PROTECTIVE FACTORS RELATED TO COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE
Lisa De La Rue
B.A., California State University, Sacramento, 2005
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
PSYCHOLOGY
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SUMMER
2010
© 2010
Lisa De La Rue
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
PROTECTIVE FACTORS RELATED TO COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE
ii
A Thesis
by
Lisa De La Rue
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Gregory Kim-Ju, Ph.D
__________________________________, Second Reader
Lawrence Meyers Ph.D
__________________________________, Third Reader
Gregory Mark, Ph.D
Date:_____________________________
iii
Student:
Lisa De La Rue
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Jianjian Qin, Ph.D
Department of Psychology
iv
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
PROTECTIVE FACTORS RELATED TO COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE
by
Lisa De La Rue
An increasing number of communities have been plagued with greater levels of violence,
which, in turn, have negatively impacted youth. Exposure to community violence can
lead to internalizing problems, aggressive and delinquent behaviors and academic
difficulties for youth. Youth are forced to deal with violence in their communities which
impacts routines such as going to and from school, creating additional burdens and
complicating their ability to navigate through the educational system. Social support has
been demonstrated to aid in resiliency for youth exposed to violence. In the present study
one hundred fifty nine high school youth were surveyed. Those students who were
exposed to higher levels of violence experienced greater levels of internalizing behaviors,
externalizing behaviors and academic difficulties. Support for social support as a
protective factor had mixed results.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Gregory Kim-Ju, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my thesis chair, Dr. Greg Kim-Ju and my committee members, Dr.
Larry Meyers and Dr. Greg Mark for their support throughout the writing on this thesis. I
appreciate the opportunity Dr. Kim-Ju gave me to pursue research with this population, I
am eager to take what I have learned during this process as I move forward with my
research.
I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Meyers for all his support during my time at Sac
State. Dr. Meyers encouraged me to push myself in learning new skills and analytic
techniques and I know this competence will continue to serve me well in the future. I
would also like to thank Dr. Rebecca Cameron for her support during my undergraduate
years. She provided support and encouragement and was always a positive role model.
I am very grateful for all my years at Sac State and for the entire faculty. I feel prepared
to move on with my education and am confident that I can be successful due to the skills
I have gained during my time here.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................ viii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................
1
Community Violence ....................................................................................... 2
Level of Exposure to Violence ........................................................................ 3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 7
Consequences of Violence Exposure ................................................................ 7
Resiliency and Protective Factors ................................................................... 16
Summary ....................................................................................................... 23
3. THE PRESENT STUDY ….............. ....................................................................25
Hypotheses .................................................................................................... 25
Method .......................................................................................................... 26
4. RESULTS ….............. ...........................................................................................32
5. DISCUSSION ….............. .....................................................................................48
6. CONCLUSION ….............. ...................................................................................54
Footnotes ........ .......................................................................................................... 55
References ................................................................................................................... 56
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations …………………………………….. 34
2. Table 2 Intercorrelations for High School Youth Exposed
to Community Violence ……………………………….…………………...... 35
3. Table 3 Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
Externalizing Behaviors …….………….…………….………………………. 37
4. Table 4 Regression Analysis for Variable Predicting
Internalizing Behaviors ………………………….…………………….....……38
5. Table 5a Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance by Academic
Outcomes by Level of Victimization of Violence…………………………….. 39
6. Table 5b Means Scores and Standard Deviations for Measures as a function of
Academic Outcomes and Victimization of Violence ……………………..... 40
7. Table 6a Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance by Academic
Outcomes by Level of Witnessing Violence ……………………………….. 41
8. Table 6b Means Scores and Standard Deviations for Measures as a function of
Academic Outcomes and Witnessing Violence……….…………………........ 42
9. Table 7a Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance by Gender ........... 44
10. Table 7b Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Measures
as a Function of Gender ……………………………………………………… 45
11. Table 8a Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance by Generation..... 46
12. Table 8b Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Measures
as a Function of Generation…………………………………………………... 47
viii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The makeup of the family structure, the communities in which people live, and
the issues that schools deal with today in the United States are vastly different compared
to ten and twenty years ago. There have been positive changes that have helped youth
succeed, schools prosper and communities build stronger foundations. For example,
schools have implemented programs to increase graduation rates, improve test scores,
and reduce alcohol and substance abuse. However, there have also been negative
changes in schools and communities that have raised a new set of concerns for the youth
of today. In particular, an increasing number of communities have been plagued with
greater levels of violence, which, in turn, have negatively impacted youth. Research has
shown that exposure to community violence can lead to internalizing problems,
aggressive and delinquent behaviors and academic difficulties for youth (Henrich,
Schwab-Stone, Fanti, Jones, & Ruchkin, 2004; Lambert, Ialong, Boyd, & Cooley, 2005;
Muller, Goebel-Fabbri, Diamond, & Dinklage, 2000). Youth are forced to deal with
violence in their communities which impacts routines such as going to and from school,
creating additional burdens and complicating their ability to navigate through the
educational system. Yet, despite these conditions, many young individuals continue to be
successful in school, especially when protective factors such as social support and
parental involvement are in place to buffer these negative experiences. This study
examines the role of protective factors in relation to community violence exposure. The
2
following reviews what community violence is and how prevalent it is with today’s
youth. This review furthermore explores the consequences and risks of exposure to
violence and the role of protective factors such as social support against such exposure.
Community Violence
Community violence is defined as events involving crime, weapons use, violence
or potential violence that occur in local neighborhoods and are perpetrated by people
outside of the immediate family (Horowitz, McKay & Marshall, 2005). These acts occur
in neighborhoods in which youth live and work and are often viewed as deliberate acts
intended to cause harm (McCart, Smith, Saunders, Kilpatrick, Resnick & Ruggiero,
2007). These acts may be directed at youth, youth may witness these acts, or, in some
cases, youth may be both a victim and a witness to these acts. There are also instances
when youth are perpetrators and engage in violent acts directed towards other youth or
adults. Research shows that community violence creates an environment of constant
danger and complicates ongoing safety concerns that it puts youth living in these
environments at greater risk to witness or be a victim of violence (Horowitz et al., 2005).
While some parents may attempt to shield their children from these experiences, it is
difficult to consistently protect youth in high-risk areas.
Youth violence is the second leading cause of death for young people in the
United States. In 2006, nearly 6,000 young people between the ages of 10-to-24 were
murdered, an average of 16 people per day (CDC, 2009). Deaths resulting from violence
are only a part of the problem; many more young people will be injured as a result of
violence-related concerns. There were over 631,000 violence-related injuries in young
3
people between the ages of 10-to-24 who were treated in U.S. emergency rooms in 2007
(CDC, 2009). It is important to note that the prevalence of injuries is likely to be
considerably higher as many more injuries go unreported. In a nationally representative
sample of 9th-12th grade youth in 2007, 35.5 percent reported being in a physical fight in
the preceding 12 months and 18 percent reported carrying a weapon in the previous 30
days (CDC, 2008). In this same sample, 5.5 percent did not go to school one or more
days in the previous 30 days because they felt unsafe at school or on their way to or from
school (CDC, 2008). Between 1997 and 2001, the National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth (NLSY97) surveyed nearly 9,000 youth between the ages of 12 and 16 and found
that 27 percent of youth reported they had assaulted someone with the intent to seriously
injure by the age of 17; 37 percent had vandalized property and 16 percent had carried a
handgun (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). A National Survey of Adolescents indicated that
39 percent of 12-to-17 year-olds reported having directly observed someone being shot,
stabbed, assaulted, mugged, robbed or threatened with a weapon (Thompson, Proctor,
Weisbart, Lewis, English, Hussey, & Runyan, 2007). Although these data are alarming,
studies have shown that many youth are witnessing violence at higher rates than in
previous years.
Level of Exposure to Violence
Both being a witness to violence and being a victim of violence forces youth to
incorporate an understanding of a traumatic event into their present existence. When
youth are surrounded by violence or exposed to such events repeatedly, they are forced to
constantly readjust their understanding of the world in an effort to understand what they
4
are faced with. Young people who experience chronic danger are more likely to have
developmental impairment, experience emotional trauma, and be socialized into a model
of fear, violence and hatred. They often cope with violence exposure by adopting a
persona or worldview that helps make sense of what they are experiencing, which, in
turn, may be dysfunctional in any “normal” situation (Garbarino, Kostenlny, & Dubrow,
1991).
Studies have made distinctions between a single violent event and ongoing
exposure to violence where the latter may be seen in areas deemed as high-risk. For
example, Garbarino, Kostenlny, and Dubrow (1991) make a distinction between acute
and chronic danger. Acute incidents of danger are related to single traumatic events, or
isolated incidents of violence. Acute incidents of danger simply require situational
adjustments by normal youth leading normal lives in which they are forced to incorporate
an isolated event into their understanding of self and the world (Garbarino et al. 1991).
