Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Sage Choice logoLink to Sage Choice
. 2025 Mar 14;70(5):452–474. doi: 10.1177/0306624X251326113

Effects of Empathy and Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy on Difficulties and Strengths in Juvenile Offenders

Nicolasa María Durán Palacio 1,✉, Anyerson Stiths Gómez Tabares 1, Edison Ferney Castrillón Ángel 1
PMCID: PMC12916872  PMID: 40084436

Abstract

This study examines the impact of empathy and emotional self-efficacy on the behavioral difficulties and strengths of young offenders deprived of liberty in Colombia. A total of 220 youths (M = 17.61 years, SD = 1.163) residing in specialized care centers participated. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), and the Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale (RESE) were used. The findings indicate that regulatory emotional self-efficacy is negatively associated with behavioral difficulties and positively linked to prosocial behavior. Moreover, empathy exhibits distinct effects depending on its dimension, with perspective-taking and personal distress playing a significant role in emotional regulation. Mediation models suggest that emotional self-efficacy modulates the relationship between empathy and prosocial behavior. These results highlight the importance of interventions to enhance emotional self-efficacy and affective regulation to foster juvenile resocialization.

Keywords: Empathy, regulatory emotional self-efficacy, prosocial behavior, behavioral problems, juvenile offenders

Introduction

Colombia’s Adolescent Criminal Responsibility System (Sistema de Responsabilidad Penal para Adolescentes, SRPA) seeks to assess and address the mental health of young individuals undergoing resocialization. Evidence indicates a high prevalence of psychological and psychiatric disorders among adolescents and young adults within the juvenile justice system, which may contribute to persistent behavioral issues and recidivism (Abram et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2017). However, the relationship between mental health and recidivism is complex and primarily correlational (Schubert et al., 2011), highlighting the need to explore other psychological factors that may influence these processes, such as empathy and emotional self-efficacy.

Although the incarceration of young offenders is intended to promote rehabilitation and reduce recidivism, research has documented its adverse effects. In many cases, deprivation of liberty reinforces problematic behaviors, increases social isolation, and contributes to stigmatization (Cullen et al., 2011). Additionally, studies have shown that incarceration can exacerbate preexisting emotional issues and create difficulties in emotional regulation (Abram et al., 2015; Hatzenbuehler et al., 2015). These findings highlight the need to analyze variables such as empathy and emotional self-efficacy, which may play a crucial role in mitigating these negative effects and fostering more effective resocialization strategies.

Empathy, understood as a multidimensional psychological construct, plays a fundamental role in regulating social behavior. It consists of two main dimensions: cognitive empathy, which enables the understanding of others’ thoughts and emotions, and affective empathy, which involves experiencing an emotional response to others’ emotional states (Davis, 1996; Decety & Jackson, 2004). In the context of juvenile delinquency, deficits in empathy have been linked to higher levels of aggression and difficulties in emotional regulation, thereby increasing the risk of recidivism (Craig et al., 2025; van Langen et al., 2014).

Empathy Deficit as a Common Factor in Juvenile Delinquency

Numerous studies have identified a lack of empathy as a key trait in antisocial personality and criminal behavior. However, empirical research explicitly evaluating empathy in comparison to psychopathy measures remains limited (Bergstrøm et al., 2021). The relationship between empathy development and the reduction of aggression in juvenile offenders is still uncertain, particularly within the context of targeted interventions. While empathy domains show significant correlations with psychopathy factors, they do not statistically predict violence (Nigel et al., 2018). Additionally, evidence suggests that the accumulation of childhood traumatic experiences negatively affects empathy development, which can hinder emotional regulation and increase the likelihood of antisocial behaviors. These empathy deficits may contribute to difficulties in interpersonal relationships and a heightened risk of criminal recidivism among youth in conflict with the law (Narvey et al., 2021). However, the way empathy manifests in juvenile offenders varies depending on the type of offense and gender (Gómez Tabares & Durán Palacio, 2020; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2021; O’Neill, 2020; Pechorro et al., 2021; Tisak & Goldstein, 2023), suggesting that adverse experiences may modulate its impact on delinquent behavior.

The development of empathy is crucial for acquiring self-regulation skills, fostering healthy socioemotional growth, and adopting prosocial behaviors (Decety et al., 2016; Eisenberg et al., 2014; Spinrad et al., 2017). There is a strong correlation between cognitive empathy and Theory of Mind (ToM), which enables individuals to recognize and understand others’ beliefs, desires, and intentions (Milone et al., 2019). In this regard, some studies have found that sexual offenders exhibit lower levels of cognitive empathy compared to the general population.

However, a meta-analysis conducted by Morrow (2020) suggests that these individuals do not show significant differences in their levels of ToM or affective empathy. Furthermore, the relationship between empathy and aggression remains a subject of debate: while Vachon et al. (2014) identified a weak negative correlation between the two variables, Gómez-Leal et al. (2020) found a significant negative correlation between aggression and the cognitive dimension of empathy, which includes perspective-taking, cognitive reappraisal, and positive affect. Conversely, Green et al. (2018) observed that high levels of affective empathy are associated with an increased presence of depressive symptoms, whereas cognitive empathy appears to serve a protective role by reducing the likelihood of experiencing such symptoms.

The mediating role of empathy in the emotional and behavioral regulation of young offenders has been highlighted in various studies. For instance, Schoeps et al. (2020) found that both cognitive and affective empathy influence the manifestation of emotional and behavioral problems in youth, as well as the expression of prosocial behavior. In this context, young individuals who report higher levels of confidence, communication skills, and lower levels of peer alienation tend to develop stronger empathy, which translates into fewer symptoms of anxiety and depression, reduced maladaptive behaviors, and a greater inclination to help and care for their peers. In contrast, those who experience conflicts or interpersonal distancing are more likely to develop anxiety, sadness, aggression, and apathy—factors that, in turn, are linked to the emergence of behavioral problems.

Emotional Self-Efficacy and Juvenile Delinquency

Emotional self-efficacy, defined as the belief in one’s ability to regulate and manage emotions in challenging situations (Bandura, 2001), plays a crucial role in controlling aggression and fostering prosocial behaviors. Pung et al. (2015) and Megías et al. (2018) demonstrated that self-control is a significant predictor of peer aggression and delinquency. Young individuals with low self-control are more prone to physical aggression and tend to associate with delinquent peers. Moreover, the uninhibited expression of negative emotions can impair their ability to manage sadness, anxiety, and anger, thereby increasing the risk of problematic behaviors.

