Violence Exposure,Aggressive Cognitions & Externalizing Behaviors among Colombian Youth: The Moderating Role of Community Belongingness

Abstract

Limited work has focused on understanding mechanisms through which violence negatively impacts youth outcomes. The present study investigates how three different facets of violence exposure (witnessing violence, victimization and armed conflict) relate to Colombian youth externalizing behaviors via the indirect influence of aggressive cognitions and the moderating role of community belongingness. Data were from a sample of students (N = 3,483) in public high schools in Colombia. Findings indicated all three facets of violence were positively associated with youth externalizing behaviors. Armed conflict and witnessing community violence positively predicted externalizing behaviors via the indirect effect of aggressive cognitions. Community belongingness moderated the association between armed conflict and witnessing on aggressive cognitions. Results highlight the need for understanding risk and protective factors from a contextual lens. The role of community belongingness as a resilience factor is discussed, as such it has implications for intervention programs targeting youth at greater risk to violence exposure.

Keywords

violent behavior resiliency health risk behavior

Community and socio-political violence (e.g., armed conflict) exposure has and continues to be widespread in many communities across the world (Finkelhor, 2009; Finkelhor et al., 2013). Therefore, the complex and often detrimental effects of violence exposure in the lives of youth is still of great concern for both researchers and practitioners. Violence exposure in the forms of community violence and armed conflict disproportionately affect youth in Latin America (Igarapé Institute, 2015). This is particularly true for youth in Colombia, a nation that has endured one of the longest-lasting socio-political conflicts in the modern world (Cosoy, 2016). In fact, despite substantial progress being made over the last decade to reduce the prevalence of different facets of violence exposure within Colombian communities, the incidence of violence remains high across the country (Guerrero & Fandiño-Losada, 2017); for example, recent statistics from Colombian’s National Institute of Forensic Science in 2018, found that the country’s homicide rate was over 24% (Government of Colombia, Ministry of Health and Social Protection, 2019).

Research on youth development in the context of risk theorizes that youth violence exposure is meaningfully linked to detrimental outcomes, including increased engagement in externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression, delinquency and substance use; Bongers et al., 2004; Barber & Schlterman, 2009; Mrug & Windle; 2010; Gaias et al., 2019). An often-cited mechanism through which violence exposure is thought to influence youth externalizing behaviors are social-cognitive patterns (i.e., aggressive cognitions; Guerra et al., 2003; Calvete, 2007). However, a relatively smaller subset of the scholarship has focused on empirically testing direct and indirect paths from violence exposure to externalizing behaviors (Fleckman et al., 2016), or if this relation is in fact influenced by the presence of other protective factors, including community-level variables. Even less literature has explored this in contexts in which different facets of violence co-occur. Understanding these relations has the potential to support the effective development and implementation of prevention and intervention programs seeking to minimize the impact of violence exposure. Drawing from the cognitive-ecological, and ecological resilience theories (Hutchins, 2010; Tol et al., 2008; Tol et al., 2013)—both of which highlight the central role of environmental factors in the development of youth outcomes—the present study investigates how three different facets of violence exposure (i.e., armed conflict, violence witnessing and victimization) are related to Colombian youth externalizing behaviors through the indirect influence of aggressive cognitions, defined as normative beliefs about aggression and retaliation (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997). In addition, we explore the moderating role of youth community belongingness as a protective factor in the association between these three different facets of violence exposure and youth aggressive cognitions.

Colombia as a Context of Prolonged War

Colombia has historically been recognized as a nation of socio-political turbulence. For over five decades, numerous Colombian youth have directly or indirectly been exposed to the enduring effects of socio-political violence, including armed conflict (Molano et al., 2018). Armed conflict in Colombia is complex and multifaceted; various scholars have documented the relations between the emergence of the Colombian armed conflict with various economic, political and social factors, including high poverty rates, political instability and social inequity (Cosoy, 2016; Ibáñez and Velasquez, 2006; Yaffe, 2011). This has influenced the rapid formation of illegitimate armed groups (e.g., guerrillas, independent crime syndicates and paramilitary groups; Amnesty International, 1994). In addition, the inception of drug cartels and increased rates in gang and drug trafficking activity within many communities already impacted by detrimental economic conditions have been associated with ongoing youth violence exposure (Martnez, 2006). This complexity likely relates to the fact that many youth in Colombia are inclined to experience multiple forms of violence simultaneously. In addition, the close connection between the volatile socio-political context and social circumstances of many Colombian communities are theorized to place youth not directly affected by armed conflict at increased risk to be impacted by experiences of chronic community violence either as victims or witnesses (Velez-Gomez et al., 2013). Despite efforts in reducing violence within Colombian communities by governmental authorities within the last decade, violence remains prevalent. This might be attributed to rising rates in crime activity, ongoing political corruption and a recent increase in social activist homicides (Mesa, 2020). Thus, studying violence exposure impact among Colombian youth is of great relevance, and special attention should be given to those mechanisms perpetuating or mitigating risk to various co-occurring facets of violence exposure.

Violence Exposure, Aggressive Cognitions, and Externalizing Behaviors

Direct and indirect exposure to violence is known to be one of the most detrimental experiences for the developing brain (Guerra & Dierkhising, 2011) and youth are known to be at increased risk for violence exposure compared to other age groups (Aisenberg & Herrenkohl, 2008). In fact, ample research indicates exposure to violence is negatively associated with youth healthy psychological and behavioral functioning (Fitzpatrick et al., 2005). For example, prior research has been consistent in establishing the strong connection between experiences of violence and youth engagement in externalizing behaviors (McCabe et al., 2005; Cooley-Strickland et al., 2009; Myers et al., 2018). Despite the wealth of literature available linking violence exposure to these behaviors, fewer studies have focused on understanding the extent to which multiple, co-occurring experiences of violence impact youth outcomes.

Previous scholarship suggests that there are social-cognitive mechanisms through which violence exposure impacts youth behaviors in context of high violence (Bradshaw et al., 2009; Dodge et al., 1995; Heleniak & McLaughlin, 2020; McMahon et al., 2009). For instance, repeated experiences of violence can influence cognitive processes (i.e., cognitive schemas; Beck, 1977) leading to beliefs accepting violence as a norm, and, in turn, influencing youth engagement in externalizing behaviors (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997). Although limited, this body of scholarship finds consistent cross-sectional and longitudinal empirical evidence indicating that the association between violence exposure and subsequent engagement in externalizing behaviors is significantly mediated by cognitive patterns, and as such, exposure to violence influences externalizing behaviors via increases in aggressive cognitions (Bacchini et al., 2010; Slovak et al., 2007).