Chronic danger occurs when there is constant exposure to violence and youth are
repeatedly experiencing traumatic events. These youth are consistently exposed to
aggression and violence, and are repeatedly reminded of the dangers of their
neighborhood or environment. With youth in these types of circumstances, whether they
are perpetrators, victims, or witnesses to violence, there is a need for them to adapt to
their surrounding environment. Chronic danger requires developmental adjustments in
which the youth develops a representation of the world, which then provides a framework
to make sense of this continuous danger (Garbarino et al. 1991). Youth may cope with
this situation by adopting a different persona or worldview and then use this persona or
5
worldview to interact with their world and deal with the danger to which they are
constantly exposed. One potential consequence of this persona may be that it becomes
dysfunctional in any “normal” situation (Garbarino at al. 1991). For example, youth who
defend themselves in the neighborhood by becoming hyper-aggressive may risk peer
rejection at school where other students may not accept this aggressive nature and may
avoid interactions with this youth. This chronic exposure to dangerous situations has been
observed in areas with a high prevalence of community violence. This type of exposure
likely leads to sustained concerns with emotional stability or with youth having problems
interacting with their environment and others.
Chronic levels of community violence may cause youth to act in desensitized
ways as a result of personal hurt and loss (Farrell & Bruce, 1997). This type of adaptation
becomes a concern as youth begin to lose sight of the negative implications that violence
can have. In turn, these youth continue to engage in behaviors that encourage repeated
exposure to violence and may, therefore, prevent youth from engaging in alternate
behaviors that may actually prevent continued exposure to violence.
It should be noted that some studies suggest that youth do not become
desensitized to community violence through repeated exposure (Mc Cart, Smith,
Saunders, Kilpatrick, Resnick, & Ruggiero, 2007). Studies reaching this conclusion were
based on findings that showed youth exhibiting lower levels of emotional distress even
with increased exposure to violence (McCart, et al., 2007). However, other studies have
demonstrated that an increased level of violence exposure leads to higher levels of
emotional distress (Farrell & Bruce, 1997; Gargino, Kostenlny & Dubrow, 1991; Lynch,
6
2003). These mixed results suggest factors that serve to protect youth against community
violence may not have been accounted for in both types of studies. For instance, parental
emotional availability and encouragement for children to talk about traumatic events have
been shown to reduce youth distress (McCart et al., 2007); factors such as this may have
been excluded from these studies, thus preventing an understanding of potential
mediating influences.
Whether youth are experiencing isolated incidents of violence or chronic levels of
exposure, there are potential emotional as well as behavioral consequences. In addition,
there are potential implications on the level of engagement in school and the academic
performance of students. The following examines consequences youth may experience
with community violence exposure.
7
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Consequences of Violence Exposure
Research shows that exposure to violence may affect the cognitive and social
development of youth in different ways and compromise their physical and mental health.
Encounters with violence are inherently stressful and are likely to result in a heightened
sense of arousal, hypervigilance and concentration difficulties that persist over time
(Mrug, Loosier & Windle, 2008).
Adolescents are at a time in their lives when they are learning to navigate their
world and to engage in social relationships. Exposure to community violence forces
youth to try to make sense of these events and deal with these experiences when they are
still developing socially and emotionally. In the midst of trying to navigate their
emotional and cognitive well-being, exposure to violence creates additional demands that
can have implications for their psychological adjustment. These events may challenge
their emotional and cognitive growth and interfere with the development of selfregulation, or the ability to control their attention, emotions and behaviors (Mrug et al.,
2008). Being a victim or witness to violence is likely to undermine youth’s sense of
security, making it difficult for them to establish secure relationships and to participate in
developmentally healthy activities (Mrug et al., 2008). Violence exposure may cause
youth to question the world in which they live and the people with whom they interact,
preventing them from being comfortable building or maintaining healthy relationships.
8
Violence exposure may furthermore compromise the confidence of youth as they
attempt to navigate the world around them. Developing confidence in one’s ability to
solve problems and build relationships contributes to a belief that social settings are
comprehensible, manageable and responsive to one’s needs (Nash, 2002). Thus, when
exposure to violence threatens the ability to solve problems and develop relationships
with people in the community, youth are at risk of having a compromised sense of
security. These concerns also have potential implications for mental health and emotional
well-being. These consequences can be separated into internalizing and externalizing
behaviors.
Internalizing Behaviors
Exposure to violence has been shown to have adverse effects on mental health
and emotional stability (Farrell & Bruce, 1997; Thompson et al., 2007). Depression,
anxiety and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptomology have been noted as
consequences of violence exposure (Horowitz, McKay, Marshall, 2005; Scarpa & Haden,
2006; Lambert, Ialong, Boyd, & Cooley, 2005; Patchin, Huebner, McCluskey, Varano &
Bynum, 2003). Research has also linked violence exposure to substance abuse, poor peer
relationships, and higher rates of juvenile delinquency (Thompson at el., 2007).
Farrell and Bruce (1997) have reported that exposure to high levels of violence
can result in higher levels of depression for youth such as stress and feelings of grief after
exposure to violence. Other research has found significant relationships between the
levels of violence exposure and overall distress, including symptoms of intrusive
thoughts, nervousness, loneliness, sleep problems, and worrying (Martinez & Richters,
9
1993). Not surprisingly, for youth exposed to violence, internalizing and externalizing
behaviors frequently co-occur (Lambert et al., 2005).
Externalizing Behaviors
Externalizing behaviors such as aggression and antisocial behaviors have
frequently been noted as consequences to violence exposure (Bailey, Hannigan, DelaneyBlack, Covington & Sokol, 2006; Rosenfeld, Richman, Bowen, & Wynns, 2006).
Aggressive behaviors such as fighting or yelling are forms of externalizing behaviors.
Lynch (2003) found a positive correlation between violence exposure and incidents of
aggressive behavior in a sample of 5th through 10th graders. Some studies have noted
exposure to community violence may result in learned aggressive behaviors (Patchin,
Huebner, McCluskey, Varano & Bynum, 2006). The use of aggressive situational
responses, such as carrying a weapon as a means of self-defense, can be viewed as a
“learned response” to deal with violence (Patchin et al., 2006). This “learned response”
may additionally serve as a dysfunctional approach in other situations. Youth may adapt
an aggressive approach in an effort to deal with the experiences they face in their
neighborhood. This approach may function relatively well in the context of that
neighborhood, however, this aggressive approach is likely to be maladaptive in other
environments such as school or with family. Additionally, those who adopt this
aggressive approach may invite others to act aggressively towards them.
Aggressive behaviors are not the only behaviors that youth exposed to community
violence may develop. Many youth also engage in delinquent behaviors. Delinquent acts
include behaviors such as getting into fights, attacking people, stealing, being involved in
10
drugs, and carrying a firearm (Office of Applied Studies, 2005). Aggression can be
viewed as a more general description, while delinquency often refers to antisocial
behaviors adolescents engage in that are often illegal and are a focus of juvenile justice
agencies. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health estimates that 9 million or 36
percent of youth between the ages 12-to-17 had engaged in at least one delinquent
behavior in the past year (Office of Applied Studies, 2005). Frequently youth who engage
in aggressive behaviors also engage in delinquent acts, and often these behaviors are
carried out at school, a point to which I now focus on.
Violence and the School Experience
While there has been a wide array of research exploring the impact that violence
has on emotional well-being and development for children, the specific consequences on
school achievement has not been explored in the same depth. The violence that is seen in
the community is not isolated to neighborhoods or homes. This violence also manifests at
school. In a survey of New York City high school students, 36 percent reported being
threatened with physical harm at school during the preceding school year (O’Donnell,
Schwab-Stone & Muyeed, 2002). Several national and regional large-sample studies have
found that as many as one-third of junior high and high school youth have been
threatened with physical harm at school (O’Donnell et al., 2002). These studies show
that the violence that once seemed to be isolated in surrounding neighborhoods has found
a place in schools.
When adolescents are forced to deal with violence in their neighborhoods and
their schools, there are implications for their education. According to a 1995 national
11
survey by the National Teens Crime and Community program, between 25 and 42
percent of 2,023 public, private and parochial school students in grades 7 through 12
reported feeling unsafe in their neighborhoods, schools and on their way to and from
school (Bowen & Bowen, 1999). In the same manner that feeling unsafe at school may
lead to students missing class, feeling unsafe in one’s neighborhood may prevent students
from going to school. Students who are afraid to go to school are more likely to cut
classes. Absences from school and feelings of fear may impact academic achievement
(Henrich, Schwab-Stone, Fanti, Jones, Ruchkin, 2004). In addition to missing school,
students who have been exposed to violence in the community utilize cognitive resources
to deal with traumatic events and may consequently have fewer resources available to be
successful in school. Students who witness more types of violence tend to under perform
academically compared to those who witness less violence (Henrich, Schwab-Stone,
Fanti, Jones, & Ruchkin, 2004). In such cases increased exposure results in lower
educational outcomes (Thompson at el, 2007) and lower grades (Solberg, Carlstrom,
Howard & Jones, 2007). Students who have their mind on other events have difficulty
devoting their attention to school.
Evidence suggests that students themselves believe crime and violence impact
school performance, with youth from at-risk neighborhoods attributing poor performance
and school-related problems to crime or the threat of crime (Bowen & Bowen, 1999). In
a national study by Bowen and Bowen (1999), 12 percent of students reported that crime
had caused them to receive lower grades in school. In this same study, Bowen and Bowen
(1999) found that neighborhood violence and school danger accounted for 17 percent of
12
the variance in getting into trouble at school, about 14 percent of the variance in
attendance, and 5 percent of the variance in grades. Another study found that youth in the
most vulnerable at-risk group for exposure to violence reported significantly lower endof-semester grades and lower retention rates compared to less vulnerable groups
(Solberg, Carlstrom, Howard & Jones, 2007).
