Journal of Counseling Psychology 2014, Vol. 61, No. 2, 221-231

© 2014 American Psychological Association 0022-0167/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0035207

Conduits From Community Violence Exposure to Peer Aggression and Victimization: Contributions of Parental Monitoring, Impulsivity, and Deviancy Sabina Low

Dorothy Espelage

Arizona State University

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Community violence exposure results in heightened risk for engaging in and being a victim of interpersonal violence. Despite this robust literature, few studies have specifically examined how the relation between community violence exposure, peer aggression, and victimization is modified by individual, peer, and familial infiuences (considered jointly). In the current study, we used risk and resiliency theory to examine links between community violence exposure and peer aggression and victimization. Impulsivity and parental monitoring were examined as potential moderators of the link between community violence exposure and outcomes, both directly and indirectly via deviant behavior. Survey data on bullying involvement, fighting, deviancy, parental monitoring, and impulsivity were collected on 3 occasions over an 18-month period among a large cohort of adolescents (N = 1,232) in 5th-7th grades. Structural equation modeling suggests that for both male and female adolescents, impulsivity exacerbates the effects of community violence exposure by increasing involvement in deviant behavior. Parental monitoring buffered the effects of community violence exposure on perpetration and victimization (for males and female adolescents) via reduced involvement in deviant behavior. Findings suggest that impulsivity and parental monitoring are implicated in modifying the effects of community violence exposure on both victimization and perpetration through deviancy, although deviancy is not as potent of a predictor for victimization. Thus, prevention efforts would seem to be optimally targeted at multiple ecological levels, including parental involvement and peer networks. Keywords: community violence, aggression, parental monitoring, victimization

Exposure to community violence can have serious detrimental effects on adolescents, leading exposed individuals down a path to maladaptive and antisocial behaviors (Bacchini, Miranda, & Affuso, 2011; Copeland-Linder, Lambert, Chen, & Mongo, 2011; Lambert, Nylund-Gibson, Copeland-Linder, & Ialongo, 2010; Trentacosta, Hyde, Shaw, & Cheong, 2009). To date, several mechanisms of infiuence have been proposed and validated, including elevated levels of depression, compromised self-regulatory capacities (e.g., impulsivity; Lambert et al., 2010), posttraumatic stress response (Kliewer, 2006; Overstreet & Mazza, 2003), social-cognitive distortions (Bradshaw, Rodgers, Ghandour, & Gabarino, 2009; Guerra, Huesmann, & Spindler, 2003), and disrupted parenting resources (Trentacosta et al., 2009). These candidate mediators suggest that community violence exposure and its consequences are best understood in a social ecological framework that takes into account community, familial, peer, and individual

characteristics (Overstreet & Mazza, 2003; Salzinger, Feldman, Stockhammer, & Hood, 2002). Given the mounting evidence that community violence exposure escalates potential for maladjustment (Trentacosta et al., 2009), researchers have jusfifiably turned their attention to potential moderators of this association, with an emphasis on both familial factors (e.g., family dynamics, parenting practices, family structure) and individual resources (see GormanSmith & Tolan, 1998, for review) that may either exacerbate or mitigate this association. Despite the veritable relation between community violence and externalizing behaviors (i.e., conduct problems, delinquency; Bacchini et al., 2011; Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2000; KhouryKassabri, Benbenishty, Astor, & Zeira, 2004; Totura et al, 2009), relatively few studies have investigated how bullying behavior (as a specific subtype of aggression) is infiuenced by experiences in environments outside of school, such as neighborhoods. Nevertheless, the handful of studies that have examined this have consistently found a moderate association between neighborhood violence and bullying behavior (îChoury-Kassabri et al., 2004; Schwartz & Gorman, 2003; Schwartz & Proctor, 2000). Thus, there is strong reason to postulate litiks with both perpetration and victimization, given the disruption in adaptive peer relations and behavioral control that may be associated with features of community violence exposure. That is, these neighborhoods may refiect a larger social environment marked by a lifestyle of violence (Espelage et al., 2000). Furthermore, the individual and familial

This article was published Online First March 17, 2014. This research was supported by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Grant 1U01/CE001677 to Dorothy Espelage. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sabina Low, School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 873701, Tempe, AZ 85287, or to Dorothy Espelage, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 601 East John Street, Champaign, IL 61820-5711. E-mail: sabina.low® asu.edu or [email protected]

221

222

LOW AND ESPELAGE

risk and protective factors that co-occur or are affected by community violence exposure are also risk and protective factors for both bullying perpetration and victimization (see Salzinger et al., 2002, for review). Thus, risk and resiliency theory is a useful framework for investigating links between community violence exposure and peer aggression (i.e., fighting and bullying behavior) and victimization among early adolescents. In the present study, we expand on previous work by examining direct links between community violence exposure and multiple forms of peer aggression, as well as validating the mediating role of deviancy, contrasting its potency for both perpetration and victimization. In a more complementary, novel contribution, we place this model in a broader ecological framework in which parental monitoring and impulsivity mitigate or exacerbate (respectively) the effects of community violence on aggression and victimization. To test these hypotheses, we used structural equation modeling with longitudinal data collected from fifth- to seventh-grade adolescents over three waves of data collection (18 months).

2007; Espelage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003; Low, Polanin, & Espelage, 2013), leading to the argument that the peer context is one of the most robust, proximal determinants of bullying involvement. Given the overlap among victimization and aggression, peer infiuence (especially rejection; Card, Isaacs, & Hodges, 2008) is, not surprisingly, a good candidate mediator for victimization as well, although prior research suggests a less potent relation between victimization and peer supports (Bettencourt & Farrell, 2013).

Impulsivity and Parental Monitoring as Candidate Moderators In addition to examining central mediating processes, another contribution of the present study is the examination of potential moderators of exposure to community violence to identify resiliency markers. In line with a social ecological framework (Overstreet & Mazza, 2003), we focused on the moderating roles of impulsivity and parental monitoring (see Figure 1).

