garaigordobil et al., 2013). Moreover, in interpersonal values, students in fourth year scored significantly higher in the Stimulation, Recognition and Leadership values than those in third year, while those in third showed higher means in Conformity and Benevolence.

With respect to the study’s second goal, the results show that students who had the highest Antisocial Behavior means, regardless of gender and school year, were those who are treated with kindness, consideration, understanding, etc., who are recognized by others, admired and looked up to, who do what they want and decide for themselves, those who exert authority over those under them, show low conformity (often do not obey the rules or do what is socially correct) and low benevolence (are not generous or do not help others).

Finally, with respect to the third goal, high Stimulation, Recognition, Independence and Leadership values are statistically significant positive predictors of the probability of high scores on Antisocial Behavior, while low scores on Conformity and Benevolence are statistically significant negative predictors of the probability of high scores on Antisocial Behavior.

Logistic regressions by gender and school year were only done for those values in which there were differences in the results of mean interpersonal value scores between the high and low level groups. So low scores on Conformity and Benevolence values and high scores on Independence predict high scores on Antisocial Behavior for both males and females, and both years of high school analyzed. Furthermore, when the Stimulation value was analyzed for females in third year high school, it was also found to be a statistically significant positive predictor of the probability of high scores on Antisocial Behavior.

Limitations of the study are that: (1) It is a sample, which although representative, is comprised only of high school students and cannot be generalized to other grade levels, and therefore, one of the future lines of research is the replication of this study in other years, adapting the questionnaires to be used. (2) The questionnaire used to measure antisocial behavior only gives a total assessment, so it is not possible to find out whether these relationships with interpersonal values are also given for the various different aspects that construct includes, and future research should use a questionnaire such as the Antisocial and Delinquent Behavior Scale (Andreu and Peña, 2013) which allows various factors to be differentiated (predelinquent behavior, vandalism, violence, crimes against property, use of alcohol and drugs). (3) Finally, another of the limitations refers to the biases typical of self-report techniques, such as social desirability. Some cases (Soubelet and Salthouse, 2011) have been found of association of the effects of social desirability, which with age show positive relations with certain desirable characteristics of the self-report and negative with those undesirable.

However, although this study does have some limitations which should be kept in mind for future research, it may be considered a precursor, and is of great interest for the relevant data it contributes to the design of interventions which make it possible to work on reducing risk factors and strengthening those which protect against antisocial behavior at the same time (López and Rodríguez-Arias, 2012). It is recommended that future lines of research include other variables of interest to grouping, such as sociocultural diversity, above all, if that characteristic is representative of the sample. The possibility of adding variables gradually for their analysis makes possible a systematic approach for in-depth study of the subject. The need to continue progressing in the study of the variables involved in antisocial behavior in adolescence therefore emerges from our results.

JC, AL, and AB (review scientific language); AM, MS, and JG (writing and literature search); MM (analysis of data); MP and JG (design and review); and AG (changes requested by the reviewers).

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.