School Misconduct
Youth not only suffer academic consequences when exposed to violence, they
also experience disruptive behaviors at school. The limited amount of evidence available
suggests an association between witnessing violence and displaying trouble behaviors in
school (Bowen & Bowen, 1999). In particular, students who were concerned about
danger in school or violence in the neighborhood were more likely to have problematic
behaviors in school and less likely to attend school as a result of fear.
School misconduct is an area of concern for children who have been exposed to
violence and aggressive behaviors. Involvement in aggressive behaviors in the
community or home will likely carry over to similar types of behavior at school.
Research has shown that neighborhood danger, especially when experienced personally,
has a negative influence on attendance and school satisfaction and makes it more difficult
for youth to avoid trouble (Rosenfeld et. al., 2006). Youth who are exposed to danger in
their neighborhood are more likely to cut school and are also less satisfied with school.
As a result these youth are less motivated to behave appropriately at school and are more
likely to be disruptive and act out aggressively.
13
The relationship between community violence exposure and academic functioning
appears to occur primarily through mediational pathways whereas violence exposure is
linked to externalizing behaviors, which then negatively impact academic performance.
Therefore, youth who are exposed to violence tend to engage in more aggressive
behaviors and misconduct at school, which then prevents them from engaging in the
school process and negatively impacts their ability to perform well academically. This
may have a confounding effect. Research shows that even limited involvement in
disruptive behaviors may lead to high-risk behaviors in the future (Barone, Weissberg,
Kasprow, Voyce, Arthur & Shriver, 1995). Youth exposed to aggressive behaviors are at
risk of repeating these behaviors in the future in a number of domains, for instance
aggressive behaviors have been shown to be correlated with school misconduct (Barone
et al., 1995). Therefore, youth exposed to aggressive behaviors outside of school may be
at risk for increased problems at school. The circular nature of this scenario may lead
youth to engage in more aggressive behaviors at school, which may reinforce the
environment in which they have been exposed to. In addition, the constant disruption at
school will likely take the student out of the classroom and away from learning.
Social Cognition Theory
Researchers have used the social cognition theory to explain youth violence. This
theory suggests that exposure to violence increases the likelihood that youth will engage
in future aggression and violence (Farrell & Bruce, 1997). This theory is supported by
research showing a desensitization process with chronic exposure. That is, individuals
who learn aggressive behaviors are more likely to repeat these behaviors, especially when
14
repeatedly exposed to them. As Farrell and Bruce state, “exposure to violence can teach
new violent and aggressive behaviors to children and weaken children’s disinhibition
about behaving aggressively” (1997, p.3). With chronic exposure to community violence,
the violence and aggression observed in the environment tends to become normalized to
individuals as they become used to behaving in a manner that is consistent with the
immediate environment.
Violence exposure and aggression may have a reciprocal relationship, where
increases in violence exposure are related to increases in aggression. Scarpa and Haden
(2006) asserted that aggressive individuals might be exposed to a multitude of events,
such as gang membership, environmental risks, or involvement in risky situations, all of
which may then cause individuals to be more likely to be victims of crime. Youth who
are engaging in aggressive behaviors may be placing themselves in situations that cause
them to be more likely to be exposed to even greater violence. Another potential
consequence is that these youth may then be drawn to peers who are engaging in similar
behaviors.
Peer Relationships
The social relationships in which youth are involved in plays a role in their
behaviors. In deviant peer relationships, when youth become involved in peer
relationships where other youth are engaging in delinquent behaviors, they are also more
likely to engage in antisocial behaviors such as fighting and drug use. Adolescents’
delinquent behavior is strongly predicted by the extent to which their peers are involved
in delinquent behaviors (Laird, Criss, Pettit, Dodge & Bates, 2007). Deviant peer
15
relationships have been shown to be linked to higher rates of community violence
exposure and increases in antisocial behavior via modeling (Mrug et al., 2008). This type
of relationship has been demonstrated to be related to poor academic performance and
can lead to school disengagement, which can then have serious academic consequences
such as low academic achievement (Kenny et al., 2003). Youth who become disengaged
from school are less likely to be successful compared to peers who are engaged in the
school process. In addition to the consequences that violence exposure can have on
individual youth, the attitudes these students bring to the classroom can also impact other
students. A student who is behaving aggressively in the classroom will create an
environment that is difficult for other students to learn. In addition, the resources of the
teacher are now being diverted to addressing this student’s behavior and taken away from
learning in the classroom. It should be noted that peer relationships can also serve as a
protective factor for youth. The possible role of positive peer relationships will be
discussed later.
Despite the ramifications of exposure to violence, many youth who are exposed to
violence are still successful in school and in other domains. Research has shown a
number of protective factors that can help youth be resilient in the face of these concerns.
The next section investigates protective factors such as peer or family support that can aid
in resiliency for youth.
16
Resiliency and Protective Factors
Resilience can be defined as successful coping in specific domains, including both
behavioral and emotional arenas, under conditions of high stress (O’Donnell, SchwabStone, & Muyeed 2002). Possible protective factors have been explored which may aid
youth in being resilient despite exposure to violence. The family environment is one
example of a protective factor against violence (O’Donnell et al., 2002). This influence is
especially important when youth are younger as they spend a majority of time with their
family and caretakers. Older youth may begin to spend more time with their peers,
creating an additional source of support or influence. Social support can come from
parents and peers, as well as extended family or other important people in a youth’s life.
When exploring the possible protective role of family support it is essential to note the
distinction between violence that occurs in the community setting and violence that
occurs in other settings such as one’s home. Research has suggested that violence that
occurs in different settings and being either a witness or a victim may be associated with
different outcomes for the individual (Thompson, Proctor, Weisbart, Lewis, English,
Hussey & Runyan, 2007). For example, violence that occurs at one’s home may have a
different impact on individuals compared to other settings. Youth who experience family
violence are often found to be at elevated risks for emotional and behavioral problems
such as depression and anxiety (Mc Cart, Smith, Saunders, Kilpatrick, Resnick, &
Ruggiero, 2007), whereas community violence exposure does not always carry the same
level of risk. Since the youth may be living with and are often dependent on family
members in what would normally be considered a safe haven, family violence may have
17
a more profound impact (Mrug, Loosier & Windle, 2008). Muller and colleagues note
that several studies have examined the effects of social support on community violence
but have failed to examine participants’ exposure to violence within the family (Muller,
Gobel-Fabbri, Diamond & Dinklage, 2000). Taking into consideration the level of family
violence is critical to better understand the unique role of social support in family
violence. The intimate nature of family violence can have different impacts when
compared to violence perpetrated by individuals outside of the family unit. Family
violence can involve violations of trust in relationships and is often surrounded by
secrecy (Muller et al., 2000). Additionally, the protective factors that may support a
youth with violence in one setting may not be as useful with violence in another setting.
For example, while strong ties to the family can serve as a protective factor in community
violence exposure, these strong ties can have varying impacts if the violence occurs in the
family, and may even serve as an additional barrier for youth in these situations. Thus, it
is important to consider the setting where violence occurs to better understand the
consequences of exposure. Additionally, failure to explore community violence and
family violence separately may not allow for a deeper examination of the risk and
protective factors, especially the role that family support may have in violence. However,
there still remains great difficulty in determining the level of family violence due to the
secrecy that often surrounds these events. In addition, researchers challenged with trying
to gather this information are often faced with additional burdens such as privacy
concerns and the potential need to report incidents of family violence to law enforcement
or child protective service agencies1.
18
Social Support
Social support can be defined as verbal and nonverbal communication that serves
to reduce uncertainty about situations and contributes to increases in feelings of personal
control (Rosenfeld, Richman, Bowen & Wynns, 2006). Social support has been shown to
serve as a protective factor against violence exposure (Rosenfeld et al., 2000; Muller et
al, 2000; Overstreet, Dempsey, Graham & Moley, 1999) where increased levels of
support decrease the negative consequences of such exposure. Social support has also
been shown to be positively related to school outcomes such as school attendance,
academic performance, behavioral adjustment and school motivation (Rosenfeld, 2006).
Research has demonstrated the positive impact that adult social support can have
on school achievement. In a sample of urban adolescents, those youth who reported
higher levels of support from family maintained more positive attitudes about the value
of school and reported they were more likely to do homework, go to class and pay
attention in class (Kenny et al., 2003). Another study found that higher levels of extended
kinship support were related to stronger school values (Pallock & Lamborn, 2006). In
particular, youths with stronger extended family support were more engaged in school,
held stronger school values and had higher school aspirations (Pallock & Lamborn,
2006). These studies demonstrate that family can serve as an important factor in
academic success even when children are exposed to violence.
Research has furthermore demonstrated that the presence of a positive social
relationship with a caring adult serves as a protective factor in reducing the impact of
adverse circumstances (Kenny, Bluestein, Chaves, Grossman & Gallagher, 2003). This
19
suggests that having a positive social relationship may be important in overcoming the
effects of violence exposure. This finding is consistent with literature that has
documented that negative interactions may have adverse social and psychological effects.