Research suggests that higher emotional self-efficacy is associated with fewer behavioral difficulties and increased prosocial behavior (Mesurado et al., 2018). Conversely, low levels of emotional self-efficacy and prosocial values have been linked to problematic behaviors such as delinquency, substance abuse, and risky sexual behaviors (Ludwig & Pittman, 1999). Additionally, young individuals with high emotional self-efficacy tend to develop more effective coping strategies, enabling them to better navigate adverse situations and reduce the risk of recidivism (Bandura, 2001; Patrick et al., 2018; Wentzel, 2014). This suggests that emotional self-efficacy is not only a protective factor against aggression but also a key mechanism for resilience and emotional well-being among youth in conflict with the law.

Empathy, Emotional Self-Efficacy, and Behavioral Issues in Juvenile Offenders

The role of empathy and emotional self-efficacy in regulating juvenile behavior has been extensively studied. Throughout this work, empathy—both cognitive and affective—has been highlighted as essential in moderating aggression and other emotional challenges. Likewise, emotional self-efficacy has been shown to function as a protective mechanism, helping young offenders manage their emotions more effectively and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

However, significant research gaps remain. In particular, how to effectively foster perspective-taking and emotional self-efficacy in these individuals to translate these factors into positive behavioral changes is not yet fully understood. Furthermore, the relationship between empathy, emotional self-efficacy, and behavioral difficulties within the juvenile justice system remains underexplored. Identifying effective strategies to strengthen these aspects could be a key factor in improving interventions aimed at this population.

Current Study

An analysis of demographic trends in Colombia’s Adolescent Criminal Responsibility System (Sistema de Responsabilidad Penal para Adolescentes, SRPA) reveals that between 2006 and 2019, a total of 278,169 adolescents and young adults entered the system, 88% of whom were male (Observatorio del Bienestar de la Niñez, 2022). This gender distribution aligns with previous research showing that juvenile offenders aged 15 to 17 years exhibit higher levels of delinquent behavior compared to other age groups. Moreover, late adolescence has been identified as a critical period in the transition from antisocial behavior, underscoring the need for targeted interventions at this stage of development (Brame & Piquero, 2003; Sweeten et al., 2013).

Within this context, the present study aims to examine how empathy and emotional self-efficacy influence the behavioral strengths and difficulties of adolescents and young adults sanctioned by the SRPA with custodial measures. Specifically, it seeks to determine whether emotional self-efficacy moderates the relationship between empathy and disruptive behaviors, which could provide valuable insights for designing effective intervention programs in the juvenile justice system.

The study’s central hypothesis posits that behavioral problems, emotional symptoms, hyperactivity, peer-related difficulties, and prosocial behavior are influenced by the regulatory effect of emotional self-efficacy and empathy. Furthermore, it proposes that regulatory emotional self-efficacy functions as a mediating mechanism in the association between empathy and the emotional and behavioral strengths and difficulties of juvenile offenders.

By analyzing these factors, this study aims to identify effective strategies for enhancing emotional regulation and promoting prosocial adaptation in this vulnerable population. The findings are expected to contribute key elements to the design of interventions that mitigate emotional symptoms and behavioral issues, ultimately reducing the risk of recidivism and facilitating more effective reintegration processes.

Methods

Participants

The sample consisted of 220 young offenders with custodial sentences in two specialized care centers in Colombia, aged between 15 and 20 years (M = 17.61; SD = 1.163). The duration of their stay in the custodial measure ranged from 3 to 41 months, with a mean (M) of 10 months (SD = 6.821). The native language of the participants is Spanish. Table 1 presents the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample and the offenses committed.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic and Legal Characteristics of the Participants.

Characteristics N %
Geographical location of the institution
 Manizales 99 45.0
 Medellin 121 55.0
Ages
 15–17 years old 103 46.8
 18–20 years old 117 53.2
Socioeconomic level
 Socioeconomic level 1 (very low) 69 31.4
 Socioeconomic level 2 (low) 125 56.8
 Socioeconomic level 3 (medium-low) 26 11.8
Family structure
 Single-parent family 72 32.7
 Extended family 54 24.5
 Nuclear family 46 20.9
 Reconstituted family 23 10.5
 One-person family 10 4.5
 Married couple 8 3.6
 Sentimental couple 2 0.9
 Lives with siblings 1 0.5
 No information 4 1.8
Type of crime committed
 Homicide 57 25.9
 Aggravated and qualified robbery 54 24.5
 Sexual abuse 32 14.5
 Domestic violence 20 9.1
 Conspiracy to commit a crime 17 7.7
 Trafficking, manufacture, or carrying of narcotic drugs 16 7.3
 Trafficking, manufacture, or carrying of weapons 11 5.0
 Extortion 9 4.1
 Manufacture, trafficking, and carrying of firearms 2 0.9
 Kidnapping for extortion 2 0.9
Open in a new tab

Instruments

Sociodemographic Questionnaire

A questionnaire of a specifically designed nature was utilized to ascertain information pertinent to the demographic characteristics of the participants, including age, gender, the type of criminal offense committed, socioeconomic stratum, familial structure, and socioeconomic condition.

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)

This questionnaire profiles the emotional and behavioral problems and symptoms of adolescents up to 17 years of age and over 18 years of age, as outlined by Goodman (1997). Each item is answered on a 3-point Likert scale (1 = not true, 3 = completely true). The questionnaire comprises 25 items, divided into five subscales: emotional symptoms (ω = .75), behavioral problems (ω = .76), hyperactivity symptoms (ω = .66), peer problems (ω = .65), and difficulties (ω = .77), as well as prosocial behavior (ω = .78) and strengths (ω = .78).

The psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the SDQ have been previously examined by Ortuño-Sierra et al. (2015). In a recent study, Ortuño-Sierra et al. (2022) confirmed the five-factor structure of the Spanish version of the questionnaire in populations of adolescents (≤17 years) and young adults (≥18 years), demonstrating optimal goodness-of-fit indicators and measurement invariance by age and gender. The internal consistency of the total difficulties score was ω = .74, with subscale values ranging from ω = .52 to .71. For this study, internal consistency for the total difficulties scale was ω = .77 and α = .70, with subscale values ranging from ω = .65 to .78.

Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI)

The instrument assesses both the cognitive and affective components of empathy (Davis, 1983). The instrument comprises 28 Likert-type self-report items, with five response options (ranging from 1 = does not describe me at all to 5 = describes me very well). Four distinct aspects of empathy are evaluated: perspective-taking, fantasy, empathic concern, and personal distress. Perspective-taking and fantasy represent the cognitive aspect of empathy, whereas empathic concern and personal distress constitute the affective aspect. The original version exhibited an internal consistency ranging from .68 to .79, with a test-retest reliability of .61 to .81 (Davis, 1983). The translated and adapted version to Spanish with adolescents confirmed the structure of the four factors previously identified (Mestre et al., 2004).