Particular to the Colombian context, prior research indicates that youth living in contexts where armed conflict was present reported more favorable attitudes in support of violent and retaliating acts (Ardila-Rey et al., 2009). This work, however, did not investigate the role that aggressive cognitions had in the association between exposure to violence and youth engagement in subsequent externalizing behaviors. Similarly, Chaux et al. (2012) found that youth that reported witnessing crimes were more vulnerable to violent attitudes and engagement in violent behaviors in the school context. While this evidence suggests that youth exposed to violence appear to present with both internal and external manifestations because of such exposure, this evidence remains limited to behavioral manifestations within the school context. Additionally, a limitation of this body of scholarship is that these relations have been understudied in contexts where youth face multiple types of violence concurrently. Thus, continuing to examine both comprehensive views of violence exposure along with direct and indirect paths through which violence exposure is experienced, continues to be critical to better understand youth engagement in externalizing behaviors. Further, exploring the associations between violence exposure and youth outcomes in unique, yet complex contexts such as Colombia is an important step to continue understanding youth development in contexts of continuous risk. This research can provide new insights in understanding the nuances regarding how socio-political and community violence (victimization and witnessing) may impact youth outcomes when experienced simultaneously.

Community Belongingness as a Protective Factor

While studying the negative implications of violence exposure on aggressive cognitions and behaviors is needed, it is essential to also consider environmental/community factors that might buffer these detrimental associations. This is important, as typically the scholarship on risk and resilience has largely focused on individual-level protective factors and less in known about community factors influencing positive adaptation. Ecological resilience theory (Tol et al., 2008) posits that protective factors embedded within youth environments have the potential to mitigate negative outcomes despite exposure to adversity. Community belongingness, defined as the individual feeling that one is an important part of a system or group (Hagerty et al., 1992), may serve as one of these protective variables in context of violence. For instance, a strong sense of belonging has been associated with a wide range of positive psychosocial outcomes in youth, including greater self-esteem, perceived quality of life, and lower levels of depression and anxiety (McLaren & Challis, 2009). Strong community bonds, in addition, have been linked to youth protective factors in context of war (e.g., positive health behaviors and relationships; Yang et al., 2014; Betancourt et al., 2015; Ellis et al., 2015). While prior research suggests that higher levels of community connectedness are related to lower levels of violence involvement in youth (Stoddard et al., 2011), it remains unclear what mechanisms influence this association. It is likely that community belongingness might buffer the relations between violence exposure and aggressive cognitions, which, in turn, influence youth engagement in externalizing behaviors. When youth have positive social interactions and meaningful community connections, they may be more likely to work toward improving their community, and less likely to endorse aggressive cognitions (Egerter et al., 2011; Sampson et al., 2002). Empirical researchers have yet to examine community-level protective factors including community belongingness as a moderator in the relations between violence exposure and externalizing behaviors via aggressive cognitions. This might be particularly relevant in collectivist societies, and therefore essential to examine in a context such as Colombia. As with most Latin American countries, Colombia is a collectivist society, whereby the success of the community ensures the well-being of the individual (Guevara, 2014; Hui, 1998); this mindset of supporting those perceived as in-group members (Kim et al., 1994) may lead to the creation of a strong and cohesive sense of belongingness in youth, and in turn, influence positive adaptation in context of ongoing violence. Further, examining relevant cultural moderators influencing outcomes to violence exposure in collectivist societies highlights the importance of environmental factors in context of risk and resilience.

Current Study

Given limitations of extant research, the aims of the current study were twofold: (1) to examine potential explanatory mechanisms between violence exposure and externalizing behaviors in youth, and (2) to explore community belongingness as a contextual factor that may mitigate youth externalizing behaviors in contexts where youth experience multiple facets of violence. Using cross-sectional data, we first tested the direct and indirect associations between three unique facets of violence exposure with youth externalizing behaviors, via aggressive cognitions. We hypothesized that the three facets of violence exposure in Colombian youth would be positively associated with aggressive cognitions, which in turn, would be associated with higher engagement in youth externalizing behaviors. In regard to our second aim, we hypothesized that the impact of violence exposure on aggressive cognitions would be buffered for youth that reported higher sense of community belongingness, ultimately reducing the degree to which youth engaged in externalizing behaviors.

Method

Sample

Research participants (N = 3,438) were sixth to eleventh grade students from 12 public high schools in both urban and rural areas of Colombia in South America. A common characteristic of the educational context in Colombia is that students are assigned to a student group by grade for the entire academic year. Data from surveys were collected from students in 126 different grade groups (i.e., classrooms) across the 12 schools. The average enrollment of students per group was 34.49 (total potential N = 4,346), and average participation from each group was 27.64%, for an average participation rate of 80.12% across groups. Study participation was well-distributed across all grades. The sample included slightly more females (n = 1,811, 52.0%) than males (n = 1640, 47.1%), and average age was 14.09 (SD = 1.86). For more information on sample characteristics, see Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations amongst Study Variables.

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.	11.
1. Arm con	1
2. Witness	0.30**	1
3. Victim	0.27**	0.47**	1
4. Delinq.	0.27**	0.54**	0.43**	1
5. Agree.	0.24**	0.41**	0.30**	0.57**	1
6. Drug&Alc.	0.20	0.48**	0.30**	0.51**	0.54**	1
7. Comm B.	0.01	−0.31	−0.09	−0.14**	−0.04	−0.13**	1
8. Agree Cog.	0.11**	0.17**	0.06	0.20**	0.22**	0.20**	−0.02	1
9. Age	0.05**	0.25**	0.16**	0.32**	0.12	0.32**	−0.05	0.02**	1
10. Sex	0.07	0.13**	0.03	0.14**	0.16**	0.16**	−0.02	0.02*	0.06	1
11. PED	−0.07*	0.12**	−0.03**	−0.00	0.02	−0.00	−0.17**	0.04	0.11*	0.05	1
N	3289	3347	3395	3404	3398	3361	3303	3139	3441	3451	2413
% Missing	5.57	3.90	2.53	2.27	2.44	3.50	5.17	9.88	1.21	0.92	30.72
Mean	0.98	12.7	2.1	6.4	0.68	1.6	2.4	2.1	14.0	0.48	5.9
SD	1.4	8.2	2.8	6.2	1.4	2.4	1.0	0.38	1.8	0.49	2.9
Median	0.00	12.0	1.00	5.0	0.00	1.0	2.3	2.1	14.0	0.00	3.0
Min	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.0	9.0	0.0	2.0
Max	5.0	51.0	19.0	44.0	12.0	12.0	4.0	4.0	22.0	1.0	14.0

Note. Arm con = armed conflict; Delinq = delinquency; Drug&Alc = drug and alcohol use; Comm B. = community belongingness; Agree Cog. = aggressive cognitions; PED = parental education.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Procedures

For this study, recruitment procedures were approved both by participating schools in Colombia and by a (blinded for peer review) University Institutional Review Board. All the participating schools were recruited through word of mouth. Students completed an anonymous survey that did not contain any identifiable information. To obtain consent, parents of the students were sent a letter in which the study purpose and procedures were outlined prior to data collection. Study consent included an opt-out option for those not wanting to take part in the study. In addition, students who were consented to participate by parents were asked to assent their participation at the time of data collection. Parental opt-out forms were only received from 28 (1.5%) parents, and 25 (1.3%) students did not assent to participate.