Impulsivity Deviancy as a Candidate Mediator Given the strong association between exposure to community and neighborhood violence and externalizing problems, including criminal behavior (Chung & Steinberg, 2006; Eitle & Turner, 2002; Tolan, Gorman-Smith, & Henry, 2003), a theoretically strong candidate mechanism between exposure to community violence and peer aggression is deviancy, including deviant peer involvement. Although there are data suggesting that neighborhood structural and social characteristics are related to elevated deviant peer affiliation (and, in turn, elevated problem behavior; Chung & Steinberg, 2006; Rankin & Quane, 2002; Tolan et al, 2003), this is arguably one of the first investigations to examine links among exposure to neighborhood violence, peer deviancy, and aggressive behavior, among a community-based sample (i.e., nonindicated), low-risk population. Bullying, as a form of aggressive behavior, has been shown to correspond with other problem behaviors, such as substance use (Espelage, Low, Rao, Hong, & Little, 2013; Pepler, Craig, Connolly, & Henderson, 2002), and to be maintained and perpetuated by groups of youth who are friends with similarly aggressive youth (Espelage, Green, & Wasserman,

Accumulating evidence suggests that exposure to community violence compromises central organizing behaviors (i.e., selfregulatory capacities), such as emotion regulation, hyperactivity, or impulse control (Attar, Guerra, & Tolan, 1994; Overstreet, 2000; Schwartz & Proctor, 2000). Impairments in self-control or behavioral control may diminish or preclude opportunities for attracting and maintaining positive peer relationships, providing a context that reinforces antisocial behaviors such as substance use. Drift into problem behavior may pose a liability for both aggressors and victims (Pope & Bierman, 1999; Schwartz, 2000). Indeed, a few studies suggest that children displaying self-regulatory impairments (e.g., irritable, hyperactive, and/or inattentive behavior) are at heightened risk for victimization (Pope & Bierman, 1999; Wiener & Mak, 2009). Schwartz (2000) and others examined subgroups of victims and aggressors and found that aggressive victims had higher levels of ADHD and social rejection than did children who were nonaggressive victims, nonvictimized aggressors, or normative contrasts. In a prospective study of factors that predicted bullying over a 4-month period, Espelage, Bosworth, and Simon (2001) found a significant association between impulsivity

Impulsivity

on & Victimization

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE AND PEER AGGRESSION and a behavioral measure of bullying (e.g., name calling, teasing, threatening other students) among a sample of sixth grade students. In contrast to social-cognitive characteristics or biases, impulsivity has received considerably less attention in the bullying literature. Given the prior literature in this area, we hypothesized that impulsivity would be related to and exacerbate the effects of community violence exposure on both perpetration and victimization by heightening risk for drifting into antisocial behavior and peer group involvement but expected that these relations would be stronger for the perpetrator model.

Parental IVIonitoring Consistent parental monitoring has long been recognized as a protective factor (for future victimization or violent perpetration) for youth exposed to community violence, in part due to fewer opportunities to have negative peer relationships and, in tum, fewer externalizing behaviors (see Li, Fiegelman, & Stanton, 2000; Mason, Cauce, Gonzales, & Hiraga, 1996; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989). The relation between bullying (more specifically) and parental monitoring is less apparent, in part because of variation across studies in parenting constructs and whether one uses univariate versus multivariate approaches. Like other forms of aggressive behavior, a link between poor or inconsistent monitoring and increased bullying involvement for both bullies and bully victims is suggested by several studies (Espelage et al., 2000; Espelage, Low, & De La Rue, 2012; Haynie, et al, 2001; Marini, Dane, Bosacki, & YLC-CURA, 2006). However, some studies have found parenting qualities (e.g., communication) to be strongly related to bullying (see Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, & Haynie, 2007), whereas still others have not found parenting characteristics to differentiate among peer aggression groups during adolescence (Veenstra et al., 2005). Parental monitoring has long been implicated in shaping peer-group selection, but the centrality of negative peer influence among bullies and victims may help account for differences in observed strengths of these relations with parental monitoring. To this end, we hypothesized that parental monitoring, in the form of family rules and surveillance efforts, would mitigate the effects of community violence exposure on perpetration largely by reducing deviancy and deviant peer involvement, but we anticipated this relation would be less salient for victimization.

Gender Differences Although some investigators have found witnessing community violence is more strongly related to externalizing behaviors for boys than girls (Bacchini et al., 2011; Copeland-Linder et al., 2011 ; Ho & Cheung, 2010), others have found this not to be the case (see Mrug & Windle, 2009). One might also infer the presence of gender variance with regard to the influence of parental monitoring as well, given that girls tend to receive higher levels of parental monitoring than do boys (Bacchini et al, 2011; CopelandLinder et al., 2011; Yu, 2010), and monitoring tends to be more salient for males (see Svensson, 2003) Although there is evidence that girls possess greater self-control (Yu, 2010) and slower declines in self-control through adolescence, there is evidence that impulsivity is a greater liability for both males and females living in dangerous communities (Lynam et al., 2000; Meier, Slutske,

223

Amdt, & Cadoret, 2008). Because gender differences exist between male and female adolescents for multiple factors of this research, we examined whether the proposed relations were conditioned by gender. It was anticipated that parental monitoring would be a greater buffer for male adolescents but we did not hypothesize gender differences with regard to impulsivity.