The study conducted by Arenas Estevez et al. (2021) validated the four-factor structure in a sample of university students and demonstrated that the proposed model is gender-invariant. The scale demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency (α) when applied to a Colombian juvenile offender population (total empathy (α = .73), perspective taking (α = .71), fantasy (α = .69), empathic concern (α = .82), and personal distress (α = .73); Gómez Tabares & Narváez Marín, 2019). For this study, the internal consistency for the total scale was ω = .85 and α = .84, while the subscales exhibited a range of ω values between .71 and .73.

Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale (RESE)

The questionnaire employs a Likert-type scale with five response options, ranging from “1 = Incapable” to “5 = Totally Capable” (Caprara et al., 2008). It is designed to assess the degree of perceived self-efficacy regarding positive affect expression (POS) and negative affect management (NEG). The internal consistency of the POS scale was found to be ω = .90, while the NEG scale demonstrated an internal consistency of ω = .91. The Positive Emotional Self-Efficacy (POS) scale encompasses humor (ω = .86) and empathic self-efficacy (ω = .88), while the Negative Emotional Self-Efficacy (NEG) scale encompasses shame (ω = .86). The scale has been utilized with adolescent populations in Italy, the United States, Spain, and Bolivia, exhibiting reliability indices that range from .69 to .97 (Caprara et al., 2008). In Colombia, the scale has been employed in studies with adolescents with psychosocial vulnerability (Gómez Tabares & Narváez Marín, 2020) and adolescents disengaged from illegal armed groups (Gómez Tabares, 2019). The internal consistency indices with Cronbach’s alpha for the subscales ranged from .76 to .86. For this study, the internal consistency for the total scale was ω = .94 and α = .93, while the subscales exhibited a range of .86 to .91 (ω).

Data Collection Procedure

The instruments were administered by the researchers in the institutional setting in both cities of Colombia. The instruments were completed using pencils and paper in groups of 20 individuals, under the supervision of the psychologist or pedagogical specialist of the institution. The administration of the instruments lasted between 45 and 60 min per group, and data collection was completed over 3 months.

Ethical Aspects and Access to the Population

This study was conducted following the ethical principles of respect for autonomy, privacy, dignity, protection, and the pursuit of good and justice in human research. Furthermore, the stipulations outlined in Law 1090 of 2006 and Resolution 8430 of 1993 were met, specifically by the provisions of articles 25, 26, and 50, which pertain to the informed consent of the participants. To ensure the protection of participants and the institution, the research and its instruments were submitted to the Ethics Committee of the Universidad Católica Luis Amigó (Colombia) and the Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar (ICBF), both nationally and regionally from Medellín and Manizales.

Procedure for the Analysis of Information

The results of the measurement instrument were digitized and coded in an Excel data matrix. The data were analyzed using the statistical package SPSS v. 25 (IBM Corporation, 2017) and the open-source program Jamovi, version 2.4 (2023). SPSS was used to analyze the internal consistency of the instruments based on McDonald (1999) Omega and Cronbach’s alpha. McDonald (1999) Omega is an appropriate statistical tool for analyzing the internal consistency of multifactorial instruments, employing factor loadings in its calculations (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; McDonald, 1999). Subsequently, Pearson’s r coefficient (Faizi & Alvi, 2023a) was utilized to assess the associations between empathy, regulatory emotional self-efficacy, strengths, and difficulties. Furthermore, multiple linear regression analyses were conducted using the input method (Faizi & Alvi, 2023b). The study employed the total scores and dimensions of the regulatory emotional self-efficacy (RESE) and empathy (IRI) scales as independent variables in the analyses, while difficulties and strengths (SDQ) were utilized as dependent variables. Furthermore, the bootstrapping technique with 10,000 resamples was employed in all regression analyses to provide more stable estimates and adjust confidence intervals (Stine, 1989). Finally, two structural equation models (SEM) were proposed to analyze the direct and indirect effects of empathy and regulatory emotional self-efficacy as a mediator on difficulties and strengths. The structural equation model (SEM) analysis was conducted using the Jamovi software, with the modules SEMLj (Gallucci & Jentschke, 2021), lavaan (Rosseel, 2019), and semPlot (Epskamp et al., 2019) employed.

To evaluate the model fit, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Bentler-Bonett Non-normed Fit Index (NNFI), Relative Noncentrality Index (RNI), Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index (NFI), Bollen’s Relative Fit Index (RFI), and Bollen’s Incremental Fit Index (IFI) were employed. Values equal to or greater than 0.90 on these indicators indicate an optimal fit of the proposed model (Byrne, 2016). In addition, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was evaluated. Values below 0.08 in RMSEA evidence a good model fit (Byrne, 2016). Together, these indicators provide a rigorous and detailed assessment of the model’s fit to the data.

Results

Correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between the measures of strengths and difficulties, regulatory emotional self-efficacy, and empathy (see Table 2). The global difficulties dimension and behavioral problems exhibited a direct and significant correlation with the empathy dimensions of fantasy and personal distress. Additionally, the difficulties dimension demonstrated an inverse correlation with empathic self-efficacy. The results indicated that hyperactivity symptoms exhibited an inverse and significant correlation with regulatory emotional self-efficacy (total score), the use of humor, empathic self-efficacy, self-efficacy in managing negative affect, and self-efficacy for moral emotions (shame).

Table 2.

Correlations Between the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Variables, and Empathy Dimensions.

Correlations M DE Difficulties total score Behavior Problems Hyperactivity Emotional symptoms Peer problems Strengths: Prosocial behavior
Total empathy 2.93 0.57 0.120 0.087 0.031 0.252** –0.075 0.314**
Perspective taking 3.15 0.72 −0.077 −0.109 −0.106 0.103 −0.124 0.386**
Fantasy 2.84 0.75 0.136* 0.139* 0.091 0.194** −0.075 0.249**
Empathic concern 3.05 0.68 0.113 0.097 0.048 0.184** −0.042 0.176**
Personal distress 2.68 0.70 0.217** 0.156* 0.068 0.334** 0.003 0.192**
Regulatory emotional self-efficacy 3.54 0.63 −0.111 −0.055 −0.197** 0.072 −0.163* 0.415**
Self-efficacy expressing positive Affect 3.72 0.66 −0.090 −0.068 −0.131 0.088 −0.170* 0.452**
Humor 3.60 0.99 −0.059 −0.022 −0.146* 0.114 −0.145* 0.381**
Empathic self-efficacy 3.60 0.86 −0.140* −0.087 −0.149* 0.011 −0.190** 0.380**
Self-efficacy in managing negative affect 3.36 0.71 −0.111 −0.034 −0.225** 0.044 −0.129 0.312**
Self-efficacy for moral emotions: Shame 3.41 0.82 −0.063 0.003 −0.162* 0.033 −0.077 0.207**
M 0.79 0.71 0.85 0.76 0.85 1.38
DE 0.29 0.45 0.37 0.46 0.38 0.44
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05. **p < .01.