Measures

Procedures for Translation

Because Spanish is Colombia’s primary language, all measures for data collection originally developed in English were translated into Spanish. To enhance translation accuracy, a back-translation method was used (Brislin, 1970); for this, the Spanish translation of all measures were back-translated to English and inconsistencies were corrected. Further translation practices included semantic equivalence (Knight et al., 2009). This process aided in ensuring that the translated version of the items reflected the connotation of the items in English. To account for cultural intricacies of language (e.g., use of culturally relevant jargon and wording expressions) the measure was piloted in a community school not participating in our study but with the same demographic composition. Modification to the measures were then made for those questions flagged to be unclear by students.

Demographics

Students reported on their age, sex (Females = 0, Males = 1), and mothers’ and fathers’ education level (1 = did not finish primary school, 7 = finished graduate school), which were averaged to create an indicator of parental education. These variables were covariates for our models.

Exposure to Community Violence

Armed Conflict

Armed conflict exposure was assessed using an adaptation of the Childhood War Trauma Questionnaire (Macksoud, 1992). The measure was adapted to include some items that were specific to the Colombian context (e.g., encountering guerilla and paramilitary groups) and some similar items were combined to reduce survey burden on adolescents. The scale included 16 questions (α = .73) asking adolescents whether they experienced any events (e.g., torture, intimidation, forced school change) due to the armed conflict (0 = No, 1 = Yes). The scores on the 16 items were summed together, with higher scores representing more armed conflict events experienced. Because almost all (97%) of the adolescents reported experiencing five armed conflict events or less, we truncated the scale to a maximum score of 5.

Violence Victimization

Victimization was measured using the neighborhood subscale of the Victimization Scale (Nadel et al., 1996). Adolescents reported on seven items (α = .69; e.g., “In your neighborhood, how often have you been attacked with a weapon?”) measured on a 4-point scale (0 = Never to 3 = Many times).

Witnessing Community Violence

Witnessing was measured using the Children’s Exposure to Community Violence scale (Richters & Martinez, 1990). Adolescents reported on 17 items (α = .85), summed creating an index score (e.g., “In your neighborhood, how often have you seen drug deals, or someone pull a weapon on someone else?”) measured on a 4-point scale (0 = Never to 3 = Many times).

Externalizing Behaviors

Our outcome, externalizing behaviors, was represented by a latent factor comprised of three indicators: delinquency, aggression, and drug and alcohol use. Prior work using a subset of these data (n = 1,857, 53%) supported the use of this latent variable (Masked for blind review). This construct was confirmed for this larger sample, with all indicators positively and significantly loading onto the factor with standardized loadings of over .60 (Bryant & Yarnold, 1995). Specifically, aggression was measured using four items from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey; YRBSS; Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). Students were questioned in regard to their involvement in fights, caused injuries to others and carried weapons within the last 30 days (α = .70). Each item was rated on a four-point scale (0 = Never, 3 = 5 times or more). Delinquency was measured using 17 items (α = .86) from the Risky Behavior Measure (Eccles & Barber, 1990). Each item (e.g., “used force to get things from people?”) was measured on a four-point scale (0 = Never, 3 = More than 10 times). Drug and alcohol use were measured using three items (α = .64) from the YRBSS (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2015). Students reported on frequency of alcohol and drug consumption and intoxication. Each item was rated on a four-point scale (0 = Never, 3 = 5 times or more).

Aggressive Cognitions

Aggressive cognitions were measured utilizing The Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence Scale (1989). Youth reported on 14 items (α = .77) that reflected the idea that violence was adequate/inadequate in specific scenarios (e.g., anyone who does not fight is going to get picked on even more) measured on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 4 = Strongly agree). Reverse coding was applied appropriately, scores were averaged, and higher scores represented stronger beliefs supporting violence.

Community Belongingness

Community belongingness was measured using the Spanish version of the U.S.-based Maryland Safe and Supportive School Climate Survey, which had been previously validated in Mexico (Shukla et al., 2019). Youth reported on three items (α = .87; e.g., “I feel close to others”). Items were measured on a four-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 4 = Strongly agree). The items for this scale were averaged and coded for higher items to represent a more positive perception of community belongingness.

Data Analytic Plan

Preliminary analysis for descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, minimums, and maximums used to examine distributional properties were conducted using SPSS 25 (SPSS Inc, 2005). Correlations were estimated between pairs of variables to assess possible multicollinearity. We used a model building approach in which a total of three different models were performed. Standardized estimates and respective significance level values of all three models are shown in Table 2. Our main study aims were examined using structural equation modeling (SEM) in Mplus 8.1.7 (Muthén, & Muthén, 1998). A SEM framework was useful as it permitted the simultaneous examination of multiple variables in a single model while accounting for the contribution of other variables in the same model (Hoyle & Smith, 1994). The variance in our dependent variables attributable to classroom membership was above 5%, so we controlled for non-independence of our data at the classroom level by specifying TYPE = COMPLEX (Muthén, & Muthén, 1998).

Table 2.

Model Results.

	Covariates model			Direct/indirect effects model			Moderation model
	β	SE	p	β	SE	p	β	SE	p
Externalizing behaviors
Delinquency	.80	.02	.000	.89	.02	.000	.89	.02	.000
Aggression	.69	.06	.000	.64	.02	.000	.64	.02	.000
Drug&Alc	.71	.07	.000	.78	.03	.000	.78	.03	.000
Gender	.18	.04	.000	.07	.02	.000	.07	.04	.000
Age	.36	.02	.000	.23	.02	.000	.23	.02	.000
PED	.08	.01	.000	.08	.02	.000	.08	.02	.000
Armed conflict	—	—	—	.09	.02	.000	.09	.02	.000
Violence witnessing	—	—	—	.41	.02	.000	.41	.02	.000
Violence victimization	—	—	—	.20	.11	.000	.20	.02	.000
Aggressive cognitions	—	—	—	.14	.02	.000	.15	.02	.000
Comm B	—	—	—	.14	.02	.322	.02	.02	.319
Aggressive cognitions
Gender	.15	.02	.000	.13	.02	.000	.13	.02	.000
Age	.01	.01	.808	−.03	.02	.169	−.03	.02	.199
PED	−.05	.00	.030	−.05	.02	.026	−.06	.02	.019
Armed conflict	—	—	—	.06	.01	.007	.06	.02	.005
Violence witnessing	—	—	—	.16	.01	.000	.17	.02	.000
Violence victimization	—	—	—	−.02	.02	.306	−.03	.02	.178
Comm B	—	—	—	.01	.02	.568	.01	.02	.562
AC × Comm B	—	—	—	—	—	—	−.07	.02	.000
VW × Comm B	—	—	—	—	—	—	.05	.02	.045
VV × Comm B	—	—	—	—	—	—	−.01	.02	.614

Note. Standardized (β) parameters are presented first, followed by Standard Errors (SE) and significant levels (p) for each of the three models. Drug&Alc = drug and alcohol; AC = armed conflict; VW = violence victimization; WW = violence witnessing; Comm B = community belongingness.