Summary of Research Aims and Hypotheses In the current study, we draw on risk and resiliency theory to examine links between community violence exposure and peer aggression and victimization. Impulsivity and parental monitoring were examined as potential moderators of the link between community violence exposure and outcomes, both direcfly and indirectly via deviant behavior. Given the prior literature in this area, we hypothesized that impulsivity would be related to and exacerbate the effects of community violence exposure on both perpetration and victimization by heightening risk for drifting into antisocial behavior and peer group involvement but expected that these relations would be stronger for the perpetrator model. Second, we hypothesized that parental monitoring, in the form of family rules and surveillance efforts, would mitigate the effects of community violence exposure on perpetration largely by reducing deviancy and deviant peer involvement but anticipated this relation would be less saUent for victimization and more salient for male adolescents.

Method Design and Sample Participants consist of 1,232 students from four Midwestem middle schools (Grades 5-7), of which 49.8% are female adolescents and the ages of the students range from 10 to 15 years (M = 13.9 years, SD = 1.05). The ethnic makeup of the sample was 52% African American, 31% Caucasian, 4% Hispanic, 10% multiracial, and 3% other. Fifty percent of the mothers had at least some college (31% graduated from college and 14% had advanced degrees), and 42% of fathers had at least some college (26% graduated from college and 17% had advanced degrees). Students completed a survey that was designed to collect individual characteristics (impulsivity, alcohol and drug use), familial factors (parental monitoring), peer behavior (delinquency), exposure to community violence, peer aggression, and victimization. The survey was administered once in the spring of 2008 (Time 1), once in the fall of 2008 (Time 2), and once in the spring of 2009 (Time 3).

Procedure Parental consent. A waiver of active parental consent was approved by the institutional review board and school district administrators. Parents of all students enrolled in the school received a letter informing them about the purpose of the study. Several meetings were held to inform parents of the study in each community. In early spring of 2008, the researchers participated in parent-teacher conference meetings and staff meetings, and the study was formally announced in school newsletters, school district newsletters, and e-mails from the principals. Parents were asked to sign the information letter and retum it only if they did not

224

LOW AND ESPELAGE

consent to have their child participate in the study. A 95% participation rate was achieved. Students were asked to consent to participate in the study through an assent procedure included on the coversheet of the survey. Student surveys were later deidentified with code numbers to allow for tracking over multiple time points. Survey administration. Six trained research assistants, the principal investigator, and another faculty member collected data. At least two of these individuals administered the surveys to classes ranging in size from 10 to 25 students. Students were first informed about the general nature of the study. Next, researchers made certain that students were sitting far enough from one another to ensure confidentiality. Students were then given survey packets and the survey was read aloud to them. It took students approximately 45 min on average to complete the survey. Multiple safeguards were implemented to prevent students from becoming upset by the content of the surveys. First, an assent script was read to students that emphasized that completing the task was voluntary and that they could skip any question or stop participating at any point. Second, an appropriately trained doctoral-level psychology student was present at every survey administration to provide immediate support for a student and direct him or her to appropriate resources, if necessary. Third, students were given a card with researcher contact information in case more information about the study or a referral was needed. Multiple self-help resource numbers and websites were included on the card. Fourth, students were reminded verbally about schoolbased resources available (e.g., guidance counselors) at the beginning and end of survey administration.

Measnres Participants first completed a demographic questionnaire, which consisted of questions about his or her sex, age, grade, and race/ ethnicity. For race/ethnicity, participants were given six options: African American (not Hispanic), Asian, White (not Hispanic), Hispanic, Native American, and other (with a space to write in the most appropriate racial/ethnic descriptor).

Self-Reported Aggression (Time 1 and 3) Relational and verbal bullying. The nineritem University of Illinois Bully Scale (Espelage & Holt, 2001) assesses the frequency of verbal and relational aggression at school. Students are asked how often in the past 30 days they did the following to other students at school: teased other students, upset other students for the fun of it, excluded others from their group of friends, helped harass other students, and threatened to hit or hurt another student. Response options include never, I or 2 times, 3 or 4 times, 5 or 6 times, and 7 or more times. The construct validity of this scale has been supported via exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (Espelage & Holt, 2001). Factor loadings in the development sample for these items ranged from .52 to .75 and this factor accounted for 31% of the variance in the factor analysis (Espelage & Holt, 2001). Higher scores indicated more self-reported aggressive behaviors. Espelage and Holt (2001) found a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .87. Concurrent validity of this scale was established with significant correlations with peer nominations of bullying (Espelage et al., 2003). More specifically, students who reported the highest level of bully perpetration on the scale received significantly more bullying nominations (M = 3.50, SD = 6.50) from their peers than did students who did not self-report high levels of bullying perpetration (M = 0.98, So = 1.10; Espelage et al., 2003). This scale was not significantly correlated with the Illinois Victimization Scale (r = .12) and thus provided evidence of discriminant validity (Espelage et al, 2003). Cronbach's alpha coefficients were .86 for Times 1-3. Fighting. Fighting was assessed using the four-item University of Illinois Fight Scale (Espelage & Holt, 2001; e.g., "I got in a physical fight" and "I fought students I could easily beat") the respondent engaged in over the past 30 days. Response options are never, Ior2 times, 3 or 4 times. 5 or 6 times, and 7 or more times. The University of Illinois Fight Scale had a low correlation with the Victimization Scale (r = .21), providing evidence of discriminant validity (Espelage & Holt, 2001). Cronbach's alpha coefficients were .70 for Time 1 and .75 for Times 2 and 3.

Self-Reported Victimization (Time 1 and 3)

Exposure to Community Violence Exposure to community violence was measured at Time 1 with five items from the 12-item Children's Exposure to Community Violence Scale (Richters & Martinez, 1993). Students were asked the following question: How often do you hear or see the following in your neighborhood, in your school, or at your home? 1. I have heard guns being shot. 2.

I have seen somebody arrested.

3.

I have seen drug deals.

4.

I have seen somebody being beaten up.

5.

I have seen gangs.

Response options include never, rarely, sometimes, and often. An alpha coefficient of .91 was found for Time 1 in the current study.