The correlation between internalizing emotional symptoms and total empathy, fantasy, empathic concern, and personal distress was direct and significant. In contrast, peer problems exhibited significant inverse correlations with regulatory emotional self-efficacy (total score), self-efficacy for expressing positive affect, humor, and empathic self-efficacy. Finally, the prosocial strengths dimension exhibited a direct and significant correlation with all variables of regulatory emotional self-efficacy and empathy.

A series of multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to determine the influence of self-efficacy for emotional regulation (RESE) and empathy (IRI) on strengths and difficulties (SDQ). The total difficulties score was found to be explained by 4% (R2 = .044, F (2,217) = 4.947, p = .008) by the inverse effect of regulatory emotional self-efficacy (B = −0.085, 95% CI [−0.15, −0.017], β = −.186, p = .015) and direct effect of empathy (B = 0.096, 95% CI [0.021, 0.169], β = .193, p = .011).

Hyperactivity symptoms (R2 = .053, F (2,217) = 6.019; p = .003) and peer problems (R2 = .027, F (2,217) = 2.992, p = .042) were explained only by the inverse effect of regulatory emotional self-efficacy (B = −0.145, 95% CI [−0.226, −0.068], β = −.247, p = .001 (effect on hyperactivity) and B = −0.095, 95% CI [−0.173, −0.014], β = −.158, p = .021 (effect on peer problems)). The effect of empathy on hyperactivity symptoms and peer problems was not statistically significant (p < .05). Similarly, the effect of empathy and regulatory emotional self-efficacy on conduct problems was also not significant.

Prosocial strengths were explained 19% (R2 = .192, F (2.217) = 27.055, p < .001) by the direct effect of regulatory emotional self-efficacy (B = 0.243 95% CI [0.150, 0.332], β = .346, p < .001) and empathy (B = 0.137 95% CI [0.033, 0.232], β = .178, p = .008).

Additional analyses were conducted to determine the specific effects of the dimensions of self-efficacy for emotional regulation and empathy on strengths and difficulties. The results of the analyses are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Effect of Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy (RESE) and Empathy (IRI) Variables on Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

Dependent Predictors B EE β t p CI 95% for B
Lower Upper
Difficulties total score Self-efficacy expressing positive affect 0.051 0.062 .119 0.784 .408 −0.070 0.172
Humor −0.005 0.035 −.017 −0.156 .882 −0.074 0.061
Empathic self-efficacy −0.056 0.041 −.169 −1.479 .176 −0.132 0.027
Self-efficacy in managing negative affect −0.118 0.047 −.286 −2364 .021 −0.221 −0.014
Self-efficacy for moral emotions: shame 0.068 0.043 .195 1.506 .112 −0.017 0.153
Perspective taking −0.092 0.043 −.233 −2.404 .033 −0.178 −0.010
Fantasy 0.034 0.036 .089 1.021 .335 −0.037 0.104
Empathic concern 0.035 0.038 .083 0.923 .351 −0.041 0.109
Personal distress 0.105 0.036 .258 3.004 .005 0.033 0.175
R2 = .121, F(9.210) = 3.218, p = .001
Behavior problems Self-efficacy expressing positive affect −0.019 0.101 −.029 −0.189 .850 −0.218 0.177
Humor 0.014 0.046 .032 0.284 .753 −0.077 0.102
Empathic self-efficacy −0.030 0.055 −.058 −0.503 .580 −0.134 0.083
Self-efficacy in managing negative affect −0.033 0.098 −.053 −0.373 .738 −0.229 0.159
Self-efficacy for moral emotions: shame 0.082 0.077 .150 1.149 .283 −0.069 0.233
Perspective taking −0.203 0.063 −.331 −3.378 .001 −0.322 −0.078
Fantasy 0.077 0.055 .130 1.468 .166 −0.027 0.188
Empathic concern 0.088 0.060 .135 1.486 .137 −0.031 0.201
Personal distress 0.110 0.054 .174 2.003 .042 0.003 0.216
R2 = .105, F(9.210) = 2.682, p = .006
Hyperactivity Self-efficacy expressing positive affect 0.124 0.086 .224 1.452 .139 −0.044 0.289
Humor −0.048 0.042 −.129 −1.159 .335 −0.147 0.047
Empathic self-efficacy −0.053 0.049 −.125 −1.085 .334 −0.161 0.056
Self-efficacy in managing negative affect −0.193 0.074 −.372 −2.598 .009 −0.336 −0.050
Self-efficacy for moral emotions: shame 0.079 0.059 .176 1.342 .203 −0.037 0.207
Perspective taking −0.064 0.050 −.127 −1.289 .230 −0.172 0.040
Fantasy 0.078 0.044 .159 1.787 .164 −0.029 0.189
Empathic concern 0.006 0.049 .012 0.127 .905 −0.095 0.113
Personal distress 0.040 0.046 .076 0.875 .389 −0.054 0.130
R2 = .097, F(9.210) = 2.510, p = .010
Emotional symptoms Self-efficacy Expressing Positive Affect 0.085 0.112 .124 0.819 .442 −0.132 0.303
Humor 0.040 0.056 .086 0.787 .488 −0.078 0.145
Empathic self-efficacy −0.076 0.065 −.144 −1.274 .233 −0.201 0.053
Self-efficacy in managing negative affect −0.043 0.102 −.068 −0.481 .680 −0.242 0.158
Self-efficacy for moral emotions: shame 0.030 0.074 .054 0.422 .680 −0.114 0.178
Perspective taking −0.071 0.066 −.113 −1.169 .284 −0.204 0.057
Fantasy 0.009 0.057 .014 0.166 .876 −0.105 0.118
Empathic concern 0.041 0.061 .061 0.683 .498 −0.080 0.159
Personal distress 0.217 0.058 .334 3.925 <.001 0.103 0.329
R2 = .132, F(9.210) = 3.553, p < .001
peer problems Self-efficacy expressing positive affect 0.016 0.089 .027 0.173 .855 −0.151 0.198
Humor −0.026 0.049 −.067 −0.583 .601 −0.125 0.066
Empathic self-efficacy −0.064 0.056 −.146 −2.228 .045 −0.173 −0.011
Self-efficacy in managing negative affect −0.083 0.076 −.156 −1.062 .273 −0.231 0.067
Self-efficacy for moral emotions: shame 0.081 0.061 .175 1.303 .178 −0.038 0.200
Perspective taking −0.029 0.057 −.056 −0.558 .615 −0.140 0.083
Fantasy −0.028 0.047 −.055 −0.599 .551 −0.121 0.064
Empathic concern 0.004 0.054 .007 0.079 .938 −0.101 0.109
Personal distress 0.053 0.051 .098 1.096 .308 −0.050 0.151
R2 = .050, F(9.210) = 1.240, p = .049
Strengths: prosocial behavior Self-efficacy expressing positive affect 0.183 0.089 .275 1.965 .039 0.009 0.359
Humor 0.049 0.044 .109 1.082 .260 −0.042 0.130
Empathic self-efficacy 0.005 0.053 .009 0.087 .931 −0.099 0.109
Self-efficacy in managing negative affect 0.094 0.087 .152 1.169 .278 −0.074 0.267
Self-efficacy for moral emotions: shame −0.125 0.065 −.231 −1.941 .057 −0.254 0.004
Perspective taking 0.128 0.055 .211 2.366 .018 0.019 0.233
Fantasy 0.055 0.048 .093 1.157 .245 −0.040 0.151
Empathic concern −0.054 0.049 −.084 −1.017 .263 −0.154 0.040
Personal distress −0.002 0.046 −.002 −0.031 .973 −0.096 0.088
R2 = .258, F(9.210) = 8.113, p = .001
Open in a new tab