First we estimated a model including only our covariates—age, sex, parental educational level (PED)—as prior literature has drawn connection between exposure to violence and demographic characteristics (Stein et al., 2003). Our second model then tested direct effects between violence exposure (i.e., community violence witnessing, community violence victimization, armed conflict exposure) and externalizing behaviors, as well as indirect paths testing the relation between these three facets of violence exposure and externalizing behaviors via aggressive cognitions in our model. After calculating direct, indirect and total effects for these paths, the third and final model (represented in Figure 1) explored the moderating effect of community belongingness on the associations between violence exposure and aggressive cognitions. Any significant interactions were probed using the Johnson-Neyman (J-N) method (Borich & Wunderlich, 1973; Johnson & Neyman, 1936). We plotted changes in the slope between violence exposure and externalizing behaviors at differing levels of community belonging. The J-N procedure was useful in determining at what levels a moderator influences the relationship between a predictor and an outcome for a continuous interaction instead of using common arbitrary cut-offs (Clavel, 2015).

Figure 1.

Path diagram for hypothesized associations.

Because we were testing a moderated mediation (Preacher et al., 2007), we also examined conditional indirect effects separately from the J-N approach used in the previous analyses. Conditional indirect effects are defined as the magnitude of an indirect effect (i.e., the path from violence exposure to aggressive cognitions to externalizing behaviors) at a particular value of the moderator (i.e., community belonging). Thus, we regressed the indirect path from violence exposure to externalizing behaviors via aggressive cognitions at high (+1SD), medium (average), and low (−1SD) values of community belongingness as these are commonly used cut-off values.

Full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimates were obtained to account for non-normality data assumptions (Arbuckle et al., 1996), as well as for handling missing data (Enders & Bandalos, 2001). Due to the high level of missingness on the parental education variable (as many adolescents reported not knowing their parents’ education), sensitivity analyses were run without this variable in the model, with consistent results. All independent and moderating variables were centered prior to running analyses. Adequate model fit was evaluated using a non-significant chi-square statistic, comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) greater than .95 and the root-mean-square-error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) less than .06 (Bentler, 1990; Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Analysis of our data showed that youth, on average, reported low levels of violence exposure across the three facets of violence and externalizing behaviors, with average scores falling below the maximum values of the measures capturing these constructs. In addition, students perceived average levels of community belonginess (M = 2.4, SD = 1.0), and rather lower levels of aggressive cognitions (M = 2.1, SD = .38). Correlations between study variables were weak to moderate, but in the anticipated directions. For means, medians, standard deviations, and correlations between all study variables, see Table 1.

Main and Indirect Effects Model

In the main effects model which controlled for demographic indicators, only armed conflict (β = .06, SE = .01, p < .001) and witnessing community violence (β = .16, SE = .01, p < .001) were positively associated with significant increases in aggressive cognitions. All three forms of violence exposure predicted engagement in externalizing behaviors for youth (ps < .001). Likewise, aggressive cognition was positively associated with externalizing behaviors (β = .14, SE = .02, p < .001). Additionally, we observed significant indirect effects of armed conflict, and community violence witnessing on externalizing behaviors via aggressive cognitions (indirect effects estimates are reported in Table 3). These were consistent with partial indirect effects because violence exposure (i.e., armed conflict and community violence witnessing) had remaining direct effects on externalizing behaviors not accounted for by increases in aggressive cognitions. Notably, there was a non-significant indirect effect between community violence victimization on youth externalizing behaviors through aggressive cognitions. This model showed adequate fit to the data, ( $χ^{2}$ (15) = 212.35, p < .001, RMSEA = .061 [.054−.069], SRMR = .021, CFI = .96, TLI = .90).

Table 3.

Unstandardized Path Estimates for the Indirect Effect of Violence Exposure to Externalizing Behaviors via Aggressive Cognitions.

Path	B	95% CI	p
Armed conflict → aggressive cognitions → externalizing behaviors	.01	[0.00 to 0.02]	.004
Violence Victimization → aggressive cognitions → externalizing behaviors	−.02	[−0.05 to 0.01]	.179
Violence Witnessing → aggressive cognitions → externalizing behaviors	.04	[0.02 to 0.06]	.000

Note. Unstandardized (B) parameters are presented first, followed by 95% confidence intervals and significant levels (p) for each of the indirect effects estimated.

Moderation Model

Findings revealed that levels of community belongingness moderated the relations between armed conflict and aggressive cognitions and witnessing community violence and aggressive cognitions. The relation between community violence victimization and aggressive cognitions was not moderated by community belongingness, all relevant estimates are presented in Table 2.

Interaction between Armed Conflict and Community Belongingness

Johnson-Neyman Moderation

Based on our standardized model results, the interaction between armed conflict and community belongingness (β = −.07, SE = .02, p < .000) showed that the effect of armed conflict on aggressive cognitions was moderated by a youth’s level of community belongingness. Further, for those that were between 0.20 and 2.0 standard deviations above the average level of community belonginess, exposure to armed conflict did not predict aggressive cognitions one way or the other. This suggests that the higher the score in community belongingness, the less strongly armed conflict predicted aggressive cognitions. Similarly, at lower scores of community belongingness, the effect of conflict on aggressive cognitions was strengthened.

Conditional Indirect Effect

The indirect effect from armed conflict to aggressive cognitions to externalizing behaviors was only significant for low (B_L = .03, SE = .00, p < .000) and average (B_A = .01, SE = .00, p < .05) levels of community belongingness, but not for high levels (B_H = −.00, SE = .00, n.s).

Interactions between Violence Witnessing and Community Belongingness

Johnson-Neyman Moderation

Our findings also revealed that the effect of witnessing community violence on aggressive cognitions (β = .05, SE = .02, p < .05) was moderated by youths’ level of community belonginess; and for those who scored below −0.20 standard deviations below the average level of community belongingness, exposure to community violence witnessing did not seem to be a predictor of aggressive cognitions suggesting that the higher the score in community belongingness, the more strongly violence witnessing predicted aggressive cognitions.

Conditional Indirect Effects

The indirect effect from community violence witnessing to aggressive cognitions to externalizing behaviors was significant for low, average and high levels of community belongingness (B_L = .05, SE = .01; B_A = .07, SE = .01; B_H = .09, SE = .02; ps < .05); notably the strongest effect observed was for high levels of community belongingness.

Discussion

This study’s objective was to examine the association between violence exposure and Colombian youth engagement in externalizing behaviors through the indirect effect of aggressive cognitions, as well as to explore the protective role of community belongingness in these relations. We found that while all three forms of violence exposure were positively associated with youth engagement in externalizing behaviors, only armed conflict and witnessing community violence positively predicted externalizing behaviors via the indirect effect of aggressive cognitions. Similarly, we found that community belongingness only moderated the association between armed conflict and witnessing on aggressive cognitions but not violence victimization. Notably, these moderation effects were in different directionalities, whereby the adjusted effect of armed conflict on aggressive cognitions decreased as a function of community belongingness; on the contrary, the adjusted effect of witnessing on aggressive cognitions increased as a function of community belongingness.

Influence of Violence Exposure on Youth Behaviors via Aggressive Cognitions

Aim one of our paper was to test explanatory mechanisms in the association between the three facets of violence exposure on externalizing behaviors in a context where multiple forms of violence might be experienced simultaneously by youth. This expands the growing body of scholarship on violence polyvictimization (Finkelhor, 2009), as frequently, the effects and risks of various facets of violence exposure are examined independently rather than concurrently, or only explored in subsets of the population hypothesized to be a higher risk of multiple types of violence exposure. Understanding the interconnectedness of violence exposure carries important implications for the design and implementation of prevention and interventions programs. Specifically, increased knowledge can help providers address interventions from a more holistic approach by considering the wider range of youth violence exposure. Regarding our results, we found that all three forms of violence were positively related to externalizing behaviors. Consistent with previous literature examining this connection (Gaias et al., 2019; Mrug & Windle, 2010), our findings suggest that regardless of the nature of violence exposure youth are subject to, violence exposure has the potential to increase youth vulnerability to engagement in externalizing behaviors. Youth engagement in such behaviors could potentially be linked to their adaptive response of being exposed to ongoing threat and violence, hence, the manifestation of externalizing behaviors could be serving as shield for their safety. Engagement in externalizing behaviors, however, places youth at risk for re-victimization (Thompson et al., 2002). Future research should focus on exploring bidirectional effects between violence exposure and externalizing behaviors in context of violence co-occurrence.

In accordance with the cognitive-ecological theoretical framework, in which cognitions and behaviors are best understood within social context (Hutchins, 2010), our model results indicate that there was a positive association between violence exposure and youth externalizing behaviors through the indirect effect of aggressive cognitions; however, we observed this effect in armed conflict and violence witnessing but not in victimization. This supports previous work indicating that youth witnessing violence are more likely to endorse favorable attitudes supporting violent behaviors than those who are directly victimized (Chaux et al., 2012). This finding suggests that youth exposed to violence distally or through witnessing might engage in social learning processes in which the engagement in violent behaviors is justified (Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 1989), ultimately increasing risk for violence perpetuation in youth’s lives. Because exposure to violence modifies cognitive patterns and, in turn, influences engagement in violent behaviors, intervening to challenge such cognitive patterns, as suggested by cognitive behavioral interventions (Beck, 1977), is critical.

Moreover, the strength of the associations in both indirect effects could possibly relate to the unique nuances of Colombian youth’s experiences with these two facets of violence and connects to the notion of dose effects. Within the risk and resilience literature, dose effects postulate that the intensity and frequency of adversity have the potential to influence emotional and behavioral outcomes (Masten & Narayan, 2012). According to our results, aggressive cognitions appeared to have a stronger effect in the relation between witnessing and externalizing behaviors that it did for armed conflict and externalizing behaviors. This could be because experiences of witnessing community violence are thought to be sources of ongoing stressors for youth living in this context (higher dose), and armed conflict exposure, while more complex in nature, is often reported as a more of an isolated (one-time) event. Other studies have suggested that greater exposure to violence was related to more retaliatory beliefs (Ardila-Rey et al., 2009). More research is needed in this area to parse apart these complex relations.

Further, the absence of association for community violence victimization can likely be related to the presence of other common stress-based consequences direct exposure to violence has on youth, including low self-esteem, depression or more severe clinical manifestations including trauma (Lynch & Cicchetti, 1998) common to survivors of direct violence exposure that were not directly measured in this study. Particularly, by diminishing youth’s ability to cope with stress, trauma disrupts biological and psychological functioning (Van der Kolk, 2003). A dysregulated physiological system might interfere with youth cognitive processes and, in turn, influence youth attitudes and beliefs toward aggression in unique ways. Thus, studying trauma related reactions in this population are important future steps for the field.

The Role of Community Belongingness

Our second goal in the present study was to understand the role that community-level protective mechanisms played in the tested associations. This is of great importance as much of the work on resilience amidst significant life adversity has been related to individual-level characteristics such as personal traits and family constitution (Kliewer et al., 2001; Yule et al., 2019). Less is known about community-level factors that can mitigate the impact of exposure to violence on youth; and even less work has focused on this moderating factor in contexts in which various types of violence are experienced concurrently. We found that youth levels of community belongingness moderated the relations between armed conflict and aggressive cognitions and witnessing community violence and aggressive cognitions only. Community belongingness did not influence the association between violence victimization and aggressive cognitions. The absence of a moderation effect for violence victimization could likely also be attributed to the development of more severe mental health difficulties related to ongoing direct violence victimization exposure, including trauma responses (Wood et al., 2002). As a result of distressful situations, trauma has the potential to inhibit emotional and even cognitive responses (i.e., numbing; Roemer et al., 2001), emotional and/or cognitive numbing reactions in this case could possibly help explain the lack of relation between direct victimization and community belongingness, as well as the lack of moderation effects in either directionality.

Further, despite emerging evidence suggesting community-level protective mechanisms buffer the detrimental effects of violence exposure, our findings are mixed; our moderation analysis suggest community belongingness influenced the relations between violence exposure and aggressive cognitions in dissimilar ways (i.e., different directionalities) for armed conflict and witnessing. As hypothesized, our results indicate that the higher the score in community belongingness, the less strongly armed conflict predicted aggressive cognitions. This is congruent with literature indicating community-level protective mechanisms matter for youth exposed to violence (Betancourt et al., 2015; Ellis et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2014). Unexpectedly, contrary to hypothesized moderating effects, the role of community belonginess did not appear to buffer the negative effects of violence exposure for youth witnessing violence. In fact, community belongingness appeared to strengthen the effect between witnessing and aggressive cognitions. This finding could be driven, in part, by the interrelatedness between youth witnessing violence and membership in other violent institutions (i.e., gangs) that are likely to promote a sense of belonging in youth at high risk to violence (Howell & Griffiths, 2018; Tobin, 2008). The accentuating effect of community belongingness could also be related to the collectivist nature of Latin American countries and explained by a collective psychosocial resilience framework (Freedman, 2004), whereby the collective becomes the basic unit of existence. In this sense, if youth are feeling more connected to their communities, witnessing detrimental events or attacks toward their own community might trigger feelings of collective survival, and violent cognitions and behaviors are more likely to be justified. Collectively, the differences in our moderation findings can be supported by the ecological-resilience theory (Tol et al., 2008) whereby resilience is understood as a characteristic of complex adaptive systems, implying that the capacity of youth to succeed in the presence of different types of adversity is not solely dependent on biological/individual characteristics; rather, this capacity to thrive is vastly linked to external processes embedded in the context in which youth function (Masten & Barnes, 2018).

Limitations and Future Directions

It is important to note that the findings of the present study can only be interpreted in the unique context of our sample and require understanding of the particularities of the complex socio-political circumstances of Colombian youth. While we believe our study carries important implications for researchers and practitioners among interdisciplinary fields, it is not without limitations. First, given the uniqueness of our sample and the cross-sectional nature of our data, the generalizability and causality of our findings is restricted; a longitudinal design that accounts for temporal change will be an important future step. Additionally, although a strength of our model was the ability to examine moderated indirect effects across multiple types of violence exposure, the model did include a high number of significance tests, which could introduce the potential for Type 1 error. Second, data collected and analyzed were self-reported and retrospective. While this approach provided us with important insights about youth experiences within context of violence co-occurrence, future studies should consider incorporating other sources of data including parallel reports from parents or teachers. Third, although our results demonstrated significant effects, the strength of our associations were small. This speaks about the potential of a larger community effect influencing youth in this space and underscores the critical need for interpreting our findings under a contextual lens. Future work in this area could consider replicating our models to explore the stability of our observed effects. Further, this study did not examine clinical manifestations of stress-related disorders or trauma indicators. Future work may consider examining this in context of youth polyvictimization. Lastly, our results may be well complemented with qualitative inquiry to identify the uniqueness of the phenomenological experiences of communities affected by ongoing violence exposure.

Implications

Our study has important implications in the conceptualization of risk and protective mechanisms for youth in context of ongoing violence exposure. Particularly since violence in Colombia appears to be resurging despite federal efforts in mitigating its prevalence (Arrendondo, 2019). Our results support the idea that resilience is contextually situated, such that the characteristics of the environment are profoundly associated with the development of mechanisms promoting or inhibiting youth engagement in externalizing behaviors. Further, our findings have implications for understanding the lived experiences of Colombian youth who are vulnerable to experiencing different types of violence simultaneously in their communities. This is critical as it can inform the development and evaluation of prevention and intervention programs from a person-in-environment approach (Hare, 2004). That is, that interventions should center contextual and social considerations to holistically contemplate the multiple risk and protective factors embedded in youth environments that can often serve as barriers or facilitators to positive change. Lastly, programs emphasizing on the unique role of contextual/social aspects have the great potential to be beneficial for communities at higher risk to violence exposure and/or externalizing behaviors for whom traditional programs might not be appropriate. Indeed, interventions that are responsive to the cultural and social nuances of specific populations are critical tools to increase engagement and effectiveness (Alegria et al., 2010).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the National Science Foundation and the United States Agency for International Development through a fellowship to the second author (DGE- 1311230).

ORCID iD

Ana Maria Melendez Guevara

Author Biographies

Ana Maria Meléndez Guevara, MSW, LCSW is a doctoral candidate in Human and Family Development at Arizona State University. Her research interests include child and family development in contexts of adversity and equity issues within mental health delivery. She aims to contribute to the development and evaluation of culturally sensitive interventions that address the complex needs and strengths of families by identifying micro and macro mechanisms of resilience and adaptation in service systems, focusing on interventions that embrace trauma-informed approaches.

Larissa M. Gaias, PhD, is an assistant professor of Psychology at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. Her research focuses on the development, implementation, and evaluation of equity-explicit school-based social emotional, behavioral, and mental health interventions. She is interested in understanding how individual and institutional biases in educational contexts can better support marginalized youth, including youth of color and youth affected by violence.

Ashely M. Fraser, PhD, the overarching goal of Ashley’s research is to understand and support positive development across childhood and adolescence, particularly in contexts of adversity. To do so, she specifically investigates the interplays of individual-, family-, and societal-level factors on the development of hope, empathy, prosocial behavior, and practices that contribute to equitable and inclusive behaviors across childhood.

Sarah Lindstrom Johnson, PhD, is an associate professor in the School of Social and Family Dynamics at Arizona State University. Her research focuses on designing and evaluating interventions to support youth development as a mechanism to prevent involvement in risk behaviors including violence. This work is conducted in partnership with youth serving organization with a desire to create sustainable change.

References

Aisenberg

Herrenkohl

(2008). Community violence in context. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(3), 296–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507312287

Alegria

Atkins

Farmer

Slaton

Stelk

(2010). One size does not fit all: Taking diversity, culture and context seriously. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 37(1–2), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0283-2

Amnesty International. (1994). Political violence in Colombia: Myth and reality.

Arbuckle

J. L.

Marcoulides

G. A.

Schumacker

R. E.

(1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. Advanced Structural Equation Modeling: Issues and Techniques, 243, 277.

Ardila-Rey

Killen

Brenick

(2009). Moral reasoning in violent contexts: Displaced and non-displaced Colombian children’s evaluations of moral transgressions, retaliation, and reconciliation. Social Development, 18(1), 181–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00483.x

Arrendondo

(2019, December 30). The slow death of Colombian peace movement. The Atlantic. Retrieved January 2021, from https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/12/colombia-peace-farc/604078/.

Bacchini

Miranda

M. C.

Affuso

(2010). Effects of parental monitoring and exposure to community violence on antisocial behavior and anxiety/depression among adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(2), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510362879

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

Barber

B. K.

Schluterman

J. M.

(2009). An overview of the empirical literature on adolescents and political violence. In Barber

B. K.

(Ed.), Adolescents and war: How youth deal with political violence (pp. 35–61). Oxford University Press.

10.

Beck

A. T.

(1977). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. Psychosomatics, 18(1), 60.

11.

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

12.

Betancourt

T. S.

Abdi

Ito

B. S.

Lilienthal

G. M.

Agalab

Ellis

. (2015). We left one war and came to another: Resource loss, acculturative stress, and caregiver–child relationships in Somali refugee families. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(1), 114–125 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037538

13.

Bongers

I. L.

Koot

H. M.

Ende

J. V. D.

Verhulst

F. C.

(2004). Developmental trajectories of externalizing behaviors in childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 75(5), 1523–1537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00755.x

14.

Borich

G. D.

Wunderlich

K. W.

(1973). Johnson-Neyman revisited: Determining interactions among group regressions and plotting regions of significance in the case of two groups, two predictors, and one criterion. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447303300118

15.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Rodgers

C. R. R.

Ghandour

L. A.

Garbarino

(2009). Social–cognitive mediators of the association between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(3), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017362

16.

Brislin

R. W.

(1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

17.

Bryant

F. B.

Yarnold

P. R.

(1995). Principal components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In Grimm

L. G.

Yarnold

P. R.

(Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate analysis (pp. 99–136). American Psychological Association.

18.

Calvete

(2007). Justification of violence beliefs and social problem-solving as mediators between maltreatment and behavior problems in adolescents. The Spanish journal of psychology, 10(1), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1138741600006399

19.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Youth risk behavior survey data. Retrieved June 1, 2019, from https://www.cdc.gov/

20.

Chaux

Arboleda

Rincón

(2012). Community violence and reactive and proactive aggression: The mediating role of cognitive and emotional variables. Revista Colombiana de Psicología, 21(2), 233–251.

21.

Clavel

(2015) Advanced topics: Plotting better interactions using the Johnson-Neyman technique in Mplus. Fred Clavel.

22.

Cooley-Strickland

Quille

T. J.

Griffin

R. S.

Stuart

E. A.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Furr-Holden

(2009). Community violence and youth: Affect, behavior, substance use, and academics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 12(2), 127–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-009-0051-6

23.

Cosoy

(2016). ¿Por qué empezó y qué pasó en la guerra de más de 50 años que desangró a Colombia? BBC News, Retrieved June, 2020, from https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-37181413.

24.

Dodge

K. A.

Pettit

G. S.

Bates

J. E.

Valente

(1995). Social information-processing patterns partially mediate the effect of early physical abuse on later conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104(4), 632–643. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843x.104.4.632

25.

Eccles

J. S.

Barber

B. L.

(1990). Risky behavior scale.

26.

Egerter

Barclay

Grossman-Kahn

Braveman

(2011). Exploring the social determinants of health: Violence, social disadvantage and health. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

27.

Ellis

B. H.

Abdi

S. M.

Miller

A. B.

White

M. T.

Lincoln

A. K.

(2015). Protective factors for violence perpetration in Somali young adults: The role of community belonging and neighborhood cohesion. Psychology of Violence, 5(4), 384. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039610

28.

Enders

C. K.

Bandalos

D. L.

(2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(3), 430–457. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0803_5

29.

Finkelhor

(2009). Children’s exposure to violence: A comprehensive national survey. Diane Publishing.

30.

Finkelhor

Turner

H. A.

Shattuck

Hamby

S. L.

(2013). Violence, crime, and abuse exposure in a national sample of children and youth: An update. JAMA Pediatrics, 167(7), 614–621. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.42

31.

Fitzpatrick

K. M.

Wright

D. R.

Piko

B. F.

LaGory

(2005). Depressive symptomatology, exposure to violence, and the role of social capital among African American adolescents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75(2), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.75.2.262

32.

Fleckman

J. M.

Drury

S. S.

Taylor

C. A.

Theall

K. P.

(2016). Role of direct and indirect violence exposure on externalizing behavior in children. Journal of Urban Health, 93(3), 479–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-016-0052-y

33.

Freedman

T. G.

(2004). Voices of 9/11 first responders: Patterns of collective resilience. Clinical Social Work Journal, 32, 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-004-0538-z

34.

Gaias

L. M.

Lindstrom Johnson

White

R. M.

Pettigrew

Dumka

(2019). Positive school climate as a moderator of violence exposure for Colombian adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 63(1–2), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12300

35.

Government of Colombia, Ministry of Health and Social protection. (2019). Colombia, Violence Against Children and Youth Survey, 2018.

36.

Guerra

N. G.

Rowell Huesmann

Spindler

(2003). Community violence exposure, social cognition, and aggression among urban elementary school children. Child Development, 74(5), 1561–1576. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00623

37.

Guerra

Dierkhising

(2011). Los efectos de la violencia comunitaria sobre el desarrollo del niño. Enciclopedia sobre el Desarrollo de la Primera Infancia. Retrieved June, 2020, from https://www.enciclopedia-infantes.com/sites/default/files/textes-experts/es/2682/los-efectos-de-la-violencia-comunitaria-sobre-el-desarrollo-del-nino.pdf

38.

Guerrero

Fandiño-Losada

(2017). Is Colombia a violent country? Colombia Medica, 48(1), 9–11. https://doi.org/10.25100/cm.v48i1.2979

39.

Guevara

(2014, February 19). Cultural etrics: Colombia. Global Public Relations. Retrieved January 2021, from https://globalreputationmanagement.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/cultural-metrics-colombia/

40.

Hagerty

B. M.

Lynch-Sauer

Patusky

K. L.

Bouwsema

Collier

(1992). Sense of belonging: a vital mental health concept. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 6(3), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9417(92)90028-h

41.

Hare

(2004). Defining social work for the 21st century. The International Federation of social workers’ revised definition of social work. International Social Work, 47, 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872804043973

42.

Heleniak

McLaughlin

K. A.

(2020). Social-cognitive mechanisms in the cycle of violence: Cognitive and affective theory of mind, and externalizing psychopathology in children and adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 32(2), 735–750. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579419000725

43.

Howell

J. C.

Griffiths

(2018). Gangs in America’s communities. Sage Publications.

44.

Hoyle

R. H.

Smith

G. T.

(1994). Formulating clinical research hypotheses as structural equation models: A conceptual overview. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.62.3.429

45.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

46.

Huesmann

L. R.

Guerra

N. G.

(1997). Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 408–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.408

47.

Hui

(1998). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Research in Personality, 22(1), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(88)90022-0

48.

Hutchins

(2010). Cognitive ecology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 705–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01089.x

49.

Ibáñez

A. M.

y Velasquez

(2006). Hacia una politica proactiva de la poblacion desplazada. Universidad de los Andes, Secretariado Nacional de Pastoral Social Caritas Colombia.

50.

Igarapé Institute. (2015). Latin America’s poverty is down, but violence is up. Retrieved June 2020, from https://igarape.org.br/en/latin-americas-poverty-is-down-but-violence-is-up-why/

51.

Johnson

P. O.

Neyman

(1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57–93.

52.

Kim

U. E.

Triandis

H. C.

Kâğitçibaşi

Ç. E.

Choi

S. C. E.

Yoon

G. E.

(Eds.) (1994). Individualism and collectivism: theory, method, and applications. Sage Publications, Inc.

53.

Kliewer

Murrelle

Mejia

Torres de G.

Angold

(2001). Exposure to violence against a family member and internalizing symptoms in Colombian adolescents: The protective effects of family support. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(6), 971–982. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.69.6.971

54.

Knight

G. P.

Roosa

M. W.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

(2009). Studying ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged populations: Methodological challenges and best practices. American Psychological Association.

55.

Lynch

Cicchetti

(1998). An ecological-transactional analysis of children and contexts: The longitudinal interplay among child maltreatment, community violence, and children’s symptomatology. Development and Psychopathology, 10(2), 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1017/s095457949800159x

56.

Macksoud

M. S.

(1992). Assessing war trauma in children: A case study of Lebanese children. Journal of Refugee Studies, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/5.1.1

57.

Martnez

(2006, October 4). Colombia: Teaming up against soccer hooligans. Global Information Network. Retrieved May 2020, from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/457542435?accountid=14667

58.

Masten

A. S.

Narayan

A. J.

(2012). Child development in the context of disaster, war, and terrorism: Pathways of risk and resilience. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 227–257. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100356

59.

Masten

Barnes

(2018). Resilience in children: Developmental perspectives. Children, 5(7), 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/children5070098

60.

McCabe

K. M.

Hough

R. L.

Yeh

Lucchini

S. E.

Hazen

(2005). The relation between violence exposure and conduct problems among adolescents: A prospective study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75(4), 575–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.75.4.575

61.

McLaren

Challis

(2009). Resilience among men farmers: The protective roles of social support and sense of belonging in the depression–suicidal ideation relation. Death Studies, 33, 262–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481180802671985

62.

McMahon

S. D.

Felix

E. D.

Halpert

J. A.

Petropoulos

L. A.

(2009). Community violence exposure and aggression among urban adolescents: Testing a cognitive mediator model. Journal of Community Psychology, 37(7), 895–910. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20339

63.

Mesa

(2020) Los Colombiano otra vez estan huyendo del pais por la violence. el espectador. Retrieved June 2020, from https://www.elespectador.com/noticias/el-mundo/los-colombianos-otra-vez-estan-huyendo-del-pais-articulo-907165

64.

Molano

Harker

Cristancho

J. C.

(2018). Effects of indirect exposure to homicide events on children’s mental health: Evidence from urban settings in Colombia. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(10), 2060–2072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0876-8

65.

Mrug

Windle

(2010). Prospective effects of violence exposure across multiple contexts on early adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(8), 953–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02222.x

66.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998). Mplus: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers: User’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.

67.

Myers

T. D. W.

Salcedo

Frick

P. J.

Ray

J. V.

Thornton

L. C.

Steinberg

Cauffman

(2018). Understanding the link between exposure to violence and aggression in justice-involved adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 30(2), 593–603. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579417001134

68.

Nadel

Spellmann

Alvarez-Canino

Lausell-Bryant

Landsberg

(1996). The cycle of violence and victimization: A study of the school-based intervention of a multidisciplinary youth violence prevention program. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(5), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(18)30243-5

69.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316

70.

Richters

J. E.

Martinez

(1990). Things I have seen and heard: A structured interview for assessing youth children’s violence exposure. National Institute of Mental Health.

71.

Roemer

Litz

B. T.

Orsillo

S. M.

Wagner

A. W.

(2001). A preliminary investigation of the role of strategic withholding of emotions in PTSD. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14(1), 149–156.

72.

Sampson

R. J.

Morenoff

J. D.

Gannon-Rowley

(2002). Assessing “neighborhood effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 443–478. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141114

73.

Schunk

D. H.

(1989). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In Zimmerman

B. J.

Schunk

D. H.

(Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (pp. 83–110). Springer.

74.

Shukla

K. D.

Waasdorp

T. E.

Lindstrom Johnson

Orozco Solis

M. G.

Nguyen

A. J.

Rodríguez

C. C.

Bradshaw

C. P.

(2019). Does school climate mean the same thing in the United States as in Mexico? A focus on measurement invariance. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282917731459

75.

Slovak

Carlson

Helm

(2007). The influence of family violence on youth attitudes. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 24(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-006-0063-8

76.

SPSS Inc. (2005). SPSS Base 14.0 user’s guide. Prentice Hall.

77.

Stein

B. D.

Jaycox

L. H.

Kataoka

Rhodes

H. J.

Vestal

K. D.

(2003). Prevalence of child and adolescent exposure to community violence. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6(4), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:ccfp.0000006292.61072.d2

78.

Stoddard

S. A.

McMorris

B. J.

Sieving

R. E.

(2011). Do social connections and hope matter in predicting early adolescent violence? American Journal of Community Psychology, 48(3–4), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9387-9

79.

The Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence. (1989). An evaluation of a violence prevention program. Health program for urban youth. Education Development Center, Inc., (Unpublished).

80.

Thompson

M. P.

Arias

Basile

K. C.

Desai

(2002). The association between childhood physical and sexual victimization and health problems in adulthood in a nationally representative sample of women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(10), 1115–1129. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605-0201710-06

81.

Tobin

(2008). Gangs: An individual and group perspective. Pearson/Prentice Hall.

82.

Tol

W. A.

Jordans

M. J. D.

Kohrt

B. A.

Betancourt

T. S.

Komproe

I. H

. (2013). Promoting Mental Health and Psychosocial Well-Being in Children Affected by Political Violence: Part I–Current Evidence for an Ecological Resilience Approach. In Fernando

Ferrari

(Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children of war (pp. 11–27). Springer New York.

83.

Tol

W. A.

Jordans

M. D.

Reis

De Jong

Brom

Pat-Horenczyk

Ford

J. D.

(2008). Ecological resilience: Treating traumatized children: Risk, resilience and recovery (p. 164).

84.

Van der Kolk

B. A

. (2003). Psychological trauma. American Psychiatric Pub.

85.

Velez-Gomez

Restrepo-Ochoa

D. A.

Berbesi-Fernandez

Trejos-Castillo

(2013). Depression and neighborhood violence among children and early adolescents in Medellin, Colombia. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16, E64.

86.

Wood

Foy

D. W.

Goguen

C. A.

Pynoos

James

C. B.

(2002). Violence exposure and PTSD among delinquent girls. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 6(1), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1300/j146v06n01_06

87.

Yaffe

(2011). Armed conflict in Colombia: Analyzing the economic, social, and institutional causes of violent opposition. Revista CS (in Spanish), 8: 187–208. https://doi.org/10.18046/recs.i8.1133

88.

Yang

Tan

K-A.

Cheng

W. J. Y.

(2014). The effects of connectedness on health-promoting and health-compromising behaviors in adolescents: Evidence from a statewide survey. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 35, 33–46. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-013-0327-y

89.

Yule

Houston

Grych

(2019). Resilience in children exposed to violence: A meta-analysis of protective factors across ecological contexts. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 22(3), 406–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-019-00293-1