The four-item University of Illinois Victimization Scale (Espelage & Holt, 2001) assesses victimization from peers. Students are asked how often other students made fun of them, called them names, picked on them, or physically assaulted them in the past 30 days. Responses options are never, 1 or 2 times, 3 or 4 times. 5 or 6 times, and 7 or more times. The construct validity of this scale has been supported by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (Espelage & Holt, 2001). Scores have converged with peer nominations of victimization (Espelage & Holt, 2001). Higher scores indicate more self-reported victimization. Cronbach alpha coefficients of .85 were found for Times 1-3.

Mediators: Delinquency, Delinquent Peers, and Substance Use (Time 2) Self-report delinquency. This eight-item scale is based on Jessor and Jessor's (1977) General Deviant Behavior Scale and asks students to report how many behaviors listed on the measure they took part in during the last year. The scale consists of items

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE AND PEER AGGRESSION such as "skipped school," and "damaged school or other property that did not belong to you." Response options include never, I or 2 times, 3 to 5 times, 6 to 9 times, and 10 or more times. The original study by lessor and lessor used this scale in a longitudinal study of 432 students in seventh through 10th grades, who were largely White and middle class. A mean Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .76 was reported across the 3-year study (lessor & lessor, 1977). Since its development, this scale has been used numerous times, resulting in Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging from .76 to .83 (Farrell, Kung, White, & Valois, 2000). In the current study, we found the scale to have a Cronbach's alpha of .81 for Time 2. Delinquent peers. The Friend's Delinquent Behavior—Denver Youth Survey is a seven-item scale (Institute of Behavioral Sciences, 1987), which asks participants to report how many of their friends have engaged in delinquent behaviors (e.g., hitting or threatening to hit someone, damaging or destroying property, drinking alcohol) in the past year. Response options include none, very few, some of them, most of them, and all of them. A Cronbach's alpha of .89 was found in the original study. In the current study, we found a Cronbach's alpha of .88 for the scale at Time 2. Substance use. Eight items from the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (Farrell et al., 2000) was used, which asked students to report how many times in the past year they used alcohol, cigarettes, and/or drugs. Response options include never, 1 or 2 times, 3 to 5 times, 6 to 9 times, and 10 or more times. A Cronbach's alpha of .87 was found with a sample of urban adolescents and .88 with a sample of rural adolescents (Farrell et al., 2000). The authors also reported positive correlations with risk behaviors such as self-reported delinquency and negative correlations with positive behaviors and school attendance (Farrell et al., 2000). In the current study, a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .90 was found for Time 2 data.

Moderators: Impulsivity and Parental Monitoring (Time 1) Impulsivity. The four-item Impulsivity subscale from the Teen Confiict Survey (Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999) assesses the self-reported impulsivity of the respondents. Students are asked how often they would say the following statements about themselves: "I have a hard time sitting still," "I start things but have a hard time finishing them," "I do things without thinking," and "I need to use a lot of self-control to keep out of trouble." Response options include never, seldom, sometimes, often, and always. A Chronbach's alpha of .62 was recorded in the original study (Bosworth et al., 1999; see also Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2001, for additional information on psychometric properties). In the current study, a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .75 was found. Parental monitoring. The Parental Supervision subscale (four items) from the Seattle Social Development Project (Arthur, Hawkins, Pollard, Catalano, & Baglioni, 2002) was used to measure respondents' perceptions of established familial rules and perceived parental awareness regarding school work and attendance, peer relationships, alcohol or drug use, and weapon possession. Response options include never, seldom, often, and always. An example item is "My family has clear rules about alcohol and drug use." A Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .86 was calculated for Time 1 data.

225 Results

Preliminary Analyses and Plan of Analysis Data imputation. Only 2%-3% of items at each time of data collection were missing. A multiple imputation procedure was used to preserve the integrity of each group of respondents and create a parsimonious data set (see Little & Rubin, 1989). Following Kärnä et al.'s (2011) study as a model, we imputed data with the SAS PROC MI function, using the Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm. In total, 100 imputations were conducted separately for the entire sample population using scale approximations because of the overall size of the sample and the total number of variables. Next, the average imputed value for each missing data point was calculated, which, according to Kämä et al. (2011), "represents the best population estimate of the value needed to reproduce the population parameters" (p. 55). Analyses were conducted in four steps. The first step entailed fitting the measurement model while allowing the constructs to correlate freely. In the second step, we fit a structural equation model (AMOS 16) to test our hypotheses. In the third step, we assessed for gender moderation by running multigroup models. For these analyses, we assessed for the )C/df difference of a baseline (noninvariant model) with a two-group gender invariance model in which we imposed equality constraints on all pathways and factor loadings. As a fourth step, we conducted formal tests of mediation using bootstrapping (90% confidence interval [CI]). Interactions were assessed following guidelines by lose (2008) for calculating simple slopes for continuous moderators. Goodness of fit for each model was assessed by examining the comparative fit index (CFI), and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA); according to conventional guidelines, a CFI of .95 and an RMSEA of .08 or less are considered to be a reasonable fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Measurement Model and Construct Intercorrelations Before testing the structural model, we assessed the measurement model for factor loadings (i.e., confirmatory factor analysis) and intercorrelations among constructs. AH factor loadings were significant (>.69, p < .05). The measurement model for impulsivity and peer aggression yielded an adequate fit to the data (CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05, for impulsivity, as did the model for monitoring and peer aggression (CFI = .99, RMSEA = .04, for monitoring). The measurement model for impulsivity and peer victimization fit the data well (CFI = 1,00, RMSEA = .01) as did the model for parental monitoring and victimization (CFI = 1,00, RMSEA = .00). Table 1 describes the positive correlations of the Time 1 predictors with mediators and Time 3 outcomes and were consistent with the hypothesized model, with the exception of a nonsignificant relation between community violence and victimization at Time 3.

