Conduct and disruptive disorders are major child and adolescent psychiatric disorders, with a male predominance. They are diagnosed by aggression, defiance, and noncompliance, with CD usually presenting as a more malignant course of ODD. The clinical presentation becomes complex when these behaviours are present in conjunction with other disorders, including depression and ADHD.
Prevalence of these disorders is high: about 22% of adolescents suffer from psychiatric disorders, indicating the requirement of effective interventions (Mohan et al., 2023). Disruptive behaviour can leave a lasting impact on society as well as the individual. An appropriate understanding of these disorders involves considering them from a multi-dimensional perspective, including biological, psychological, and socio-cultural dimensions. Genetic involvement with heritability scores of 40-50% represents a strong biological predisposition. Neurobiological conditions, e.g., amygdala and prefrontal cortex abnormalities, play an important role in explaining social behaviour regulation impairments.
Psychological theories suggest that the diseases are due to deranged thinking and acquired patterns of behaviour. Familial and societal influences also have a very important role to play in their causation. Integrating these multifaceted factors is essential when designing precise and effective clinical interventions.
Read More: How the Amygdala Shapes Our Emotions and Behaviour
The Origins of Behaviour: Biological and Genetic Variables
1. The Roadmap of Behaviour
Genetic factors are strongest in causing conduct and disruptive disorders in boys. The research shows substantial genetic influence and estimates the genetic influence to explain 40% to 50% of the variance in CD symptoms (Salvatore & Dick, 2016). Heritability rises from adolescence compared to childhood, and this implies that several genetic influences become stronger with age (Salvatore & Dick, 2016).
Additionally, one’s genetic risk factors could interact with environmental risk factors when making behavioural outcomes. Some traits at birth predispose one to be vulnerable to negative conditions, e.g., socioeconomic difficulties or unstable family life (Kimonis & Frick, 2011). They are also likely to develop CD themselves in case they come from a family with a history of antisocial behaviour (Gathright & Tyler, 2017).
Though research into individual genes associated with CD, including MAOA and GABRA2, has yielded mixed results, no one can doubt that there is a genetic force at play, but only part of a complex ballet of biological and environmental influences.
Read More: The Role of Genetics in Mental Health
2. The Role of the Brain
Neurobiological processes are an essential ingredient in the causation of conduct and disruptive disorders. Research has indicated that teenagers with CD display spectacular neuroanatomical and functional abnormalities relative to controls. For example, a measurable decrease in amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex functioning, which are key areas responsible for emotion processing and suppressing aggressive behaviour, has been reported. The orbitofrontal cortex, the most important area for decision-making and reward evaluation, also has lower sensitivity, which may be the reason why individuals with CD typically have impaired decision-making (Wikipedia.org, 2025).
Neurochemical imbalances are also on the scene. CD subjects exhibit lowered cortisol and serotonin levels, which correlate with the problem of mood management and impulsivity (Mars et al., 2024). These hormonal imbalances may be further exacerbated by environmental factors, thereby influencing behavioural outcomes even more.
Researchers have also observed a dysfunctional sensitivity to punishment, indicating a malfunction in the autonomic nervous system. This. Reduction in the fear conditioning will result in heightened aggression because individuals fail to learn from punishment (Mars et al., 2024). There is a role also played by genes, and those genes that control neurotransmitter systems such as dopamine and norepinephrine are also involved in impulse control and drug dependence (Brewer & Potenza, 2007). Integrating all these neurobiological components is the aim of developing effective interventions among adolescents with conduct problems.
Read More: Disruptive Behaviour Disorders: Causes, Impact and Treatment
The Mind’s Influence: Psychological Explanations
1. Learned Behaviours: The Strength of Behavioural Theories
Conduct and disruptive disorders in boys are explained by behavioural theories in terms of learned behaviour and the environment. The operative theoretical concept is operant conditioning, which assumes that behaviour is shaped and maintained by its consequences. For example, a boy’s misbehaviour, such as aggression or defiance, can be unintentionally reinforced by peers’ attention, stress relief, or tangible rewards. The reinforcement is likely to create a pattern of behaviour that becomes internalised and difficult to change (Behavioural and Cognitive Explanations, 2025).
Behavioural theory-based treatment plans often attempt to modify such reinforcement patterns. Treatment can, for example, introduce aversive consequences for acting impulsively or reinforce desirable behaviour through incentives. Cognitive-behavioural treatment (CBT) has been successful in the treatment of behavioural problems by modifying the imbalance in thinking that sustains maladaptive behaviour (Apsche & Bass, 2006).
It should also be noted that children with conduct disorder display lower inhibition and reduced frustration tolerance (Fariba & Gokarakonda, 2023). The phenomenon indicates that there is a relation between their behaviour problems and unmanageable emotions, which indicates the application of integrative treatment procedures with sensitivity to both behaviour and emotional control.
2. Role of Cognitive Theories
Cognitive models explain disruptive and conduct disorders with the observation of the predominance of cognitive functioning in behaviour development. The aetiology of how the disorders come about and persist in cognitive models is primarily based on dysfunctional cognitions and distortions of cognition. For instance, a person is likely to misread social cues, thinking fake friendliness or neutral gestures are hostile. This distorted view can be a trigger for a hostile response, as adolescents with CD are likely to utilise hostile attribution bias (Gathright & Tyler, 2017).
Cognitive accounts also highlight reinforcement as a central factor in behaviour style. Positive reinforcement, unintentional, can facilitate spontaneous behaviour, especially when the immediate benefit of the disruptive behaviour overshadows any anticipated long-term loss (Behavioural and Cognitive Explanations, 2025).
Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) modified to the requirements of individuals with CD has proven successful in reconditioning dysfunctional thinking and improving problem-solving skills (Apsche & Bass, 2006). Others have lamented that this approach oversimplifies the complexity of these issues by failing to completely consider such variables as family systems or socio-cultural variables (Villodas et al., 2012). That’s why the integration of cognitive models and other explanation models provides a fuller picture and framework to comprehend and deal with offensive behaviour.
Read More: The Role and Impact of Reinforcement Schedules in Shaping Behaviour
The World Around Us: Socio-Cultural Explanations
1. Family Matters
Family dynamics are a big factor in the causation and persistence of disruptive and conduct disorders in boys. Research suggests that children raised in high-conflict families with poor supervision and inconsistent parenting tend to develop such behavioural issues. It has been reported that parents whose families have children with maladaptive behaviour might possess an antisocial personality or other mental illnesses, like mood disorders or alcoholism. In these situations, poor discipline is likely to make deviant behaviour the norm.
Besides, parental separation, one-parent families, and increased family size might provide a home environment that aggravates conduct problems (Wikipedia.org, 2025). Child negative behaviour and maternal depression also form a cycle of dysfunction, and they are further connected. Exposure to family violence also models aggression through internalisation, which increases CD risk significantly.
Peer influences also interact with family processes. Youth from unsupervised families may have deviant peers who support antisocial behaviour as a means of gaining peer acceptance. It suggests that enhancing family functioning is most important in lessening risk for disruptive disorders (Kimonis & Frick, 2011). Successful intervention programs often integrate family therapy strategies for reversing these aversive patterns and building more positive family interaction.
2. Societal Pressures
Socio-environmental issues play a critical role in conduct and disruptive disorder aetiology. Societal norms, stability of community, and socioeconomic status have a prominent influence on one’s behaviour. The area of research has evolved from considering the behaviour as deviant to examining higher-level structural variables. Poverty and societal inequality are social conditions that lead to vulnerability to CD (Wikipedia.org, 2025). Maladaptive behaviour is most often caused by instability in the form of neglect or crime.
Peer aggression within a violent school setting can reinforce these behaviours. Community disorganisation also illustrates how non-tight neighbourhoods can result in conduct issues. There has been an expansion in the field of development, which has resulted in systemic interventions such as multi-systemic therapy (MST), in which the individual and the surroundings are treated through strengthening family function, changing community conditions, and working with schools (Wikipedia.org, 2025).
Interventions such as FAST Track combine family education and school systems to build comprehensive solutions. Research is also showing differential rates of diagnosis by race, raising suspicions of biased diagnostic practice (Wikipedia.org, 2025). Practitioners must identify these social determinants to develop effective prevention strategies.
Childhood to Adulthood: Developmental Pathways
Conduct and disruptive disorders in men are more likely to develop from multi-dimensional patterns of development consisting of a combination of biological, psychological, and socio-cultural aetiology. Researchers have identified two major patterns: childhood-onset CD and adolescent-onset CD. Childhood-onset is most often correlated with greater impairments that present as more aggression, academic failure, and risk of co-morbid disease such as ADHD. These kids will probably carry on with persistent behaviour problems into adulthood.
On the other hand, CD that emerges in adolescence is delayed and is associated with behaviour potentially symptomatic of rebellion that is seen with developmental alterations but not with primary dysfunction. Transient deviant behaviour during most teenagers is not necessarily an indicator of these issues continuing beyond adolescence, according to research (Wikipedia.org, 2025).
Environmental contributions intervene in these pathways to a large extent. For instance, early trauma may place an individual on the course toward substance use disorders (Volkow & Blanco, 2023). In addition, child acting-out onset may set in motion a domino effect—e.g., exposure to delinquent peers or family disturbance—that escalates such issues in the long term (Villodas et al., 2012). Understanding these developmental dimensions is essential for designing goal-oriented interventions that aim to interrupt negative cycles early and, ideally, reduce the severity of outcomes.
Read More: We all need to (and can) get back on our feet after facing an Academic Failure
The Hard Facts: Empirical Evidence
Empirical research on disruptive and conduct disorders in boys is uncovering an astounding prevalence of these disorders and their risk factors. In a psychiatric well-being survey of Iranian children, it was estimated that nearly 22% of them had psychiatric disorders, and the majority of them presented with disruptive behaviours (Araban et al., 2020). More specifically, within that same group, 1.8% of boys and 12.1% of girls exhibited disruptive behaviours, highlighting gender differences in that population.
There is also robust evidence for the co-occurrence of CD and such risk-taking behaviours as alcohol and drug use and sexual risk-taking. Youth with CD are also at greater risk of these behaviours than their peers (Holliday et al., 2017). Statistics received from detention centres today indicate that close to two-thirds of detaining males have at least one psychiatric disorder (Teplin et al., 2002), where individualised mental health treatments are in demand. There needs to be intervention early on since the majority of children who have CD go on to experience significant adversity throughout adulthood, including higher rates of antisocial personality disorder (Wikipedia.org, 2025).
Real-World Snapshots
Researchers can describe conduct and disruptive disorders using several case studies. “Jake” is 10 years old and has conduct disorder with bullying and stealing behaviours. These problems stem from his dysfunctional household, marked by ongoing conflict and inconsistent control, as outlined in the category of family dynamics. “Alex, age 14, has oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) with irritability and argumentative behaviour at home. This fits behavioural models and implies that family therapy to enhance interaction would be the correct intervention.”
“Ryan,” 16 years old, is a more complicated example with co-morbid CD and ADHD diagnoses. His impulsivity creates behaviour issues and risky behaviours, and illustrates the dual diagnosis complexity. Lastly, “Liam,” who is 16 years of age and diagnosed with CD, displays extreme behaviours such as lying and property destruction, which are triggered by his violent and unstable home life, as can be seen in the section on societal factors. The following examples illustrate the multifaceted presentation of disruptive and conduct disorders and the interplay of concomitant risk factors.
A Closer Examination: Critical Analysis of Risk Factors
Several risk factors are responsible for the aetiology of conduct and disruptive disorders in males, which reflect a multicausality of biological, psychological, and environmental elements. Male gender is also considered a determinant, as boys statistically have a higher likelihood of exhibiting such behaviour compared to girls. Genetic risk factors are also present, with heritability estimates indicating that genes can be responsible for causing the disorder.
Environmental circumstances, such as negative child experience in the form of abuse or neglect, are associated with higher rates of CD. Co-morbidity with other disorders, such as ADHD, complicates the treatment process, with ADHD boys vulnerable to developing higher levels of ODD and CD (Villodas et al., 2012). Family relationships, parent to child, are important; high interfamily conflict can escalate challenges (Kimonis & Frick, 2011), whereas resiliency due to a supportive family environment can buffer danger.
Peer and community acceptance of aggression also play a major role in the child’s behaviour. The occasion and context of such risk factors are of utmost significance, as premature exposure might result in a snowball effect over the long term. Understanding these intricate factors is pertinent to devising helpful interventions.