The study found that self-efficacy in managing negative affect, perspective taking, and personal distress contributed significant effects, explaining 12% of the total difficulties score (R2 = 0.121, p < .001).

Furthermore, the study revealed that perspective taking, and personal distress had a significant effect on behavior problems, explaining 11% of the variance (R2 = .105, p = .006). Self-efficacy in managing negative affect had a significant effect on symptoms of hyperactivity, explaining 10% of the variance (R2 = .097, p = .010).

The results indicate that personal distress was the only factor that had a significant effect, explaining 13% of the emotional symptoms (R2 = .132, p < .001). Moreover, problems with peers were negatively affected by empathic self-efficacy. Finally, the strengths, which are represented by the prosocial behavior variable, are explained by 26% (R2 = .258, p < .001) by the effect of self-efficacy expressing positive affect and perspective taking.

Additional analyses were conducted to identify patterns of association involving emotional self-efficacy as a mediator of empathy in predicting difficulties and strengths. Two structural equation models were proposed to determine the direct and indirect effects of empathy and emotional self-efficacy on difficulties (model 1) and strengths (model 2). The goodness-of-fit indicators for both models were satisfactory, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

Goodness-of-Fit Statistics of the Structural Equation Models.

Goodness-of-fit statistics Model 1 difficulties Model 2 strengths
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.944 0.989
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) 0.929 0.987
Bentler-Bonett Non-normed Fit Index (NNFI) 0.929 0.987
Relative Noncentrality Index (RNI) 0.944 0.989
Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index (NFI) 0.901 0.950
Bollen’s Relative Fit Index (RFI) 0.876 0.939
Bollen’s Incremental Fit Index (IFI) 0.944 0.989
RMSEA 0.073 0.035
CI 95% RMSEA 0.056–0.090 0.000–0.055
Open in a new tab

The structural equation model of difficulties is depicted in Figure 1. Empathy was found to have a positive and significant effect on regulatory emotional self-efficacy (B = 0.4060, SE = 0.0526, β = .463, 95% CI [0.394, 0.531], p < .001) and difficulties (B = 0.0810, SE = 0.0265, β = .228, 95% CI [0.102, 0.355], p < .001). The results indicated that regulatory emotional self-efficacy had an inverse and significant effect on difficulties (B = -0.1125, SE = 0.0278, β = −.278, 95% CI [−0.388, −0.169], p < .001). Furthermore, the indirect effect of empathy on difficulties through regulatory emotional self-efficacy was found to be statistically significant (B = -0.046, SE = 0.013, β = −.129, 95% CI [−0.188, −0.069], p < .001).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Structural equation modeling of the effect of empathy on difficulties and the mediating role of regulatory emotional self-efficacy.

***p < .001.

Figure 2 shows the structural model of prosocial strengths, which is reflected in the items that define it. Empathy was found to have a positive and significant effect on regulatory emotional self-efficacy (B = 0.404, SE = 0.0435, β = .460, 95% CI [0.399, 0.520], p < .001) and Prosocial Strengths (B = 0.253, SE = 0.0623, β = .265, 95% CI [0.149, 0.381], p < .001). Results indicated that regulatory emotional self-efficacy had a positive and significant effect on Prosocial Strengths (B = 0.464, SE = 0.0674, β = .427, 95% CI [0.325, 0.529], p < .001).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Structural equation modeling of the effect of empathy on prosocial strengths and the mediating role of emotional self-efficacy.

***p < .001.

Empathy was found to account for 21% (R2 = .211) of the variance in regulatory emotional self-efficacy, and in conjunction with this, they explained 36% (R2 = .356) of the prosocial strengths. Moreover, the indirect effect of empathy on difficulties through regulatory emotional self-efficacy was found to be statistically significant (B = 0.188, SE = 0.029, β = 196, 95% CI [0.143, 0.249], p < .001).

Discussion

The objective of this study was to analyze the effects of empathy and emotional self-efficacy on the behavioral strengths and difficulties of adolescents and young adults sanctioned by the Adolescent Criminal Responsibility System (Sistema de Responsabilidad Penal para Adolescentes, SRPA) and placed in specialized care centers.

The findings of this study confirm and expand upon previous research regarding the relationship between empathy, emotional self-efficacy, and behavioral strengths and difficulties in justice-involved youth. Specifically, correlation and regression analyses indicate that regulatory emotional self-efficacy has a protective effect against emotional and behavioral difficulties, while empathy exhibits a more complex relationship, depending on the specific dimension being evaluated.

Identifying emotional self-efficacy as a protective factor underscores the need to incorporate programs aimed at strengthening this skill within rehabilitation and reintegration strategies. Additionally, the complexity of the relationship between empathy and behavioral difficulties highlights the importance of addressing this variable in a nuanced manner, avoiding simplistic approaches that assume fostering empathy will always yield positive behavioral outcomes for young offenders.