In fact, negative social relationships are often more powerful predictors of well-being
than are positive social relationships, where past studies have found that social strain was
a stronger predictor of outcomes than social support (Overstreet et al., 1999). A negative
social relationship, or a lack of relationships, may make the integration of traumatic
events more difficult and consequently harder to deal with. It can be assumed that a
positive family relationship with a mother, father, both or other significant individual in a
youth’s life, may serve as a protective factor for youth exposed to violence as the youth
has the potential to discuss and understand the traumatic event.
Social support can come as actual received support or as perceived social support.
Received support involves help that was already given to the individual while perceived
support is the belief that helping behaviors will occur in the future (Scarpa & Haden,
2006). The perception that one has social support may be a protective factor against the
impact of community violence more so than actual received support. The perception that
there are people who care and who are willing to provide support may encourage an
individual to discuss events and to be open to talking about what they have experienced.
If a youth does not feel that there is support available from someone they can trust, then
the likelihood of the youth seeking such support is lower. Generally greater social support
is associated with better psychological outcomes, and perceived rather than actual
received social support is predictive of better outcomes in times of stress (Scarpa &
20
Haden, 2006). A number of studies have demonstrated that feelings of low social support
can be detrimental to well-being, especially in the case of violence exposure (Bailey,
Hannigan, Delaney-Black, Covington, & Sokol, 2006; Muller, Goebel-Fabbri, Diamond,
& Dinklage, 2000; Overstreet, & Braun, 2000).
Parental Support
Social relationships provide adults and young people with coping resources to
help deal with traumatic events. Youth, especially young children, are likely to engage in
this social relationship with their parents. It has been found that youth experiencing high
levels of community violence and inadequate social support (measured by a youth’s
perceptions of the general parent-child relationship) have higher levels of intrusive
thinking relative to other youth (Overstreet, Dempsey, Graham & Moely, 1999). It can be
assumed that these youth did not have the resources or parental availability to discuss and
process traumatic events. In these instances young people are limited in their
opportunities to try and integrate the event into their understanding of self and world.
Parental support has long been regarded as an important factor in the healthy
development of children. Parent and child interactions are strong predictors of life
satisfaction for adolescents (Young, Miller, Norton & Hill, 1995). Parental involvement
in children’s lives has been shown to be associated with less witnessing of and
victimization by violence (Pearce, Jones, Schawb-Stone & Ruchkin, 2003). A greater
level of parental involvement has also been associated with a decrease in conduct
problems (Pearce et al., 2003). The extensive support positive family interactions can
have on youth lends support to the view that parents can serve as a buffer against the
21
impact of community violence exposure. However, some studies have failed to show a
connection between family support and adaptive coping (Scarpa, & Haden, 2006). These
conflicting findings may be related to how researchers understand and define family
support. It is also important to note, as mentioned above, many of these studies have not
been able to assess the level of family violence that may be present.
Many studies have explored parental involvement or support, especially in terms
of the amount of time a parent spends with a child. However, recent research has
challenged the idea that the quantity of time is the driving factor, and started to instead
examine the quality of the parent-child interactions. In addition, as discussed above,
youth’s perceptions of received support are important in determining how they interact
with parents. Adolescents’ perceptions of parental support are positively correlated with
life satisfaction (Young et al., 1995) more so than is the number of parent-child
interactions. Studies that failed to find support for the benefits of parents’ interactions
may have focused on frequency data more so than the quality of time spent and the
perceptions of the child.
Young et al. (1995) defines parental support in three dimensions: intrinsic
support, extrinsic support and closeness. Intrinsic support consists of variables such as
encouragement and appreciation, whereas extrinsic support includes external expressions
of support such as hugging (Young et al., 1995). These domains focus on the actions that
the parent is presenting to the child and how the child perceives these actions. Closeness
is defined as including the child’s perceptions of closeness to the parent and wanting to
be like the parent or enjoying activities with the parent (Young et al., 1995). This domain
22
speaks more to the nature of the relationship. With this view of parental support it can be
seen that the quantity of time may not necessarily indicate a close relationship between a
child and a parent. A child can spend many hours with a parent, but if that time does not
convey feelings of love or enjoyment to the child, then the benefits may be compromised.
These studies suggest that the quality of the relationship can make a difference in the
young person’s life (Rohner & Veneziano, 2001; Rohner, 1998) where active
participation in that child’s life, rather than simply the amount of contact, is an important
factor (Cabrera, Tamis-LeMonda, Bradley, Hofferth & Lamb, 2000). Additionally, young
people need to feel that their parent is available when there are emotional and physical
needs. For example, parental emotional availability and encouragement of youth to talk
about traumatic experiences have been shown to reduce levels of distress following
victimization (McCart et al., 2007). A parent must be willing to help the youth in this
way, and the mere presence of a parent does not automatically mean that support will be
provided.
Support from Extended Family
Parental involvement may be a strong support system that youth can access in an
effort to negate the negative consequences of violence exposure. However, some young
people may not have this traditional parental support, but are still able to overcome
adversities. As youth live in less traditional settings, there are other resources that may
become available. Children may not have complete access to their mother or father for
one reason or another or they may not receive the level of support that has been shown to
provide protective factors. However, many children do have access to extended kinship
23
networks, or other significant people in their lives who can serve as a support person and
who may mediate the impact of exposure to violence. For example, youth who perceive
more social support from extended kin are less likely to exhibit problem behavior and
more likely to have higher grades in school (Kenny et al., 2003). It is possible that the
presence of some significant support person can play an important factor in the resiliency
of children. While this does not negate the strong influence that parents have on their
children, both positive and negative, it is also important to recognize that youth may have
access to other support persons.
As discussed above, as youth grow older and spend more time away from the
home, peers may start to serve as an important source of support or influence. Similar to
relationships with family, positive peer relations may serve as a protective factor for
those youth exposed to community violence. Thus, while deviant peer relationships can
be related to lower school engagement, positive peer relationships can be related to
higher levels of engagement.
Summary
While a growing number of children are being exposed to violence in the
community, many children are still successful in school and in life. Children who are
better able to deal with violence in the community may have a higher level of resilience.
Therefore, they are better able to handle and be successful in daily events such as
attending school. Research has shown that family or social support can help children be
more successful in school, and when youth are exposed to violence this support may
serve to mediate the negative impact of such exposure. When violence exposure is
24
present, family support may be an important factor in helping a child navigate through
these experiences in a manner that allows them to cope with their environment in a
positive manner. Research needs to explore the different and unique impact that parents
have, while also considering the fact that children may receive social support from
extended family, fictive kinship networks or their peers. A better understanding of the
protective factors in place for children can help develop prevention and intervention
programs to help mediate the impact of violence in communities in which children live,
allowing for better interventions when dealing with academic difficulties.
25
Chapter 3
THE PRESENT STUDY
The present study explores the level of community violence high school youth
have been exposed to and the impact this exposure has on internalizing behaviors,
externalizing behaviors and academic achievement. This study focuses on community
violence, with an emphasis on violent events youth have witnessed or experienced in
their neighborhoods or at school. It was not possible to gauge the level of family violence
due to privacy concerns. Therefore, in this study it was not possible to rule out the level
of family violence and what impact it may have had on the outcomes of interest. Rather,
this study included social support in an effort to learn what protective role family support
may have in violence.
Hypotheses
This study examined three hypotheses. First, it was expected that exposure to
higher levels of witnessing community violence and higher levels of violence
victimization, would be linked to higher levels of internalizing behaviors (e.g., feelings of
sadness and distress) and externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression and delinquency).
Exposure to violence has been shown to have adverse effects on mental health and
emotional stability (Farrell & Bruce, 1997), and has been linked to increases in
aggression and antisocial behaviors (Bailey, Hannigan, Delaney-Black, Covington &
Sokol, 2006; Rosenfeld, Richman, Bowen, & Wynns, 2006). Second, it was also
expected that students exposed to higher levels of community violence, compared to
26
those with lower levels of violence exposure would have poorer school attendance, would
engage in more disruptive behaviors at school, and would perform worse academically.
Exposure to violence in the neighborhood has been shown to have negative consequences
on school behavior and performance (Bowen & Bowen, 1999). Both witnessing and
being a victim of violence can have adverse effects on many areas of school, from grades
to attendance. Finally, youth who perceived having more support from their family and
friends were expected to demonstrate fewer of the negative consequences of violence
exposure compared to those who perceived less support from their family and friends.
Studies have noted that protective factors for community violence include positive
parenting and social support (Bailey, Hannigan, Delaney-Black, Covington, & Sokol,
2006). Higher levels of social support are believed to contribute to less disruptive
behaviors at school and higher performance outcomes even with exposure to violence.
Method
Participants
One hundred and fifty-nine participants were recruited from a northern California
high school. The school resides in an inner-city neighborhood and serves primarily socioeconomically disadvantaged, minority populations. The school has been designated as a
“Title I” school by its school district as a result of consistently low-test scores on the
California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) test.
After receiving approval from the University’s Institutional Review Board and the
school district, the researcher requested participation from teachers at the school. The
researcher attended classes of teachers who indicated they would allow class time for
27
students to participate in the packet of surveys described below. Students were initially
given parental consent forms, which were required for participation in the study. A week
later student consent forms were handed out to those students who had returned the
parental consent forms. Students who returned parental consent forms and who agreed to
participate then were administered surveys.