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and Tests of Mediation Hypothesized SEM models were tested with AMOS 16 software (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999; see Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5). Mediation models are best estimated in an SEM context because of the

LOW AND ESPELAGE

226

greater fiexibility SEM programs afford in model specification and estimation options (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). In all models, the effects of perpetration or victimization at Time 1 on Time 3 outcomes was controlled for, as well as the effects of perpetration or victimization on deviancy at Time 2. Impulsivity as a moderator of aggression perpetration. The model provided an adequate fit to the data (CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05), and multigroup analyses revealed that gender did not condition the proposed pathways. Results indicate that impulsivity exacerbates the infiuence of community violence exposure on peer perpetration through heightened levels of deviancy, indicated by bootstrap estimates, 90% CI [.05, .13], p < .01). More specifically, simple slopes calculations indicate this relation is strongest for those with high impulsivity, t = 10.39, p < .01, versus low impulsivity, ns, especially under conditions of high exposure to community violence. In this model, 63% of the variance in perpetration was explained (see Figure 2). Correlations between bullying (Time 1) and the moderator term were not significant [r = .08, p > .05), but impulsivity and community violence were all significant with rs = .38 and .62, respectively, ps < .01.

Parental monitoring as a moderator of aggression

I — (N _H

I t-H

n-—

p C ï O

i

t

H

JD J

Ml

c V •-^ -* ^

3 CJ

o. e 3 = J H U

— p

e o 0) u 3 Ö U Q Q c«

.2 E ^ V

perpetration. The model provided a good fit to the data (CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05), and multigroup analyses suggested that gender did not condition the proposed pathways (x^A/iifA = .89, p < .05). The resultant model suggests that parental monitoring buffered the effects of community violence exposure on perpetration by reducing deviant behavior, 90% CI [-.04, -.06],p < .01. More specifically, simple slopes calculations indicate that the relation is strongest between community violence exposure and deviancy for those endorsing low parental monitoring, ; = 2.32, p < .05, but not high parental monitoring, t = -0.56, ns, especially under conditions of high community violence (i.e., maximal mean dispersion). This pattern held after controlling for bullying at Time 1 and the infiuence of perpetration (Time 1) on deviancy (Time 2). In this model, 44% of the variance was explained (see Figure 3). Correlations between bullying Time 1 and the moderator term was not significant (r = .03, p < .05), although the correlations with parental monitoring and community violence were (rs = .32 and .62, respectively, ps < .01). Impulsivity as a moderator of victimization. The model provided an excellent fit to the data (CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00), and multigroup analyses revealed that gender did not condition the proposed pathways. Results indicate that impulsivity exacerbates the infiuence of community violence exposure on victimization through heightened levels of deviancy as indicated by bootstrap estimates, 90% CI [.01, .05], p < .01. Specifically, simple slopes indicate the relation between community violence exposure and deviancy is strongest for those with high levels of impulsivity (f = 4.42, p < .01; in comparison, t = 1.6, ns, for low impulsivity), especially under conditions of high community violence exposure. This pattern held after controlling for victimization at Time 1 and the infiuence of victimization (Time 1) on deviancy (Time 2). In this model, 19% of the variance in victimization was explained (see Figure 4). Correlations between victimization and Time 1 community violence and impulsivity were significant (rs = .03 and .19, respectively, ps < .05), but the correlation with the moderator term was not (r = .00, p = .81).

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE AND PEER AGGRESSION

227

Verbal/ Relation Bullying T3

Community Violence X Impulsivity Tl .09* .05

.23 Irnpulsivity Tl .69 .25** Delinquency T2

Delinquent Peers T2

Substance Use T2

Community Violence Figure 2. Structural model for community violence, parental monitoring, delinquency, and aggression perpetration. All paths shown are standardized and are significant atp < .01. Tl = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; T3 = Time 3. * p < .05. " p < .01.

Parental monitoring as a moderator of victimization. The model provided a good fit to the data (CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .03), and multigroup analyses revealed that gender did not condition the proposed pathways. Results indicate that parental monitoring buffers the influence of community violence exposure on victimization by diminishing involvement with deviant behavior

and deviant peers, as indicated by bootstrap estimates, 90% CI [-.01, -.04], p < .01. More specifically, simple slopes calculations indicate that the relation between exposure to community violence and deviancy is strongest reporting low (i = 3.37, p < .01) but not high levels of monitoring (/ = 1.79, ns), especially under conditions of high community violence. In this model, 20%

Verbal/ Relation Bullying Tl

Verbal/ Relation Bullying T3

Community Violence X Monitoring Tl -.01 -.05

Parental Monitoring Tl -.23 Delinquency T2

.

Delinquent Peers T2

Substance Use T2

Community Violence Figure 3. Structural model for community violence, impulsivity, delinquency, and perpetration. All paths shown are standardized and are significant at/j < .01. Tl = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; T3 = Time 3.

228

LOW AND ESPELAGE

Cotnmunity Violence X Impulsivity Tl .09*

.15

.05 Impulsivity Tl .25* Delinquency T2

Delinquent Peers T2

Community Violence

s Substance Use T2

-.10

Figure 4. Structural model for impulsivity, community violence, delinquency, and peer victimization. Tl = Time 1; T2 = Time 2. * p < 05. " p < .01.

of the variance in victimization was explained (see Figure 5). The correlation between bullying victimization (Time 1) and the moderator term was not significant (r = — .01, p > .05), although it was for community violence and impulsivity (rs = .06 and -.07, respectively, ps < .05).

Discussion Given the longstanding interest in the impact of community violence and disorganization on adolescent development, much research has spawned examining the role of community violence in a broader social ecological framework that takes individual, parenting, and peer characteristics into account (see Halliday-Boykins & Graham, 2001). Despite these heuristic advances, few studies have examined the influence of community violence exposure on aggressive behavior in an integrative

model that takes into account the joint influence of parenting, peer, and individual differences. In the current study, we used a social ecological framework to extend research on community violence exposure in three im]5ortant ways. We examined longitudinal relations with peer aggression and victimization with deviancy (including deviant peer involvement) as a candidate mediator, and we examined familial (parental monitoring) and individual (impulsivity) moderators of the link between community violence exposure and deviancy among a large, community-based, diverse population. Because counseling psychologists often train in schools and colleges of education, these findings can be incorporated into preservice teacher training materials and professional development workshops targeted at community partners, school practitioners and administrators, and teachers.

Community Violence X Monitoring Tl -.01

-.06

Parental Monitoring Tl -.27* Delinquency T2

Delinquent Peers T2

Substance Use T2

-.13

Community Violence Figure 5. Structural model for parental monitoring, community violence, delinquency, and peer victimization. Tl = Time 1; T2 = Time 2. " p < .01.

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE AND PEER AGGRESSION

At a basic level, the present study confirmed the robust relation between community violence, deviancy, and maladaptive behaviors, although more so for perpetration than victimization. Furthermore, a few themes emerged that warrant elaboration and have implications for practice and prevention. First, as hypothesized, model processes were stronger and explained more variance for perpetration than victimization. Findings suggest that parental monitoring and impulsivity are important moderators but largely operate their effect on fighting and bullying involvement by influencing deviancy, which is less potent to victimization, albeit not unrelated. Indeed, parental monitoring and community violence are less salient to victimization, but they have a small influence largely via reduced deviancy. That said, there are different dimensions and degrees of parent management activities, such as social autonomy and parental intrusiveness (i.e., autonomy regulation; see Goldstein, Davis-Kean, & Eccles, 2005), which others have found to be more salient to victimization (Bowers, Smith, & Binney, 1994; Finnegan, Hodges, & Perry, 1998). These more specific forms of daily management and oversight of activities have been previously associated with victimization, but such nuances were not captured with our construct. The current models suggest that parental monitoring and impulsivity are relevant to perpetration insofar as they condition the link between exposure to community violence and deviancy, a more robust determinant of perpetration. Thus, consistent with previous literature contrasting victimization and perpetration, our data suggest some but not complete overlap in environmental mechanisms. Rather, it seems victims may be a more heterogeneous group with regard to involvement in deviant behavior (a characteristic more representative of those engaging in bullying perpetration). Although this study represents an important progression in identifying targets for intervention that may be more malleable than one's community characteristics, such as self-regulatory capacities, the descriptive data yield other hypotheses that warrant further exploration. For example, the data suggest strong relations between exposure to community violence, problem behavior (including substance use), and perpetration, suggesting that maladaptive social dynamics (and secondary effects on peer group selection) may be more germane to perpetration than victimization. Given this robust link between deviancy and bully perpetration, basic research would benefit from further exploration of moderators of the relation between deviancy and bullying perpetration (i.e., heterogeneity among those with deviant friends). Simultaneous consideration of other mediators would also advance the field, as there are other candidates (e.g., attitudes, empathy) that were not examined in the current article but nonetheless have been strongly associated with bullying and fighting involvement. In light of differing mean levels of most problem behaviors, including bullying or aggressive behavior among male and female adolescents, it has long been of interest to scholars to ascertain why these differences exist (Svensson, 2003). Previous research suggests that the salience of monitoring is similar for male and female adolescents, whereas others suggest effects are stronger for male adolescents (see Svensson, 2003, for review), perhaps because female adolescents are exposed to higher levels of parental management and controls. It is notable that both impulsivity and parental monitoring operated similarly for male and female adolescents in the current study, suggesting that familial and peer processes have conjoint infiuence during early adolescence.

229

This study benefits from having multiple time points and richly measured bullying scales. In addition, it is notable that the study had a large, ethnically diverse sample from a low-risk, community population, as the majority of work on neighborhood violence has drawn on high-risk populations (Eitle & Turner, 2002). Despite this, there are a few notable limitations. First, conclusions are limited to those who witnessed violence (i.e., violence exposure), gang, or drug activity in their neighborhoods, as we did not measure victimization or direct involvement in such activities. There is limited evidence that responses to violence may differ for those who are witnesses versus direct victims (Schwartz & Proctor, 2000), a distinction that warrants further investigation. Second, our sampling relied on single informants for constructs, which introduces monoinformant bias, increasing the risk of overattributing relations among key constructs. Third, we treated victimization and perpetration as mutually exclusive, despite their moderate overlap. This work could be nicely extended by examining these relations for youth who endorse both victimization and perpetration. Finally, we did not examine the interaction between impulsivity and parental monitoring, although transactional effects are very plausible and parental monitoring may be even more critical for youth living in unsafe environments who demonstrate poor self-regulatory capacities. Despite these limitations, this work is important in guiding prevention and intervention efforts in spaces where counseling psychologists work, including schools, mental health facilities, inpatient units, and children residential homes. Findings from this study support recent calls for the need for prevention efforts to target multiple ecological levels, including parental involvement and peer networks (Card et al., 2008). Indeed, these data were obtained during a time when adolescents often drift into problem behavior and peer group identification is increasingly heightened; despite this, parental involvement remains infiuential in deterring involvement in problem behavior and deviant peers, although parents are not commonly incorporated into bullying prevention efforts. However, it is important to highlight that programs targeting both individual and peer-level risk factors (e.g., deviancy, alcohol and other drug use, self-regulation) may not adequately address victimization, as problem behavior is less germane to victimization in comparison to aggression perpetration.

References Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user's guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS and SmallWaters. Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., Pollard, J., Catalano, R. F., & Baglioni, A. J. (2002). Measuring risk and protective factors for substance use, delinquency, and other adolescent problem behaviors: The Communities That Care Youth Survey. Evaluation Review. 26. 575-601. Attar, B. K., Guerra, N. G., & Tolan, P. H. (1994). Neighborhood disadvantage, stressful life events, and adjustment in urban elementary-school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 23. 391-400. doi: 10.1207/s 15374424jccp2304_5 Bacchini, D., Miranda, M. C , & Affuso, G. (2011). Effects of parental monitoring and community violence on antisocial behavior and anxiety/ depression among adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 26. 269-292. doi:10.1177/0886260510362879 Bettencourt, A. F., & Farrell, A. D. (2013). Individual and contextual factors associated with patterns of aggression and peer victimization during middle school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 42. 285-302. doi: 10.1007/s 10964-012-9854-8

230

LOW AND ESPELAGE

Bosworth, K., Espelage, D. L., & Simon, T. R. (1999). Factors associated with bullying behavior in middle school students. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 341-362. doi:10.1177/0272431699019003003 Bowers, L., Smith, P. K., & Binney, V. (1994). Perceived family relationships of bullies, victims and bully/victims in middle childhood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, II, 215-232. doi:10.1177/ 0265407594112004 Bradshaw, C. P., Rodgers, C. R. R., Ghandour, L. A., & Garbarino, J. (2009). Social-cognitive mediators of the association between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 199-210. doi:10.l037/a0017362 Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds,), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Beveriy Hills, CA: Sage. Card, N. A., Isaacs, J., & Hodges, E. V. E. (2008). Multiple contextual levels of risk for peer victimization: A review with implications for prevention and intervention efforts. In T. W. Miller (Ed.), School violence and primary prevention (pp. 125-154). New York, NY: Springer. Chung, H. L., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Relations between neighborhood factors, parenting behaviors, peer deviance, and delinquency among serious juvenile offenders. Developmental Psychology, 42, 319-331. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.319 Copeland-Linder, N., Lambert, S. F., Chen, Y., & Ialongo, N. S. (2011). Contextual stress and health risk behaviors among African American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40. 158-173. doi: 10.1007/sl0964-010-9520-y Eitle, D., & Turner, R. J. (2002). Exposure to community violence and young adult crime: The effects of witnessing violence, traumatic victimization, and other stressful life events. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 214-237. doi: 10.1177/002242780203900204 Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000). Examining the social context of bullying behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Counseling and Development. 78, 326-333. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676 .2000.tb01914.x Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2001). Short-tenn stability and prospective correlates of bullying in middle-school students: An examination of potential demographic, psychosocial, and environmental influences. Violence and Victims, 16, 411-426. Espelage, D. L., Green, H., Jr., & Wasserman, S. (2007). Statistical analysis of friendship patterns and bullying behaviors among youth. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 118, 61-75. doi: 10,1002/cd.201 Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. L. (2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 123-142. doi:10.1300/JI35v02n02_08 Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer-group contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development. 74, 205-220. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00531 Espelage, D. L., Low, S., & De La Rue, L. (2012). Relations between peer victimization subtypes, family violence, and psychological outcomes during adolescence. Psychology of Violence, 2, 313-324. doi:10.1037/ a0027386 Espelage. D. L., Low, S.. Rao, M. A., Hong, J. S., & Little, T. (2013), Family violence, bullying, fighting, and substance use among adolescents: A longitudinal mediational model. Journal of Research on Adolescence. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/jora.l2060 Farrell, A. D., Kung, E. M., White, K. S., & Valois. R. (2000). The structure of self- reported aggression, drug use, and delinquent behaviors during early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 282-292. doi: 10.1207/S15374424jccp2902_l 3 Finnegan, R. A., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Victimization by peers: Associations with children's reports of mother-child interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1076-1086. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.1076

Goldstein, S. E., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Parents, peers, and problem behavior: A longitudinal investigation of the impact of relationship perceptions and characteristics on the development of adolescent problem behavior. Developmental Psychology, 41, 401-413. Gorman-Smith, D., & Tolan, P. (1998). The role of exposure to community violence and developmental problems among inner-city youth. Devel-

opment and Psychopathology, 10. 101-116. doi:10.1017/ S0954579498001539 Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R., & Spindler, A. (2003). Community violence exposure, social cognition, and aggression among urban elementary school children. Child Development, 74, 1561-1576. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00623 Halliday-Boykins, C. A., & Graham, S. (2001). At both ends of the gun: Testing the relationship between community violence exposure and youth violent behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 383-402. doi: 10.1023/A: 1010443302344 Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., & Simons-Morton, B. (2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 29-49. doi : 10.1177/0272431601021001002 Ho, M. Y., & Cheung, F. M. (2010). The differential effects of forms and settings of exposure to violence on adolescents' adjustment. Journal of

Interpersonal

Violence,

25,

1309-1337.

doi:10.1177/

0886260509340548 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Coventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Institute of Behavioral Sciences. (1987). Youth Interview Schedule— Denver Youth Survey. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado. Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of youth. New York, NY: Academic Press. Jose, P. E. (2008). ModGraph-I: A programme to compute cell means for the graphical display of moderational analyses: The Internet version. Version 2,0, Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington. Retrieved from http://pavlov.psyc.vuw.ac.nz/paul-jose/modgraph/ modgraph.php Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa anti-bullying program: Grades 4 - 6 . Child Development, 82, 311-330. doi:10.1 II 1/j .1467-8624.2010.01557.x Khoury-Kassabri, M., Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A., & Zeira, A. (2004). The contributions of community, family, and school variables to student victimization. American Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 187204. doi: 10.1007/s 10464-004-7414-4 Kliewer. W. (2006). Violence exposure and cortisol responses in urban youth. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 13, 109-120. doi:10.1207/sl5327558ijbml302_2 Lambert, S. F., Nylund-Gibson, K., Copeland-Linder, N., & Ialongo, N. S. (2010). Patterns of community violence exposure during adolescence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46, 289-302. doi: 10.1007/ s10464-010-9344-7 Li, X., Feigelman, S., & Stanton, B. (2000). Perceived parental monitoring and health risk behaviors among urban low-income African-American children and adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 43-48. doi: 10.1016/S1054-139X(99)00077-4 Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (1989). The analysis of social science data with missing values. Sociological Methods & Research, 18, 292-326. doi: 10.1177/0049124189018002004 Low, S., Polanin, J., & Espelage, D. L. (2013). The role of social networks in physical and relational aggression among middle school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1078-1089. doi:10.1007/sl0964013-9933-5