One of the most significant findings of this study is the positive correlation between externalizing emotional symptoms and the fantasy and personal distress dimensions of empathy. Given the scarcity of prior research exploring this relationship in justice-involved youth, these results suggest that certain aspects of empathy may be associated with heightened emotional vulnerability and difficulties in affective regulation, rather than consistently serving as a protective factor (Decety & Jackson, 2004; van Langen et al., 2014). These findings align with previous studies indicating that personal distress and over-identification with others’ suffering can increase levels of anxiety, depression, and stress in vulnerable populations, which, in turn, may contribute to the emergence of externalizing behaviors (Mesurado et al., 2018). The evidence presented here suggests that rather than promoting empathy in a generalized manner, interventions should focus on teaching emotional regulation strategies to prevent maladaptive distress responses among delinquent youth.

The results also reveal that regulatory emotional self-efficacy has a significant inverse effect on hyperactivity symptoms and peer-related problems. This reinforces prior research indicating that high emotional self-efficacy enables adolescents to manage their emotions more effectively, reduce impulsivity, and enhance interpersonal skills (Bandura, 2001; Patrick et al., 2018; Wentzel, 2014). In line with these findings, the study’s hypothesis is partially confirmed, as emotional self-efficacy does moderate the relationship between empathy and behavioral difficulties; however, its impact appears to be more pronounced in reducing social interaction problems and improving emotional regulation.

From an intervention perspective, this finding suggests that rehabilitation programs for justice-involved youth should prioritize the development of emotional regulation skills as a key component. Furthermore, public policies incorporating initiatives to strengthen emotional self-efficacy could contribute to a significant reduction in recidivism rates and improve the social adaptation of these individuals.

Consistent with previous studies, this research found that both regulatory emotional self-efficacy and empathy account for a significant proportion of the variance in prosocial behavior. This aligns with existing literature suggesting that perspective-taking ability and self-efficacy in emotional regulation are key predictors of prosocial conduct (Eisenberg et al., 2014; Mesurado et al., 2018). However, structural equation models revealed that regulatory emotional self-efficacy plays a significant mediating role in the relationship between empathy and prosocial behavior, reinforcing the idea that empathy alone is insufficient to promote prosocial conduct unless accompanied by effective emotional regulation skills.

In terms of public policy, these findings suggest that prevention and rehabilitation programs should adopt a comprehensive approach that not only fosters empathy but also strengthens emotional self-efficacy. This entails designing strategies that not only teach young people to understand and resonate with others’ emotions but also equip them with the tools to manage their own emotional responses effectively, ultimately fostering healthier and less conflict-prone interactions.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the contributions of this study, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations. First, the data were collected through self-report, which introduces the risk of bias in participants’ perceptions. Future studies should incorporate key informants, such as educators, pedagogues, or psychosocial teams, to compare self-reported data with third-party evaluations, thereby enhancing the validity of the results. Additionally, while validated measures of empathy and emotional self-efficacy were included, the specific context of juvenile justice may influence how participants report their emotional and prosocial skills. In this regard, employing mixed methodologies that combine quantitative and qualitative approaches would provide a deeper understanding of these psychological processes in youth in conflict with the law.

Another relevant aspect is that the statistical analyses did not consider the variability of criminal trajectories or the duration of individuals’ involvement in the juvenile justice system. This information is restricted and held under judicial custody in Specialized Attention Centers for juvenile offenders in Colombia, limiting access. However, examining these variables would offer a better understanding of the relationship between age, recidivism, and the evolution of criminal behavior. Furthermore, future research could explore how the life experiences of juvenile offenders affect their psychological functioning and likelihood of recidivism, which would contribute to the development of more personalized and effective interventions.

Finally, since this study employed a cross-sectional design, the conclusions were based on correlational associations between the variables analyzed. To establish causal relationships, it is recommended to implement longitudinal studies that track the evolution of empathy and emotional self-efficacy over time and assess their impact on behavioral and emotional regulation.

Conclusions

Overall, the findings underscore the importance of regulatory emotional self-efficacy as a key factor in reducing behavioral difficulties and fostering prosocial behavior among justice-involved youth. They also highlight that the effects of empathy vary depending on the specific dimension assessed, emphasizing the need to consider how these processes interact in vulnerable contexts. These results have significant implications for the design of intervention programs aimed at enhancing emotional regulation in youth with delinquent trajectories, with the goal of reducing recidivism risk and promoting social adaptation. Furthermore, they suggest that public policies should integrate strategies that not only foster empathy but also develop effective emotional regulation skills to maximize the positive impact of juvenile justice interventions.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to the young people who participated in the research and extend special thanks to the Congregación de Religiosos Terciarios Capuchinos de Nuestra Señora de los Dolores, Provincia de San José. And to the Carlos Lleras Restrepo Specialized Juvenile Care Centers in Medellín and Ciudadela Los Zagales in Manizales, Colombia, for their invaluable cooperation and for enabling access to their facilities. The authors are indebted to the institutions for their support in administering the psychological instruments that were used for the data collection in this study. The Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar gives the legal permissions for the execution of this study with young people subjected to custodial measures in the custody of the Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar. The research was carried out within the framework of the project “Relationships between empathy, self-efficacy, and behavioral difficulties in young offenders of criminal law with custodial sanctions,” implemented in 2022.

Footnotes

Data Availability: The availability of research data is contingent upon the decision and approval of the Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar (ICBF) and the Specialized Youth Care Centers, specifically Carlos Lleras Restrepo in Medellín and Ciudadela Los Zagales in Manizales, Colombia. The focus of this information pertains to minors in the custody of the Colombian state.

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The financial support for this study was provided by the Congregación de Religiosos Terciarios Capuchinos de Nuestra Señora de los Dolores, Provincia de San José, and by Universidad Católica Luis Amigó, Colombia.

Ethical Approval: The research that supports this article was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Universidad Católica Luis Amigó on September 12, 2021, after informed consent was obtained. This approval complies with Resolution 008430 of 1993, issued by the Ministerio de Salud of Colombia, which dictates scientific, technical, and administrative norms for health research in Title II, Articles 5, 6, and 11. The Ethics Committee of the Vice Rector Office for Research determined that the study represented minimal risk, since it did not intend to intervene or intentionally modify physiological, sociological, or psychological variables of the research subjects. At the end of 2021, we received consent, authorization, technical, and administrative endorsement from the Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar to conduct the study. Additionally, we obtained permission from two Specialized Care Centers for young people: Carlos Lleras Restrepo in Medellín and Ciudadela Los Zagales in Manizales, to provide all the logistical support required for the research.