Thirty-two percent of the sample were males (n = 50) and 68 percent were female
(n = 107), with a mean age of 15.77 years. Two youth did not complete demographic
information. Twenty-six percent of the students were in 9th grade (n = 41), 29 percent
were in 10th grade (n = 46), 29 percent were in 11th grade (n = 45), and 15 percent were in
12th grade (n = 24). One youth indicated an “other” grade level.
Thirty-nine percent of the sample identified as Latin/Spanish or of Mexican
Origin (n = 61), 29 percent were Asian American/ Pacific Islander (n = 46), 11 percent
identified as Black (n = 17), 8 percent identified as multi-ethnic (n = 12), 7 percent,
White (n = 11), and 6 percent as other (n = 10).
Many of the students did not know the highest level of education their parents
achieved, with 38 percent of the sample reporting that they did not know how much
education their mother had and 48 percent indicating they did not know how much
education their father had. For those who indicated the highest level of education for a
parent, 14 percent reported their mother “completed high school” and 18 percent reported
their father “completed high school.” Thirteen percent of the mothers had “some college
education” and 10 percent “completed college”; eight percent of the fathers had “some
college education” and 6 percent “completed college.”
28
Measures
The following measures of violence exposure, internalizing behaviors,
externalizing behaviors, school performance and attendance, social support, parental
support and acculturation were administered in addition to a demographics form.
Violence Exposure. This 25-item inventory developed by Schwartz and Proctor
(2000) measures both exposure to violence through witnessing and victimization. For the
victimization portion, participants respond to 10 items on a 4-point scale (0 = never, 1 =
once, 3 = a few times or 4 = lot of times) to whether they have been chased by gangs,
threatened, hit punched or experienced other similar events at any time in the past. For
the witnessing portion of the inventory, participants respond to 13 items on the same
scale to observing events such as someone else being threatened, someone else carrying a
weapon or seeing or hearing gunshots. Two questions were removed from the inventory
due to concerns from the school district’s institutional review board. Specifically, the
questions asking “How many times has somebody fired a gun at you or at your home?”
and “How many times have you seen somebody get killed?” were removed for the
victimization and the witnessing portions of the scale, respectively. Scores were
calculating by summing the 10 and 13 items, respectively, for each portion of the
victimization and witnessing sections, with higher scores indicating higher levels of
exposure. The scale was internally consistent for both the victimization portion ( = .83)
and the witnessing portion ( = .92).
29
Internalizing Behaviors. The inventory measuring internalizing behaviors was
taken from the Youth Self-Report Inventory (Laird, Criss, Pettit, Dodge, & Bates, 2008)
and explores feelings of sadness, worthlessness, loneliness and guilt. Participants respond
on a 3-point scale (0 = not at all, 1 = sometimes, 2 = very often) to how often now or in
the past 6 months they have experienced these feelings. The 15 items of the inventory
were summed for one total score, with higher scores indicating greater feelings of
sadness, worthlessness, etc. This measure was internally consistent,  = .89.
Externalizing Behaviors. The measure for externalizing behaviors was taken
from an inventory used by Barone, Weissberg, Kasprow, Voyce, Arthur, and Shriver
(1995) which was adapted from the 248-item version of the Social and Health
Assessment (SAHA; Weissberg, Voyce, Kasprow, Arthur, & Shriver, 1991) and asked
participants how often in the past 6 months they engaged in behaviors such as hitting
someone because they did not like what they said, hitting a teacher, carrying a gun,
cheating on test, or vandalizing property. Participants respond to the 10-item inventory on
a 5-point Likert scale with anchors of 0(never) to 4(five or more times). Higher total
summed scores indicate a greater frequency of engaging in these types of behaviors. The
scale was internally consistent at  = .84.
School Performance and Attendance. Measures for school performance and
attendance were adapted from the School Success Profile (Rosenfeld, Richman, Bowen,
& Wynns, 2006). School performance was measured by self-report grades. Students
indicate what types of grades best describe their academic performance (e.g., mostly A’s,
mostly A’s and B’s, etc.). Students with higher scores were those who reported poorer
30
performance, therefore a student who indicate they were failing would receive a higher
score then a student who indicated they were doing well academically. For school
attendance, participants endorse either a “yes” or “no” to 5 questions such as “during the
previous seven days have you cut at least one class?” and “during the previous seven
days have you been suspended from school?” An endorsement of “yes” was scored as a
point. The total “yes” endorsements were summed together with higher scores
representing a higher frequency of missing school.
Social Support. The perceived level of social support was assessed using the 18item Medical Outcome Study Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS; Gjesfjeld, Greeno, &
Kim, 2008). Participants indicate how often various types of support are available to
them on a 5-point likert scale with anchors (1 = none of the time to 5 = all of the time).
Questions include items asking if there is “someone you can count on to listen to you
when you need to talk” and “someone to give you information to help you understand a
situation.” Scores were summed with higher values indicating greater levels of perceived
support. Internal consistency was  = .94.
Parental Support. Parental support was measured using a 10-item scale
(O’Donnell, Schwab-Stone, & Muyeed, 2002). Using a 4-point scale, participants
responded to statements including “my parents or guardians show interest in what I think
or in how I feel about different things” and “when you have a problem that really bothers
you, how often do you talk about it with a parent or guardian?” Again, higher total sum
scores indicate greater levels of support. Internal consistency reached  = .80.
31
Acculturation. The questions assessing acculturation were adapted from the
Multidimensional Measure of Cultural Identity Scales (Dillon, Fe´lix-Ortiz, Rice, De La
Rosa, Rojas & Duan, 2009). Questions ask where participants were born, and if they were
not born in the United States, how long they and/or their parents have been in the United
States. From this measure it was determined for how many generations the participant has
been in the United States. Students ranged from being at least 4th generation in the U.S. to
first generation, i.e., recently immigrated to the U.S.
32
Chapter 4
RESULTS
Analyses
The frequency and prevalence of exposure to community violence was examined
using several statistic techniques. The correlations between witnessing violence,
victimization to violence, internalizing behaviors, externalizing behaviors, parent support
and social support were explored to determine the interrelationship among predictor and
outcome variables
Two separate regression analysis were conducted: one regression analysis used
the predictors of violence exposure and social support to predict internalizing behaviors
and the other used the same set of predictors to predict externalizing behaviors. Violence
exposure was separated into witnessing and victimization domains and social support was
separated into general social support and parental support.
A multivariate ANOVA was conducted using levels of violence exposure as an
independent variable and school misconduct, attendance, and grades as dependent
variables. Two separate MANOVAs were conducted, one focusing on witnessing
violence and the other focusing on direct exposure to violence (victimization). For both
types of violence there were three categories, one group that had no exposure, a second
group with some exposure and the third group having high levels of exposure. For both
witnessing and direct exposure, the group categorized as “no exposure” reported no
incidents of violence contact. The designation of some exposure and high levels of
33
exposure was based on a median split for youth who reported exposure to violence. For
witnessing violence, youth who reported a score of 14 or less were in the group with
some exposure, and youth with a score of 15 or higher were considered to be in the high
exposure group. For direct exposure, a score of 4 or less was for youth with some
exposure and any youth with a score of 5 or higher was in the high exposure group. The
highest scores reported on the witnessing scale were 38 and the highest on the direct
exposure scale were 22. School misconduct was assessed in terms of how often students
engaged in behaviors such as cheating at school or lying to a teacher, vandalizing school
property or being sent out of the classroom for misbehaving. These items were taken
from the measure exploring externalizing behaviors.
Although not central to this present study, additional analysis looking at gender
and generational status were also conducted. A multivariate ANOVA was conducted
using gender as the independent variable and levels of violence exposure and
internalizing and externalizing behaviors as the dependent variables. An additional
MANOVA was also conducted using generational status as the independent variable with
the same dependent variables. Generational status was explored in terms of how long the
student and their family have been in the United States and range from students who had
immigrated to the country themselves to 3rd generation and beyond.
Descriptives
Means and standard deviations for the study variables are presented.
34
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations
Variable
M
SD
Witness to Violence
15.83
9.24
Victim of Violence
5.38
5.18
Internalizing Behaviors
11.70
6.98
Externalizing Behaviors
11.16
8.66
Social Support
53.66
14.66
Parental Support
25.48
5.92
Eighty-four percent of the sample reported at least one incident of direct violence
exposure by victimization. A majority of the youth (62%) reported being hit, punched or
slapped at least once, with 13 percent of the sample reporting this happening multiple
times. Many of the youth (49%) also had objects such as bottles or rocks thrown at them,
with 23 percent of the sample reporting this occurring multiple times. Almost all of the
participants also reported witnessing violence, with 97 percent reporting witnessing at
least one incident of violence. Eighty-two percent of youth reported witnessing or hearing
someone else being threatened. Seventy-nine percent of youth reported seeing on
multiple occasions someone else be hit, punched or slapped. Sixty-five percent reported
at least one-time witnessing someone (other than the police) carrying a weapon and 90
35
percent of the sample reported hearing gunshots at least once, with 75 percent reporting
hearing gunshots on multiple occasions.