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE AND PEER AGGRESSION Lynam, D. R., Caspi, A., Moffit, T. E., Wikström, P.-O., Loeber, R., & Novak, S. (2000). The interaction between impulsivity and neighborhood context on offending: The effects of impulsivity are stronger in poorer neighborhoods. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 563-574. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.109.4.563 Marini, Z. A., Dane, A. V., Bosacki, S. L., & YLC-CURA. (2006). Direct and indirect bully-victims: Differential psychosocial risk factors associated with adolescents involved in bullying and victimization. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 551-569. doi:10.1002/ab.20155 Mason, C. A., Cauce, A. M., Gonzales, N., & Hiraga, Y. (1996). Neither too sweet nor too sour: Problem peers, maternal control, and problem behavior in African American adolescents. Child Development, 67, 2115-2130. doi:10.2307/l 131613 Meier, M. H., Slutske, W. S., Arndt, S., & Cadoret, R. J. (2008). Impulsive and callous traits are more strongly associated with delinquent behavior in higher risk neighborhoods among boys and girls. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 377-385. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.117.2.377 Mrug, S., & Windle, M. (2009). Initiation of alcohol use in early adolescence: Links with exposure to community violence across time. Addictive Behaviors, 34, 779-781. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.04.004 Overstreet, S. (2000). Exposure to community violence: Defining the problem and understanding the consequences. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 7-25. doi:10.1023/A:1009403530517 Overstreet, S., & Mazza, J. (2003). An ecological-transactional understanding of community violence: Theoretical perspectives. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 66-87. doi:10.1521/scpq.l8.1.66.20874 Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329335. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.329 Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Connolly, J., & Henderson, K. (2002). Bullying, sexual harassment, dating violence, and substance use among adolescents. In C. Wekerle & A.-M. Wall (Eds.), The violence and addiction equation: Theoretical and clinical issues in substance abuse and relationship violence (pp. 153-168). New York, NY: BrunnerRoutledge. Pope, A. W., & Bierman, K. L. (1999). Predicting adolescent peer problems and antisocial activities: The relative roles of aggression and dysregulation. Developmental Psychology, 35, 335-346. doi:10.1037/ 0012-1649.35.2.335 Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Aymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM .40.3.879 Rankin, B. H., & Quane, J. M. (2002). Social contexts and urban adolescent outcomes: The interrelated effects of neighborhoods, families, and peers on African-American youth. Social Problems, 49, 79-100. doi: 10.1525/sp.2002.49.1.79 Richters, J. E., & Martinez, P. E. (1993). Violent communities, family choices, and children's chances: An algorithm for improving the odds.

Development and Psychopathology, 5, 609-627. doi:10.1017/ S0954579400006192

231

Salzinger, S., Feldman, R. S., Stockhammer, T., & Hood, J. (2002). An ecological framework for understanding risk for exposure to community violence and the effects of exposure on children and adolescents. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 423-451. doi:10.1016/S13591789(01)00078-7 Schwartz, D. (2000). Subtypes of victims and aggressors in children's peer groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 181-192. doi: 10.1023/A:1005174831561 Schwartz, D., & Gorman, A. H. (2003). Community violence exposure and children's academic functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 163-173. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.163 Schwartz, D., & Proctor, L. (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. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.68.4 .670 Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel, T. R., & Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health 41, 283-293. Svensson, R. (2003). Gender differences in adolescent drug use: The impact of parental monitoring and peer deviance. Youth & Society, 34, 300-329. doi:10.1177/0044118X02250095 Tolan, P. H., Gorman-Smith, D., & Henry, D. B. (2003). The developmental ecology of urban males' youth violence. Developmental Psychology, 39, 274-291. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.274 Totura, C. M. W., MacKinnon-Lewis, C , Gesten, E. L., Gadd, R., Divine, K. P., Dunham, S., & Kamboukos, D. (2009). Bullying and victimization among boys and girls in middle school: The influence of perceived family and school contexts. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 571-609. doi:10.1177/0272431608324190 Trentacosta, C. J., Hyde, L. W., Shaw, D. S., & Cheong, J. W. (2009). Adolescent dispositions for antisocial behavior in context: The roles of neighborhood dangerousness and parental knowledge. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118, 564-575. doi:10.1037/a0016394 Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A. J., De Winter, A. F., Verhulst, F. C , & Ormel, J. (2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: A comparison of bullies, victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved préadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41, 672-682. doi: 10.1037/ 0012-1649.41.4.672 Wiener, J., & Mak, M. (2009). Peer victimization in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 116131. doi:10.1002/pits.20358 Yu, J. J. (2010). Reciprocal infiuences between parental knowledge and adolescent self-control: A cross-sequential nationwide study of Korean youth. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 458-467. doi:I0.1037/ a0020425

Received January 22, 2013 Revision received September 27, 2013 Accepted October 1, 2013 •

Copyright of Journal of Counseling Psychology is the property of American Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Conduits from community violence exposure to peer aggression and victimization: contributions of parental monitoring, impulsivity, and deviancy.

Community violence exposure results in heightened risk for engaging in and being a victim of interpersonal violence. Despite this robust literature, f...
12MB Sizes 1 Downloads 3 Views