Consent to Participate: The participants voluntarily consented to participate in the study after being informed of the objectives and purposes of the study. This consent was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Vice-Rectory of Research of the Universidad Católica Luis Amigó, Colombia.

Consent for Publication: The participants’ voluntary signature on the informed consent form constituted their authorization for the researchers and the Universidad Católica Luis Amigó to publish the results of the study. The Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar gave its authorization for the publication and dissemination of the manuscript.

ORCID iDs: Nicolasa María Durán Palacio Inline graphic https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5492-6931

Anyerson Stiths Gómez Tabares Inline graphic https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7389-3178

Edison Ferney Castrillón Ángel Inline graphic https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9237-1084

References

  1. Abram K. M., Zwecker N. A., Welty L. J., Hershfield J. A., Dulcan M. K., Teplin L. A. (2015). Comorbidity and continuity of psychiatric disorders in youth after detention: A prospective longitudinal study. JAMA Psychiatry, 72(1), 84–93. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.1375 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arenas Estevez L. F., Rangel Quiñonez H. S., Cortés Aguilar A., Palacio Garcia L. A. (2021). Validación en español del Índice de Reactividad Interpersonal –IRI- en estudiantes universitarios colombianos. Psychology Society & Education, 13(3), 121–135. 10.25115/psye.v13i3.3307 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bandura A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergstrøm H., Jolliffe D., Farrington D. P. (2021). Empathy and psychopathy: How are they related in men and women? In Jolliffe D., Farrington D. P. (Eds.), Empathy versus offending, aggression and bullying: Advancing knowledge using the Basic Empathy Scale (pp. 101–112). Routledge. 10.4324/9780429287459 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brame R., Piquero A. R. (2003). Selective attrition and the age-crime relationship. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(2), 107–127. 10.1023/A:1023009919637 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Byrne B. (2016). Structural equation modeling with Amos (3rd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  7. Caprara G. V., Di Giunta L., Eisenberg N., Gerbino M., Pastorelli C., Tramontano C. (2008). Assessing regulatory emotional self-efficacy in three countries. Psychological Assessment, 20(3), 227–237. 10.1037/1040-3590.20.3.227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Craig J. M., Trulson C. R. (2025). Examining the impact of empathy on the recidivism of serious juvenile offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 71(13-14), 3967–3990. 10.1177/00111287241290511 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cullen F. T., Jonson C. L., Nagin D. S. (2011). Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science. The Prison Journal, 91(3_suppl), 48S–65S. 10.1177/0032885511415224 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Davis M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Davis M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach (1st ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9780429493898 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Decety J., Bartal I. B., Uzefovsky F., Knafo-Noam A. (2016). Empathy as a driver of prosocial behaviour: Highly conserved neurobehavioural mechanisms across species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Series B, Biological Sciences, 371(1686), Article 20150077. 10.1098/rstb.2015.0077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Decety J., Jackson P. H. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioural and Cognitive Neuroscience Review, 3(2), 71–100. 10.1177/1534582304267187 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Eisenberg N., Spinrad T. L., Morris A. (2014). Empathy-related responding in children. In Killen M., Smetana J. G. (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 184–207). Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Epskamp S., Stuber S., Nak J., Veenman M., Jorgensen T. D. (2019). semPlot: Path diagrams and visual analysis of various SEM packages’ output. [R Package]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semPlot
  16. Faizi N., Alvi Y. (2023. a). Correlation. In Biostatistics manual for health research (pp. 109–126). Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Faizi N., Alvi Y. (2023. b). Regression and multivariable analysis. In Biostatistics manual for health research (pp. 213–247). Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gallucci M., Jentschke S. (2021). SEMLj: jamovi SEM Analysis. [jamovi module]. https://semlj.github.io/
  19. Gerbing D. W., Anderson J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186-192. 10.2307/3172650 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gómez-Leal R., Megías-Robles A., Gutiérrez-Cobo M. J., Cabello R., Fernández-Berrocal P. (2020). Personal risk and protective factors involved in aggressive behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(3–4), 1489–1515. https://doi:10.1177/0886260520926322 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gómez-Leal R., Megías-Robles A., Sánchez-López M. T., Fernández-Berrocal P. (2021). Psychopathic traits and ability emotional intelligence in incarcerated males. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13(2), 79–86. 10.5093/ejpalc2021a8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gómez Tabares A. S. (2019). Conductas prosociales y su relación con la empatía y la autoeficacia para la regulación emocional en adolescentes desvinculados de grupos armados ilegales. Revista criminalidad, 61(3), 221–246. 10.47741/17943108.70 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gómez Tabares A. S., Durán Palacio N. M. (2020). Motivaciones prosociales, empatía y diferencias de género en adolescentes víctimas del conflicto armado e infractores de la ley. Revista sobre la infancia y la adolescencia, 18, 69–90. 10.4995/reinad.2020.12771 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gómez Tabares A. S., Narváez Marín M. (2019). Mecanismos de desconexión moral y su relación con la empatía y la prosocialidad en adolescentes que han tenido experiencias delictivas. Revista de Psicología, 37(2), 603–641. 10.18800/psico.201902.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gómez Tabares A. S., Narváez Marín M. (2020). Tendencias Prosociales y su Relación con la Empatía y la Autoeficacia Emocional en Adolescentes en Vulnerabilidad Psicosocial. Revista Colombiana de Psicología, 29(2), 125–147. 10.15446/rcp.v29n2.78430 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Goodman R. (1997) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Green L. M., Missotten L., Tone E. B., Luyckx K. (2018). Empathy, depressive symptoms, and self-esteem in adolescence: The moderating role of the mother–adolescent relationship. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27, 3964–3974. 10.1007/s10826-018-1216-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hatzenbuehler M. L., Keyes K., Hamilton A., Uddin M., Galea S. (2015). The collateral damage of mass incarceration: Risk of psychiatric morbidity among nonincarcerated residents of high-incarceration neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 105(1), 138–143. 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. IBM Corporation. (2017). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Versions 25.0 [computer program]. [Google Scholar]
  30. The Jamovi Project. (2023). jamovi. (Version 2.4) [Computer Software]. https://www.jamovi.org