Pearson product-moment correlations for the main variables in this study are
presented in Table 2. As shown, participants who experienced higher levels of direct
exposure to community violence also witnessed higher levels of violence. Those who had
higher levels of victimization by violence expressed lower levels of parental support,
more externalizing behaviors and higher levels of internalizing behaviors. Those who
witnessed higher levels of violence also demonstrated more externalizing and
internalizing behaviors. General social support was not found to correlate significantly
with either level of violence exposure.
Table 2
Intercorrelations for High School Youth Exposed to Community Violence
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. Witness to Violence
-
.697**
.441**
.528**
.108
-.111
-
.519**
.521**
-.038
-.226**
-
.309**
-.080
-.117
-
.028
-.183*
2. Victim of Violence
3. Internalizing Behaviors
4. Externalizing Behaviors
5. Social Support
6. Parental Support
* p < .05, ** p < .01.
-
.444**
-
36
Predictor Variables of Externalizing and Internalizing Behaviors
To test the hypotheses that witnessing community violence, violence
victimization, and social support would be related to higher levels of internalizing and
externalizing behaviors, separate standard multiple regression analyses were conducted
with social support, parental support, levels of violence victimization and levels of
witnessing violence serving as the independent variables for each outcomes variable,
externalizing behaviors and internalizing behaviors. The first regression analysis included
the outcome variable externalizing behaviors. Regression results are summarized in Table
3. The model was significant, F(4, 152) = 18.45, p < .001, R2 = .33, R2 adj = .31 with
two of the four independent variables contributing significantly to the prediction of
externalizing behaviors. Specifically, as expected, higher levels of experiencing and
witnessing violence predicted higher levels of externalizing behaviors.
37
Table 3
Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Externalizing Behaviors
Variable
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
SEB
Beta
Witness to Violence
.287
.089
.305**
Victim of Violence
.474
.160
.284**
Social Support
.031
.045
.053
Parent Support
-.156
.111
-.107
Note: R2 = .33 (N = 159, p < .001).
* p < .05, ** p < .01.
A second standard multiple regression was conducted with the same predictor variables
included in the first regression analysis and internalizing behaviors serving as the
outcome variable. These regression results are summarized in Table 4. The model was
significant, F(4, 152) = 15.55, p < .001, R2 = .29, R2 adj = .27. Similar to the previous
regression analysis with externalizing behaviors, witnessing and experiencing violence
significantly predicted internalizing behaviors.
38
Table 4
Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Internalizing Behaviors
Variable
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
SEB
Beta
Witness to Violence
.146
.074
.192*
Victim of Violence
.521
.132
.387**
Social Support
-.048
.037
-.101
Parent Support
.040
.092
.034
Note: R2 = .29 (N = 159, p < .001).
* p < .05, ** p < .01.
Academic Outcomes
A between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted
on the dependent variables of school misconduct, attendance and grades. The
independent variable was level of exposure to violence by victimization, which included
three levels of “no exposure”, “low exposure” and “high exposure”. Using Wilk’s
criterion (Table 5a), the overall effect was significant F(3, 151) = 4.58 , p < .01.
Univariate ANOVAs were conducted on each dependent measure and are displayed in
Table 5a. There was a significant effect of level of violence exposure on school
misconduct, F(2, 153) = 11.28 , p < .01, η2 = .129, and school attendance F(2, 153) =
39
3.09 , p < .05, η2 = .039, but not on academic performance. Means and standard
deviations are displayed in Table 5b. Pairwise comparisons revealed that students who
had high levels of exposure to violence by victimization engaged in significantly higher
levels of misconduct at school compared to students with some exposure and no
exposure, with no differences between the latter two groups.
Table 5a
Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance by Academic Outcomes by Level of
Victimization of Violence
Multivariate
Univariate
School
Source
df
Fa
F ratios for Academic
3
4.58**
MSE
Misconduct b
11.28**
346.81
Attendance b
Grades b
3.09*
2.30
3.14
6.87
Note: Multivariate F ratios were generated from Wilk’s criterion.
a. Multivariate df = 3, 151.
b. Univariate df = 2, 153.
* p < .05, ** p < .01.
40
Table 5b
Means Scores and Standard Deviations for Measures as a function of Academic
Outcomes and Victimization of Violence
School
Attendance
Grades
Misconduct
Group
No Violence
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
5.04ab
5.50
0.54
0.95
2.85
1.43
5.51 a
4.26
1.09
1.00
3.32
1.67
9.58 b
6.38
1.07
1.03
3.67
1.86
Exposure
Low Violence
Exposure
High Violence
Exposure
Note: Means with same subscript differ significantly at the p < .05 level.
An additional MANOVA looking at the three levels of witnessing violence also found
that frequency of witnessing violence significantly impacted school performance, F(3,
151) = 6.72 , p < .01 (Table 6a). Univariate ANOVAs showed a significant effect of the
amount of violence witnessed on school misconduct F(2, 153) = 17.76 , p < .01, η2 = .188
and attendance F(2, 153) = 5.48 , p < .01, η2 = .067, but not for academic performance
(Table 6a). Means and standard deviations are displayed in Table 6b. Pairwise
comparisons revealed that those students with high levels of witnessing violence engaged
41
in significantly higher levels of school misconduct compared to students with some
exposure and no exposure, with no differences between the latter groups. Students with
high levels of witnessing also had poorer attendance at school compared to students with
lower levels of witnessing violence.
Table 6a
Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance by Academic Outcomes by Level of
Witnessing Violence
Multivariate
Univariate
School
Source
df
Fa
F ratios for Academic
3
6.72**
MSE
Misconduct b
17.76**
508.38
Attendance b
Grades b
5.49*
1.52
5.42
4.59
Note: Multivariate F ratios were generated from Wilk’s criterion.
a. Multivariate df = 3, 151.
b. Univariate df = 2, 153.
* p < .05, ** p < .01.
42
Table 6b
Means Scores and Standard Deviations for Measures as a function of Academic
Outcomes and Witnessing Violence
School
Attendance
Grades
Misconduct
Group
No Violence
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
3.60a
5.37
0.40
0.89
2.60
0.89
4.91 b
4.41
0.76c
0.90
3.23
1.69
9.91 ab
6.12
1.25c
1.08
3.62
1.81
Witness
Low Violence
Witness
High Violence
Witness
Note: Means with same subscript differ significantly at the p < .05 level.
Social Support
As indicated above, social support did yield a significant correlation with parental
support such that students expressed higher levels of social support when they had higher
levels of parental support. Although correlational analysis indicated that students with
higher levels of parental support experienced less violence and had lower levels of
externalizing behaviors, contrary to expectations neither type of support predicted any of
the outcome variables.
43
Additional Analysis
Gender and Violence. A between-subjects MANOVA was conducted on the
dependent variables of witnessing violence, victimization of violence, internalizing
behaviors and externalizing behaviors. Gender served as the independent variable. Using
Wilk’s criterion (Table 7a), the overall effect indicated that the dependent variables were
significantly differentiated by gender, F(4, 151) = 5.01 , p < .01, n2 = .117. Univariate
ANOVAs were conducted on each dependent measure and are displayed in Table 6a.
Gender significantly influenced violence victimization, F(1, 154) = 4.07, p < .05, n2 =
.026, and internalizing symptoms F(1, 154) = 4.53, p < .05, n2 = .029. Means and
standard deviations for the dependent variables are presented in Table 7b. Males were
more often victims of violence than were females and females experienced more feelings
of sadness and anxiety compared to males.
44
Table 7a
Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance by Gender
Multivariate
Source
df
Fa
F ratios
1
5.01**
Univariate
Witness to
Victim of
Internalizing
Externalizing
Violence b
Violence b
Behaviors b
Behaviors b
2.32
4.07*
196.62
107.96
4.54*
1.98
for
Gender
MSE
216.59
Note: Multivariate F ratios were generated from Wilk’s criterion.
a. Multivariate df = 4, 151.
b. Univariate df = 1, 154.
* p < .05, ** p < .01.
148.65
45
Table 7b
Means Scores and Standard Deviations for Measures as a function of Gender
Witness to
Victim of
Internalizing
Externalizing
Violence
Violence
Behaviors
Behaviors
Group
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Male
17.5
10.28
6.66a
5.87
10.06b
6.88
12.62
9.25
Female
15.09
8.65
4.88a
4.78
12.58 b
6.92
10.53
8.38
Note: Means with same subscript differ significantly at the p < .05 level.
Generational Status and Violence. A between-subjects MANOVA was also
conducted using generational status as the independent variable and the dependent
variables of witnessing violence, victimization of violence, internalizing behaviors and
externalizing behaviors. Generational status was determined by when youth and their
family came to the United States. For these analyses, 21 youth were excluded due to
missing information on this demographic. Of the 138 youth remaining, 31 (22%)
indicated that they were born in another country and had immigrated to the U.S. at a
young age; these individuals were 1st generation youth. Sixty-five (46%) indicated that
their parents had immigrated to the U.S. and were considered 2nd generation. Eleven of
the youth (8%) were 3rd generation and 31 of the youth (22%) were at least 4th generation.
Using Wilk’s criterion (Table 8a) the analysis indicated a significant effect of generation
status on the dependent variables, F(4, 131) = 2.35, p < .01, n2 = .067. Univariate
46
ANOVAs were conducted on each dependent variable. There was a significant effect of
generational status on witnessing violence F(3, 134) = 4.76 , p < .01, n2 = .096, and on
externalizing behaviors F(3, 134) = 4.78 , p < .01, n2 = .097.
Table 8a
Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance by Generation
Multivariate
Source
df
Fa
F ratios for
3
2.36**
Univariate
Witness to
Victim of
Internalizing
Externalizing
Violence b
Violence b
Behaviors b
Behaviors b
0.98
0.69
25.62
31.88
4.76**
4.78**
Generation
MSE
359.06
333.36
Note: Multivariate F ratios were generated from Wilk’s criterion.
a. Multivariate df = 4, 131.
b. Univariate df = 3, 134.
* p < .05, ** p < .01.
Means and standard deviations are displayed in Table 8b. Pairwise comparisons revealed
that 3rd generation and 4th generation youth witnessed significantly more violence
compared to 1st generation youth. Pairwise comparisons also revealed that 4th generation
youth exhibited higher levels of externalizing behaviors compared to 1st generation youth.
47
Table 8b
Means Scores and Standard Deviations for Measures as a function of Generation
Group
1st
Witness to
Victim of
Internalizing
Externalizing
Violence
Violence
Behaviors
Behaviors
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
11.42ab
6.73
4.29
4.78
10.74
5.99
7.23c
6.64
15.25
9.44
5.26
5.12
11.40
6.89
11.05
8.76
19.82 a
11.58
7.27
7.13
10.82
4.64
12.64
12.05
18.87 b
7.54
5.58
4.59
13.03
7.88
15.16 c
7.44
generation
2nd
generation
3rd
generation
4th
generation
Note: Means with same subscript differ significantly at the p < .05 level.
48
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
This study aimed to expand our understanding of the impact of community
violence exposure on youth and how this exposure affects psychological, social, and
academic outcomes. The study also aimed to gain a better understanding of the role of
protective factors such as social support against such exposure. Recent studies (CDC
2008; CDC 2009; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006) have shown a high percentage of youth
have been exposed to violence as either a witness or as a victim. Past research has
demonstrated that youth exposed to high levels of violence in their communities face
challenges that can compromise their psychological, emotional, and social experiences in
a number of settings.
The findings in this study are consistent with previous research showing the
impact that violence exposure has on mental health and emotional well-being (Farrell &
Bruce, 1997; Thompson et al., 2007). As expected, youth who experienced higher levels
of violence also expressed greater internalizing behaviors, i.e., feelings of intrusive
thinking, distress and worthlessness. Increased violence exposure was related to greater
feelings of sadness and worrying. These feelings may be a consequence of the youth
thinking about and trying to understand what they have been exposed to or experienced.
Past research has demonstrated that exposure to violence requires young people to deal
with and try to comprehend these events. When this exposure occurs more frequently,
greater demands are placed on these youth as they try to incorporate these events into
49
their understanding of the world (Lambert et al., 2005; Mrug et al., 2008). Regular
exposure to violence can result in youth having intrusive thoughts about these events.
These intrusive thoughts have been proposed to challenge basic beliefs about individuals’
sense of self and their world (Kliewer, Lepore, Oskin & Johnson, 1998). When youth feel
unsure about their world and their immediate surroundings, they may begin to worry
more and have greater feelings of distress as they believe they have less control over
what happens around them.
Additionally, as anticipated, violence exposure predicted externalizing behaviors
for youth in this sample. As exposure to violence increased, the students reported more
aggressive behaviors and a greater frequency of engaging in delinquent behaviors. This
may be a consequence of imitating what they are seeing, or a reaction to deal with what
they are experiencing. If youth are regularly exposed to violence, then they may adapt an
aggressive approach in an effort to survive within this environment. In either case the
process of increasing aggressive behaviors will not serve the youth well in most other
domains. For one, engaging in aggression towards others is likely to elicit similar
reactions, which can lead to a cycle of violence exposure. A youth who responds to
violence exposure by adopting an aggressive approach and engaging in fighting is more
likely to be in situations where conflicts and violence may occur. Some of these
behaviors, such as stealing, can also lead to legal trouble for the youth. In addition, there
are potential consequences at school (Nash, 2002; Rosenfeld et al., 2006), with youth
who engage in aggressive behaviors often dismissed from school for disciplinary reasons.
50
Aggressive behaviors are not the only concern violence exposure can have for
schools. There are also a number of school related outcomes that are linked to violence
exposure (Barone et al., 1995; Bowen & Bowen, 1999; Henrich et al., 2004). As
expected, youth exposed to higher levels of violence were more likely to report that they
had conflicts with teachers at school, disciplinary action at school, and vandalized school
property. In the present study youth exposed to higher levels of violence were also more
likely to miss school for reasons beyond suspensions. They may not attend classes due to
fears of traveling to and from school as a result of violence. These findings are consistent
with past research that suggests violence in the neighborhood have a greater unique
impact on school outcomes than does danger in the school environment itself (Bowen &
Bowen, 1999). Whatever the reason, youth exposed to higher levels of violence are not
participating in the educational process to the full extent. The impact of violence is
having an immediate effect on youth education, which can also have long-term
implications for their future. When a student is involved with disciplinary action at school
there are direct implications on a student’s ability to be successful in the educational
system as these youth are often taken away from the learning environment. In addition,
consequences such as suspension from school not only remove youth from the school
environment for a longer period of time, but also may risk exposing youth to more
violence as they may spend their day engaging in alternate behaviors in the
neighborhood. Overall, the more these students were exposed to violence, the more likely
they were to have feelings of depression and anxiety and the more likely they were to
51
engage in acts of aggression and delinquency. In addition, youth exposed to higher levels
of violence engaged in more school misconduct and were absent from school more often.
While the negative consequences of violence exposure are clear, possible
protective factors that may be in place are not as straightforward. As was seen in the
sample, many youth are exposed to significant levels of violence, but still demonstrate
positive achievements at school and do not have the same levels of depression or
aggression. This study aimed to increase the understanding of the role parental and social
support as it was related to violence exposure, however the results were mixed. While
there was a correlation between the level of perceived parental support and the level of
violence exposure and externalizing behaviors such that higher levels of parental support
indicated fewer incidents of violence victimization and fewer externalizing behaviors,
neither parental support nor social support contributed significantly in further analysis.
This may be due to the difficulty in assessing perceived levels of social support. Previous
research has also provided mixed results on the impact of social support (Rosenfeld et al.,
2006; Scarpa & Haden, 2006), which indicates more work needs to be done in order to
understand how to accurately assess this factor.
While not a focus of the present study, analyses looking at gender differences
suggest areas of future research. Males are exposed to higher levels of violence compared
to females, while females tend to experience greater levels of internalizing behaviors,
such as sadness and distress, as compared to males. Interestingly, males and females did
not demonstrate significant differences in externalizing behaviors, suggesting that
females may be engaging in these types of behaviors more so than previous research has
52
shown. Gaining a clearer understanding of gender differences can identify risk and
protective factors as well as assist in the development of appropriate interventions for
males and females. In addition, exploring the generational status of youth and their
families can also be an additional source of information. As was noted in the present
study, youth whose families have been in the U.S. for multiple generations were exposed
to higher levels of violence. These youth also expressed greater levels of aggression and
externalizing behaviors compared to youth whose families more recently immigrated to
the U.S.
Limitations
This and future research will benefit from studies that include designs to better
assess social support. Most of the youth indicated high levels of social support with the
general social support employed in this study, which suggests that this measure may not
have been sensitive enough to be able to differentiate between nuanced sources of social
support. For example, it may be necessary to focus questions as to whether the youth
feels there is someone available to talk about traumatic events. Diminished social support
limits the child’s opportunities to process the trauma actively, which has been shown to
making them more vulnerable to negative outcomes (Overstreet & Braun, 2000). Being
able to talk about and process traumatic events appears to be an important factor. While it
is possible that the youth in this sample tended to feel more supported in general, a more
likely outcome is that the measure was not able to make distinctions between different
levels. Thus, a social support measure that includes more options to assess if there is
53
someone available for a youth to actively discuss and try to understand the events may be
more appropriate.
It should also be noted that in this research it was not possible to assess the level
of family violence these youth were exposed to. As noted earlier, family violence has a
unique impact on youth, as there is often a violation of trust and secrecy involved. In
addition to being able to better differentiate between levels of support, being able to
assess the level of violence in the family may help clarify the role that social support has.
However, after discussions with school officials it was determined that it would not be
possible to include questions pertaining to family violence due to privacy concerns and
having to possibly report incidents to law enforcement.
There are also some limitations as related to the size of the sample. With an
increased number of participants it may have been possible to conduct higher order
analysis, such as a path analysis, which may have helped clarify the role of the variables
in this study.
54
Chapter 6
CONCLUSION
This study contributes to the increasing amount of literature exploring the impact
of violence exposure on youth. In addition to having to navigate the traditional turmoil of
adolescence, many youth have to navigate through increased exposure to violence. It is
clear that youth are being exposed to significant levels of violence in their communities
and this has consequences not only for their emotional well-being and mental health, but
also for their interactions with others. Investigating youth experiences with violence
exposure allows researchers to better understand their risk factors and protective factors
as well as inform and develop effective interventions for these youth. For instance, efforts
aimed at addressing mental health concerns and feelings of sadness may provide benefits
for the students emotional well-being and, consequently, for their performance at school.
In addition, interventions aimed at addressing youth’s aggressive behaviors may allow
alternate views of interacting with others and the world. Allowing young people to realize
that there are other ways of interacting with others that does not involve yelling or
fighting may lead to youth having more positive social interactions. A better
understanding of factors are in place that allow youth to be resilient is critical, especially
in situations of high violence exposure. Future research is needed to clarify possible
protective factors, such as the role that friends and family may play, that contribute to the
development of effective prevention and intervention efforts.
55
Footnotes
1
Due to concerns raised at the school district it was not possible to gather any
information regarding violence that may or may not have occurred within the family.
56
REFERENCES
Amato, P. R. (1994). Father-child relations, mother-child relations, and offspring
psychological well-being in early adulthood. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 56, 1031 – 1042.
Amato, P. R., & Fowler, F. (2002). Parenting practices, child adjustment and family
diversity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 703– 716.
Bahr, S. J., Hoffman, J. P., & Yang, X. (2005). Parental and peer influences on the
risk of adolescent drug use. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26(6), 529551.
Bailey. B. N., Hannigan, J. H., Delaney-Black, V., Covington, C. & Sokol, R. J. (2006).
The role of maternal acceptance in the relation between community violence
exposure and child functioning. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 34, 57-70.
Barone, C., Weissberg, R. P., Kasprow, W. J., Voyce, C. K., Arthur, M. W., & Shriver,
T. P. (1995). Involvement in multiple problem behaviors of young urban
adolescents. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 15(3), 261283.
Bowen, N. & Bowen, G. L. (1999). Effects of crime and violence in neighborhoods
and schools on the school behavior and performance of adolescents.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 14(3), 319 – 342.
Cabrera, N. J., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bradley, R. H., Hofferth, S., & Lamb, M. E.
(2000). Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development, 71(1), 127 –
136.
57
Canty-Mitchell, J. & Zimet. G. D. (2000). Psychometric properties of the
multidimensional scale of perceived social support in urban adolescents.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 391-400.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). Youth risk behavioral surveillance—
United States, 2007. (CDC publication MMWR 2008; 57 No. SS–4). Retrieved
from: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/YV_DataSheet_Summer2009a.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control. (2009). Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System
(WISQARS). Retrieved from: www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html
Crouch, J. L., Hanson, R. F., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G. & Resnick, H. S. (2000).
Income, race/ethnicity, and exposure to violence in youth: results from the
national survey of adolescents. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 625-642.
Dillon, F. R., Fe´lix-Ortiz, M., Rice, C., De La Rosa, M., Rojas, P. & Duan, R. (2009).
Validating the multidimensional measure of cultural identity scales for Latinos
among Latina mothers and daughters. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology,
15, 191– 201.
Eitle, D. (2006). Parental gender, single-parent families, and delinquency: Exploring
the moderating influence of race/ethnicity. Social Science Research, 35, 727758.
58
Farrell, A. D., & Bruce, S. E. (1997). Impact of exposure to community violence on
violent behavior and emotional distress among urban adolescents. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 26(1), 2– 14.
Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., Turner, H., & Hamby, S.L. (2005). The Victimization of
Children and Youth: A Comprehensive, National Survey. Child Maltreatment, 10
(1), 5– 25.
Garbarino, J., Kostenlny, K., & Dubrow, N. (1991). What children can tell us about
living in danger. American Psychologist, 46(4), 376– 383.
Henrich, C. C., Schwab-Stone, M., Fanti, K., Jones, S. M., Ruchkin, V. (2004). The
association of community violence exposure with middle-school achievement:
A prospective study. Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 327– 348.
Horowitz, K., McKay, M., & Marshall, R. (2005). Community Violence and Urban
Families: Experiences, Effects and Directions for Intervention. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 356-368.
Howard, D. E., Cross, S. I., Li, X., & Huang, W. (1999). Parent-youth concordance
regarding violence exposure: relationships to youth psychosocial functioning.
Journal of Adolescence Health, 25, 396– 406.
Johnson, C. L. (2000). Perspectives on American kinship in the later 1990’s. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 62, 623-639.
59
Kenny, M. E., Blustein, A. C., Grossman, J. M., & Gallagher, L. A. (2003). The role
of perceived barriers and relational support in the educational and vocational lives
of urban high school students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 142-155.
Kliewer, W., Lepre, S. J., Oskin, D., Johnson, P. D. (1998). The Role of Social and
Cognitive Processes in Children's Adjustment to Community Violence. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 199– 209.
Laird, R. D., Criss, M. M., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E. (2008). Parents’
monitoring knowledge attenuates the link between antisocial friends and
adolescent delinquent behavior. Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 299-310.
Lambert, S. F., Ialong, N. S., Boyd, R. C., & Cooley, M. R. (2005). Risk factors for
community violence exposure in adolescence. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 36, 29– 48.
Lawrence, B. R., Richman, J. M., Bowen, G. L. & Wynns, S. L. (2006). In the face
of a dangerous community: the effects of social support and neighborhood
danger on high school students’ school outcomes. Southern Communication
Journal, 71, 273-289.
Lynch, M. (2003). Consequences of children’s exposure to community violence.
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6(4), 265– 274.
Mc Cart, M. R., Smith, D. W., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. &
Ruggiero, K. J. (2007). Do Urban Adolescents Become Desensitized to
Community Violence? Data from a National Survey
60
Muller, R. T., Goebel-Fabbri, A. E., Diamond, T., & Dinklage, D. (2000). Social support
and the relationship between family and community violence exposure and
psychopathology among high risk adolescents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 449464.
Mrug, S., Loosier. P S. & Windle, M. (2008). Violence exposure across multiple
contexts: individual and joint effects on adjustment. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 78, 70-84.
Nash, J. K. (2002). Neighborhood effects on sense of school coherence and
educational behavior in students at risk of school failure. Children and
Schools, 24, 73-89.
O’Donnell, D. A., Schwab-Stone, M. E., & Muyeed, A. Z. (2002). Multidimensional
resilience in urban children exposed to community violence. Child Development,
73(4), 1265– 1282.
Overstreet, S., Dempsey, M., Graham, D. & Moely, B. (1999). Availability of family
support as a moderator of exposure to community violence. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 28(2), 151– 159.
Pallock, L. L., & Lamborn, S. D. (2005). Beyond parenting practices: extended kinship
support and the academic adjustment of African American and European
American teens. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 813-828.
Patchin, J. W., Huebner, B. M., McCluskey, J. D., Varano, S. P. & Bynum,
T. S. (2006). Exposure to Community Violence and Delinquency. Crime &
Delinquency, 52, 307-332.
61
Pearce, M. J., Jones, S. M., Schwab-Stone, M. E., & Ruchkin, V. (2003). The
protective effects of religiousness and parent involvement on the development
of conduct problems among youth exposed to violence. Child Development,
74(6), 1682– 1696.
Phinney, J. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with
adolescents and young adults from diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 7, 156-176
Plybon, L. E. & Kliewer, W. (2001). Neighborhood types and externalizing behavior in
urban school-age children: tests of direct, mediated and moderated Effects.
Richters, J. E., & Martinez, P. (1993). The NIMH community violence project: I.
children as victims of and witnesses to violence. In Reiss, D., Richters, J. E.,
Radke-Yarrow, M. & Scharff. D. (Eds.) Children and Violence. New York:
The Guilford Press.
Rohner, R. P. (1998). Father love and child development: history and current
evidence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(5), 157– 161.
Rohner, R. P. & Veneziano, R. A. (2001). The importance of father love: history and
contemporary evidence. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 382– 405.
Rosenfeld, L. B., Richman, J. M., Bowen, G. L. & Wynns, S. L. (2006). In the face
of a dangerous community: the effects of social support and neighborhood
danger on high school students’ school outcomes. Southern Communication
Journal, 71, 273-289.
62
Scarpa, A. & Haden, S. C. (2006). Community Violence Victimization and
Aggressive Behavior: The Moderating Effects of Coping and Social Support.
Aggressive Behavior, 32, 502-515.
Schwartz, D. & Proctor, L. J. (2000). Community violence exposure and children’s social
adjustment in the school peer group: The mediating roles of emotion regulation
and social cognition. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 670-683.
Solberg, V. S., Carlstrom, A. Howard, K. A. S. & Jones, J. E. (2007). Classifying AtRisk High School Youth: The Influence of Exposure to Community Violence
and Protective Factors on Academic and Health Outcomes. The Career
Development Quarterly, 55, 313-327.
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 National
Report. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Thompson, R., Proctor, L. J., Weisbart, C., Lewis, T. L., English, D. J., Hussey, J. M.,
& Runyan, D. K. (2007). Children’s self-reports about violence exposure: an
examination of the things I have seen and heard scale. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 77(3), 454– 466.
Wilson, M. N. (1989). Child development in the context of the black extended family.
American Psychologist, 44, 380-385.
Young, M. H., Miller, B. C., Norton, M. C. & Hill, E. J. (1995). The effect of parental
supportive behaviors on life satisfaction of adolescent offspring. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 57, 813– 822.
63
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G. & Farley, G. K. (1988). The
multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 52, 30-41.