A Path Forward: Implications for Clinical Practice
Successful management of conduct and disruptive disorders among boys calls for an integrative model of biological, psychological, and socio-cultural factors. After identifying the genetic factors, practitioners can achieve prevention through early detection and intervention to avert severe behaviour disorders. Practitioners need to be responsive to neurobiological factors, i.e., brain functions and neurochemical imbalance, to develop treatment decisions.
Cognitive-behavioural therapies (CBT) have proven to be very effective in modifying aberrant behaviours. Psychological issues like cognitive distortions resulting in violence have to be dealt with by psychologists through cognitive restructuring to enable young men to reinterpret social cues. Since family dynamics play an important role in the development of behaviour, family members must be enrolled in the therapy session to change communication and support inconsistent parenting behaviours. Treatment planning must also include community resources to reduce environmental stresses such as poverty and violence.
Developmentally, practitioners should organise interventions based on whether a problem arises in childhood or adolescence. Comorbid conditions such as ADHD in disruptive disorders require integrative and sensitive treatment (Villodas et al., 2012). Clinical practitioners should also be aware of the co-occurrence of symptoms of conduct disorder and risk behaviour. Practitioners should conduct multi-informant, broad assessments to develop individualised treatment interventions.
Read More: How Does Trauma Affect Brain Function?
Conclusion
The complex profile of disruptive and impulse-control disorders in males is guided by a complex interplay of biological, psychological, and socio-cultural factors. It is not a single cause but a problem of several dimensions. The article emphasises that biological predispositions, for example, have a 40-50% heritability. Neuroanatomical differences in structures like the amygdala and prefrontal cortex predispose them to such conditions.
Psychological attributes then complement these biological factors, including the acquisition of responses through operant conditioning and cognitive distortions like hostile attribution bias. The article also emphasises the larger role of socio-cultural variables, and in particular, the dominant role of family and society factors like poverty and community disorganisation.
References +
Jessica E Salvatore, Danielle M Dick. (2016). Genetic Influences on Conduct Disorder. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5183514/
Gathright, Tyler. (2017). Collection of Evidence-based Practices for Children and Adolescents with Mental Health Treatment Needs. https://vcoy.virginia.gov/documents/collection/021%20Disruptive%20ODD2.pdf
Leena Mohan, Musa Yilanli, Sagarika Ray. (2023). Conduct Disorder. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470238/
Conduct disorder. (2025). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduct_disorder
Eva R. Kimonis, Paul J. Frick. (2011). Etiology of Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder: Biological, Familial and Environmental Factors Identified in the Development of Disruptive Behavior Disorders. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4419-6297-3_3
Marzieh Araban, Ali Montazeri, L. A. R. Stein, Mahmood Karimy, Ali Asghar Haeri Mehrizi. (2020). Prevalence and factors associated with disruptive behavior among Iranian students during 2015: a cross-sectional study. https://ijponline.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13052-020-00848-x
Stephanie Brooks Holliday, Brett A Ewing, Erik D Storholm, Layla Parast, Elizabeth J D’Amico. (2017). Gender Differences in the Association between Conduct Disorder and Risky Sexual Behavior. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5504918/
Linda A Teplin, Karen M Abram, Gary M McClelland, Mina K Dulcan, Amy A Mericle. (2002). Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12470130/
Nora D Volkow, Carlos Blanco. (2023). Substance use disorders: a comprehensive update of classification, epidemiology, neurobiology, clinical aspects, treatment and prevention. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10168177/
Miguel T Villodas, Linda J Pfiffner, Keith McBurnett. (2012). Prevention of Serious Conduct Problems in Youth with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4078981/
Jack A. Apsche, Christopher K. Bass. (2006). Microsoft Word – IJBCT-Cover-2-3.rtf. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ804047.pdf
Conduct Disorder. (2025). https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23924-conduct-disorder
Jonathan A. Mars, Arpit Aggarwal, Raman Marwaha. (2024). Oppositional Defiant Disorder. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557443/
Behavioural and Cognitive Explanations. (2025). https://www.tutorchase.com/notes/cie-a-level/psychology/6-3-3-behavioural-and-cognitive-explanations
Judson A Brewer, Marc N Potenza. (2007). The Neurobiology and Genetics of Impulse Control Disorders: Relationships to Drug Addictions. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2222549/
Kamron A. Fariba, Srinivasa B. Gokarakonda. (2023). Impulse Control Disorders. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK562279/v