  31. Jolliffe D., Farrington D. P. (2021). Empathy and offending, aggression, and bullying: Taking stock and moving forward. In Jolliffe D., Farrington D. P. (Eds.), Empathy versus offending, aggression and bullying: Advancing knowledge using the Basic Empathy Scale (pp. 239–254). Routledge. 10.4324/9780429287459 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kim J. I., Kim B., Kim B.-N., Hong S.-B., Lee D. W., Chung J.-Y., Choi J. Y., Choi B.-S., Oh Y.-R., Youn M. (2017). Prevalence of psychiatric disorders, comorbidity patterns, and repeat offending among male juvenile detainees in South Korea: A cross-sectional study. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 11(1), Article 6. 10.1186/s13034-017-0143-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Ludwig K. B., Pittman J. F. (1999). Adolescent prosocial values and self-efficacy in relation to delinquency, risky sexual behavior, and drug use. Youth & Society, 30(4), 461–482. 10.1177/0044118X99030004004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. McDonald R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  35. Megías A., Gómez-Leal R., Gutiérrez-Cobo M. J., Cabello R., Fernández-Berrocal P. (2018). The relationship between aggression and ability emotional intelligence: The role of negative affect. Psychiatry Research, 270, 1074–1081. 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.05.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mestre M. V., Frías M. D., Samper P. (2004). La medida de la empatía: análisis del Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Psicothema, 16, 255–260. https://www.psicothema.com/pdf/1191.pdf [Google Scholar]
  37. Mesurado B., Vidal E. M., Mestre A. L. (2018). Negative emotions and behaviour: The role of regulatory emotional self-efficacy. Journal of Adolescence, 64, 62–71. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.01.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Milone A., Cerniglia L., Cristofani C., Inguaggiato E., Levantini V., Masi G., Paciello M., Simone F., Muratori P. (2019). Empathy in youths with conduct disorder and callous-unemotional traits. Neural plasticity, 2019, Article 9638973. 10.1155/2019/9638973 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  39. Morrow E. P. (2020). Cognitive, affective, and general empathy in individuals convicted of a sexual offense: A meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse, 32(8), 883–906. 10.1177/1079063219858062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Narvey C., Yang J., Wolff K. T., Baglivio M., Piquero A. R. (2021). The interrelationship between empathy and adverse childhood experiences and their impact on juvenile recidivism. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 19(1), 45–-67. 10.1177/1541204020939647 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Nigel S. M., Dudeck M., Otte S., Knauer K., Klein V., Böttcher T., Maaß C., Vasic N., Streb J. (2018). Psychopathy, the Big Five and empathy as predictors of violence in a forensic sample of substance abusers. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 29(6), 882–900. 10.1080/14789949.2018.1439993 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Observatorio del Bienestar de la Niñez. (2022). Tablero SRPA Sistema de Responsabilidad Penal para Adolescentes. Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar. https://www.icbf.gov.co/bienestar/observatorio-bienestar-ninez/tablero-srpa [Google Scholar]
  43. O’Neill K. K. (2020). Adolescence, empathy, and the gender gap in delinquency. Feminist Criminology, 15(4), 410–437. 10.1177/1557085120908332 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Ortuño-Sierra J., Chocarro E., Fonseca-Pedrero E., Sastre-Riba S., Muñiz J. (2015). The assessment of emotional and Behavioural problems: Internal structure of The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 15(3), 265–273. 10.1016/J.IJCHP.2015.05.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Ortuño-Sierra J., Sebastián-Enesco C., Pérez-Albéniz A., Lucas-Molina B., Fonseca-Pedrero E. (2022). Spanish normative data of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a community-based sample of adolescents. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 22(3), Article 100328. 10.1016/j.ijchp.2022.100328 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Patrick R., Bodine A. J., Gibbs J., Basinger K. S. (2018). What accounts for prosocial behavior? Roles of moral identity, moral judgment, and self-efficacy beliefs. The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 179(5), 231–245. 10.1080/00221325.2018.1491472 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Pechorro P., Quintas J., DeLisi M., Gonçalves R. A. (2021). Can the triarchic model of psychopathy predict youth offender recidivism? Psychology, Crime & Law, 27(5), 443–455. 10.1080/1068316X.2020.1818237 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Pung P.-W., Yaacob S. N., Baharudin R., Osman S. (2015). Low self-control, peer delinquency and aggression among adolescents in Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 11(21), Article 193. 10.5539/ass.v11n21p193 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Rosseel Y. (2019). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v048i02 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schoeps K., Mónaco E., Cotolí A., Montoya-Castilla I. (2020). The impact of peer attachment on prosocial behavior, emotional difficulties and conduct problems in adolescence: The mediating role of empathy. PLOS ONE, 15(1), Article e0227627. 10.1371/journal.pone.0227627 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Schubert C. A., Mulvey E. P., Glasheen C. (2011). Influence of mental health and substance use problems and criminogenic risk on outcomes in serious juvenile offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50(9), 925–937. 10.1016/j.jaac.2011.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Spinrad T. L., Eisenberg N. (2017). Prosocial behavior and empathy-related responding: Relations to children’s well-being. In Robinson M. D., Eid M. (Eds.), The happy mind: Cognitive contributions to well-being (pp. 331–347). Springer International Publishing/Springer Nature. 10.1007/978-3-319-58763-9_18 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Stine R. (1989). An introduction to bootstrap methods: Examples and ideas. Sociological Methods & Research, 18(2–3), 243–291. 10.1177/0049124189018002003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Sweeten G., Piquero A. R., Steinberg L. (2013). Age and the explanation of crime, revisited. Journal Youth Adolescence, 42, 921–938. 10.1007/s10964-013-9926-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Tisak M. S., Goldstein S. E. (2023). Criminality, cognitive distortions, empathy, and legitimacy of laws: Behaviors and perspectives of youth offenders. Current Psychology, 42(9), 7049–7059. 10.1007/s12144-021-02121-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Vachon D. D., Lynam D. R., Johnson J. A. (2014). The (non)relation between empathy and aggression: surprising results from a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 751–773. 10.1037/a0035236 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. van Langen M. A. M., Wissink I. B., van Vugt E. S., Van der Stouwe T., Stams G. J. J. M. (2014). The relation between empathy and offending: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(2), 179–189. 10.1016/j.avb.2014.02.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Valois R. F., Zullig K. J., Revels A. A. (2017). Aggressive and violent behavior and emotional self-efficacy: Is there a relationship for adolescents? Journal School Health, 87, 269–277. 10.1111/josh.12493 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Wentzel K. R. (2014). Prosocial behavior and peer relations in adolescence. In Padilla Walker L., Carlo G. (Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach (pp. 178–200). Oxford Scholarship Online. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199964772.003.0009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES