Fighting With Siblings and With Peers Among Urban High School Students

Abstract

Understanding the determinants of fighting is important for prevention efforts. Unfortunately, there is little research on how sibling fighting is related to peer fighting. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the association between sibling fighting and peer fighting. Data are from the Boston Youth Survey 2008, a school-based sample of youth in Boston, MA. To estimate the association between sibling fighting and peer fighting, we ran four multivariate regression models and estimated adjusted prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals. We fit generalized estimating equation models to account for the fact that students were clustered within schools. Controlling for school clustering, race/ethnicity, sex, school failure, substance use, and caregiver aggression, youth who fought with siblings were 2.49 times more likely to have reported fighting with peers. To the extent that we can confirm that sibling violence is associated with aggressive behavior, we should incorporate it into violence prevention programming.

Keywords

physical fighting youth violence adolescents risk behaviors family violence

Introduction

One third of 9th to 12th graders in the United States report having been in a physical fight in the past year (Eaton et al., 2012). Reducing this prevalence is a public health priority for several reasons (Office of the Surgeon General, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, National Institute of Mental Health, and Center for Mental Health Services, 2001). First, fighting may result in injuries requiring emergency department (ED) visits, which are costly (Borowsky & Ireland, 2004). In 2005, there were 229,000 ED visits for assaults among 13- to 18-year-olds, and the medical costs for those visits exceeded $184 million (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2012). Second, fighting is associated with health and behavioral problems, such as substance use, sexual risk behaviors, and suicidality (Kelley, Loeber, Keenan, & DeLamatre, 1997; Rudatsikira, Muula, & Siziya, 2008). Adolescents involved in fighting are more likely to report fair or poor health, versus good or excellent health (Bossarte, Swahn, & Breiding, 2009). Finally, because learning to handle conflict non-aggressively is a developmental task that needs to be accomplished for a successful transition to adulthood, physical fighting is an indicator of the level of positive youth development (K. Williams, Rivera, Neighbours, & Reznik, 2007). Young people who fail to accomplish this task may be more likely to engage in persistent fighting, violent crime, and other anti-social behavior in adulthood (Kelley et al., 1997; Moffitt, 1993).

Healthy People 2020 Objective IVP-34 aims to reduce the prevalence of fighting among youth by 10% (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2010). To achieve this objective, we first need accurate information about the determinants of fighting, and we must then use it to develop and refine violence prevention programs (Office of the Surgeon General, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, National Institute of Mental Health, and Center for Mental Health Services, 2001). This article responds to those needs by investigating sibling fighting, which is an important issue in its own right, and which may also be an important factor in peer fighting (Ensor, Marks, Jacobs, & Hughes, 2010).

Sibling Violence

Children and adolescents fight with their siblings more frequently than with anyone else, including peers (Gelles, 1997; Kreiter et al., 1999), and the fighting has negative implications for mental health (Stocker, Burwell, & Briggs, 2002; Tucker, Finkelhor, Turner, & Shattuck, 2013). Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz (2006) report that more than one-half of children are hit or attacked by a sibling each year. Similarly, a recently published national study suggests that 40% of 2- to 17-year-olds experience aggression from siblings (Tucker et al., 2013). Sibling fighting is more likely than peer fighting to be chronic (i.e., occurring >4 times per year), but is less likely to be severe, i.e., it does not typically involve weapons or result in physical injury (Finkelhor, Turner, & Ormrod, 2006).

From a developmental perspective, sibling aggression in childhood can be considered normative, as young children have low levels of self-regulation and impulse control (Tucker et al., 2013). Within the family context, children have an opportunity to learn how to manage conflicts in both pro-social and anti-social ways (Finkelhor et al., 2006; Kramer & Conger, 2009; Solomon, Bradshaw, Wright, & Cheng, 2008; S. T. Williams, Conger, & Blozis, 2007). With sufficient pro-social socialization and increases in maturity, children learn to handle conflict with siblings non-aggressively and the frequency of physical fighting decreases. Accordingly, a large longitudinal study showed that physical violence among siblings is inversely associated with child age (Finkelhor et al., 2006). Nearly half of 6- to 9-year-olds engaged in physical violence with siblings, compared with less than 30% of the 14- to 17-year-olds. Simply put, sibling violence becomes progressively more atypical with age. Mid-late adolescents who have not yet ceased being physically aggressive with siblings may be at heightened risk for engagement in other forms of physical aggression, such as fighting with non-family peers. In this manner, physical fights with siblings could be a marker of risk for physical fighting with peers.

Sibling Violence and Peer Violence

Violence among siblings has been insufficiently explored as a risk factor for youth violence. It was not mentioned in the U.S. Surgeon General’s report on youth violence (Office of the Surgeon General, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, National Institute of Mental Health, and Center for Mental Health Services, 2001), and it has also been overlooked in large-scale studies designed to outline risk factors for youth violence (Bernat, Oakes, Pettingell, & Resnick, 2012; Henry, Tolan, Gorman-Smith, & Schoeny, 2012). By comparison, caregiver aggression, substance use, and school failure are routinely cited as risk factors for fighting and violence (Herrenkohl et al., 2000; Office of the Surgeon General, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, National Institute of Mental Health, and Center for Mental Health Services, 2001).

The oversight of sibling violence as a risk factor for peer violence persists despite the fact that a few studies have shown an association between the two. For example, in a study of 12- to 15-year-olds in Tel Aviv, Israel (n = 921), the authors found that youth who were bullied by siblings were significantly more likely to be bullied at school (Wolke & Samara, 2004). In research with 375 seventh and eighth graders in a rural community in the Southern United States, Duncan (1999) found that 60% of youth who reported that they were bullied by peers and that they bullied peers (i.e., “bully/victims”) said they had been bullied by a sibling. In addition, Menesini, Camodeca, and Nocentini (2010) found an association between being bullied or victimized by siblings and being victimized by peers and classmates. Research examining the association between peer and sibling aggression has focused primarily on children and early adolescents (i.e., 10-13 years of age; Aguilar, O’Brien, August, Aoun, & Hektner, 2001; Duncan, 1999; Ensor et al., 2010; Menesini et al., 2010). Whether a similar association exists for mid-late adolescents is unclear.

The Current Study

The current article examines sibling fighting and peer fighting among high school students in Boston, MA. It explicitly responds to the fact that there has been little attention to the association between sibling violence and peer violence among mid-late adolescents, despite the high prevalence of sibling violence and despite theoretical support for an association. This study had three aims. First, we examined the prevalence and co-occurrence of fighting with siblings and with peers. Second, we compared the strength of the association between peer fighting and sibling fighting to the association between peer fighting and other well-established risk factors for youth violence. Third, we investigated the strength of the association between peer fighting and sibling fighting, controlling for demographic characteristics and well-established risk factors for youth violence.

Methods

Sample

Data are from the 2008 administration of the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center’s “Boston Youth Survey” (BYS). The BYS is a biennial paper-and-pencil survey of high school students (9th-12th graders) in Boston Public Schools (Azrael et al., 2009). Nearly three-quarters of the District’s students are low-income, and 76% are Black and/or Hispanic. Although the BYS 2008 covered a range of topics (e.g., health behaviors, use of school and community resources, perceptions of neighborhoods, and developmental assets), the main emphasis was on violence and aggressive behavior.

All 32 eligible public schools within the Boston Public Schools system were invited to participate; 22 accepted. There were no statistically significant differences in school characteristics (e.g., racial/ethnic composition of students, proportion of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches, drop-out rates, or standardized test scores) between the participating and non-participating schools. Schools that were ineligible were those that exclusively served adults (i.e., “night school”), students transitioning back to school after incarceration, suspended students, and students with severe and profound disabilities (e.g., emotional and behavioral disorders).

To generate a random sample of students within the participating schools, we first compiled a list of unique required English and History classes within each school. Then the classes were stratified by grade and randomly sampled. Every student within the selected classrooms was invited to participate. Selection of classrooms within schools continued until the total number of students to be surveyed ranged from 100 to 125 per school, with an equal distribution of grade levels represented. In the two schools with 100 or fewer enrolled students, all students in the school were invited to participate.

Data Collection and Response

Data collection took place between January and April of 2008. The self-report survey was completed by students during class; trained staff distributed the surveys and responded to students’ questions. Students had the entire class period—approximately 50 min—to complete the surveys. Prior to distributing the surveys, passive consent was obtained from students’ parents and staff read a statement on assent to the students. Study protocols were approved by the Harvard School of Public Health’s Office on Human Research Administration.

There were 2,725 students enrolled in the classrooms selected for participation; 1,878 completed the survey (68.9%). Most who did not complete a survey were absent from school on the day of administration (85.5%, n = 847). The remaining students declined to participate (n = 99), or did not have parental consent (n = 24). The sample for the present study is restricted to the 1,633 students who had siblings and who completed the items on fighting with peers and with siblings.

Measures

The BYS had separate sections inquiring about interpersonal violence with peers and siblings. Each section started with: “For the following questions, think about . . . , ” and ended with “ . . . the kids in your immediate family, meaning the kids who live in your home” for items on siblings; or with “ . . . other kids, including those in your schools or neighborhood” for peers. The items on fighting with siblings and peers read: “In the past 30 days, how many times have you gotten into a physical fight with someone?”; response options were as follows: never, 1-2 times, and 3 or more times. These items were adapted from the National Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance System (YRBSS; National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion [NCCDPHP], 2010).

The BYS also included questions on demographic characteristics, including sex, Hispanic ethnicity, age (<14, 15, 16, 17, >18), and race. Students were asked to select one or more race options (i.e., White; American Indian/Alaska Native; Asian; Black/African American; Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander; or other). Very few students self-identified as either American Indian/Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. More than one fourth selected “other” or skipped the item on race, and 90% of those were Hispanic/Latino. Therefore, to best represent the sample, we created a hybrid race/ethnicity variable with the following five levels: (1) Hispanic/Latino, any race; (2) Non-Hispanic, Black/African American; (3) Non-Hispanic, White; (4) Asian; and (5) Other, which includes those who were bi- or multi-racial, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native.

We included three covariates that are established risk factors for youth violence: school failure, substance use, and caregiver aggression (Herrenkohl et al., 2000; Office of the Surgeon General, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, National Institute of Mental Health, and Center for Mental Health Services, 2001). Those who reported having earned mostly Ds or Fs at their last report card were coded as having school failure, as compared to those who earned mostly As, Bs, or Cs. Youth who reported any past 30-day use of marijuana, alcohol, or tobacco were coded as having used substances, as compared with those who reported no past 30-day substance use. Items to assess school performance and substance use were adapted from the YRBSS (NCCDPHP, 2010). Respondents were coded as having experienced caregiver aggression if they indicated that a parent had done any of the following to them in the past 12 months: pushed, grabbed, or shoved them; kicked, bit, or punched them; hit them with an object that could hurt them; choked or burned them; attacked or threatened them with a weapon (e.g., bat, bottle, chain, or knife); or physically attacked them in another way. Items assessing caregiver aggression were adapted from the Parent-to-Child Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, & Runyan, 1998).

Data Analysis

First, we conducted descriptive analyses to characterize the sample. Then, we examined the prevalence of fighting with siblings and with peers overall, and by sex, race/ethnicity, and age. We used chi-square goodness-of-fit tests to assess the statistical significance of differences in fighting by group. We used a multiple comparisons test to assess differences in fighting by group when there were more than two categories (Elliott & Reisch, 2006). We also estimated the co-occurrence of fighting with both siblings and peers. Next, we used chi-square goodness-of-fit tests to assess the magnitude of the association between peer fighting and sibling fighting, and also between peer fighting and the three established risk factors for youth violence: school failure, any substance use, and caregiver aggression. For these analyses, fighting was classified as any versus no past 30-days fighting. Data analysis was conducted using SAS software, version 9.1.3. (SAS Institute Inc., 2004).

To estimate the statistical association between sibling fighting and peer fighting, we ran a series of multivariate regression models and estimated prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals (Spiegelman & Hertzmark, 2005). Model 1 was adjusted for race/ethnicity and sex. Subsequent models were adjusted for race/ethnicity and sex, and also for school failure (Model 2), substance use (Model 3), and caregiver aggression (model 4). Model 5 was adjusted for race/ethnicity, sex, and all three covariates (school failure, substance use, and caregiver aggression). The purpose of including the covariates was to examine how the association between sibling fighting and peer fighting compares to the association between the three established risk factors and peer fighting. To account for the fact that students were clustered within schools, we fit all models with generalized estimating equations (GEE) using PROC GENMOD. School was specified as the subject in the REPEATED statement (SAS Institute Inc., 2004).

Results

There were 1,633 students in the analytic sample. Approximately one-half were girls, and greater than 75% were Black or Hispanic/Latino. Thirty- percent of the students (n = 490) reported having fought with either peers or siblings. Among students who reported having fought with peers, 76.1% of said they had done so 1 to 2 times in the past 30-days. Similarly, 71.9% of those who reported sibling fighting said they had fought 1 to 2 times in the past 30-days. The co-occurrence of fighting with both siblings and peers was substantial. Among students who fought with siblings and/or peers, 28% fought with siblings only, 46% fought with peers only, and 26% fought with both siblings and peers; these percentages varied by sex. Considering only those who reported any past 30-day fighting, 19.2% of boys and 34.5% of girls reported past 30-day fighting with both siblings and peers (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Percentage of youth who reported fights with peers and siblings, among those who reported any fighting, by sex.

A larger percentage of students reported past 30-day fighting with peers than with siblings (21.6% vs. 16.4%, p < .05) (Table 1). Compared with girls, boys were significantly less likely to report sibling fighting (13.7% vs. 18.7%, p < .05), but were more likely to report peer fighting (25.5% vs. 18.1%, p < .05). The only statistically significant difference in fighting by race/ethnicity was that Asians were less likely than all other groups to report peer fighting. There were no statistically significant differences in the prevalence of fighting by age.

Table 1.

Past 30-Day Fighting, by Demographic Characteristics (N = 1,633).

	Fought With Siblings			Fought With Peers
	%	n	χ², df (p)	%	n	χ², df (p)
Total (n)^a	16.4	267		21.6	352
Sex			7.56, 1 (.006)			13.43, 1 (.0002)
Boys (760)	13.7	104		25.5	194
Girls (870)	18.7	163		18.1	157
Race/ethnicity			9.20, 4 (.0562)			17.58, 4 (.0015)
White (137)	16.1	022		21.9	030
Black (687)	18.5	127		20.8	143
Hispanic/Latino (523)	16.3	085		25.4	133
Asian (127)	7.9	010		8.7	011
Other (110)	14.6	016		23.6	026
Age			7.31, 4 (.1201)			0.90, 4 (.9252)
≤14 years (131)	22.1	29		22.9	030
15 years (312)	18.9	59		20.5	064
16 years (453)	16.3	74		22.7	103
17 years (417)	14.9	62		21.3	089
≥18 years (306)	13.4	41		20.6	063

Totals may not sum to 1,633 due to missing responses.

As expected based on the previous literature, substance use, school failure, and caregiver aggression were significantly associated with fighting with both siblings and peers (Table 2). However, chi-square tests indicated that the magnitude of the association between fighting with peers and with siblings was stronger than the association between peer fighting and the three risk factors for youth violence, that is, substance use, school failure, and caregiver aggression. In the total sample, 16.4% reported fighting with siblings. Among those who fought with peers, 36.7% reported fighting with siblings.

Table 2.

Past 30-Day Fighting, by Selected Risk Factors (N = 1,633).

	Total Sample		Fought With Siblings			Fought With Peers
	%	n	%	n	χ², df	%	n	χ², df
Any substance use	43.6	683	64.3	162	52.33, 1^a	64.1	212	71.46, 1^a
Alcohol use	37.7	592	56.9	144	47.63, 1^a	56.5	188	63.59, 1^a
Tobacco use	12.4	194	26.1	065	51.16, 1^a	22.6	074	39.41, 1^a
Marijuana use	19.6	306	32.1	080	29.63, 1^a	34.6	114	59.52, 1^a
School failure	14.9	238	21.4	055	10.03, 1^b	23.9	083	28.08, 1^a
Caregiver aggression	18.0	291	34.3	091	57.76, 1^a	25.4	089	16.94, 1^a
Fought with siblings	16.4	267	—	—	—	36.7	129	135.17, 1^a

<.0001.

<.01.

The regression models show that sibling fighting was significantly associated with peer fighting, even after controlling for established risk factors for peer violence (Table 3). Although the measure of effect decreased after adjusting for school failure, substance use, and caregiver aggression independently, the association between sibling and peer fighting remained strong and statistically significant. The final model—which was adjusted for school clustering, race/ethnicity, sex, school failure, substance use, and caregiver aggression—showed that youth who fought with siblings were 2.5 times more likely to report having fought with peers.

Table 3.

Prevalence Ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals for Past 30-Day Peer Fighting.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Fought with siblings	2.96 [2.47, 3.55]	2.82 [2.37, 3.35]	2.42 [1.94, 3.02]	2.85 [2.37, 3.43]	2.49 [2.03, 3.06]
School failure		1.45 [1.25, 1.69]			1.33 [1.16, 1.54]
Any substance use			1.81 [1.47, 2.23]		1.79 [1.48, 2.16]
Caregiver aggression				1.22 [0.96, 1.55]	1.18 [0.94, 1.49]

Note. All models are adjusted for school, sex, and race/ethnicity.

Discussion

In response to the fact that fighting with siblings has been virtually ignored as a potential risk factor for peer violence, we used data from a survey of Boston high school students to assess the association between fighting with siblings and with peers. Our findings show that fighting with siblings is strongly and significantly associated with peer fighting. After controlling for demographic characteristics and for three well-established risk factors for youth violence (i.e., school failure, substance use, and caregiver aggression), youth who reported sibling fighting were 2.5 times more likely to report peer fighting than youth who did not. While this finding is consistent with previous studies that demonstrate a link between aggression with siblings and with peers (Duncan, 1999; Williams, Conger, et al., 2007; Wolke & Samara, 2004), this is the first study to identify an association between sibling violence and peer violence among high school–aged youth.

Sixteen percent of respondents in our sample reported that they had been in a physical fight with a sibling in the past 30 days. Although our results are lower than other published estimates of sibling violence, the discrepancy may be due to the fact that previous studies have used longer time frames for behavior (i.e., past year fighting vs. past 30-day fighting). In addition, other studies have also focused on younger populations (Duncan, 1999; Ensor et al., 2010; Wolke & Samara, 2004), who tend to fight with siblings more frequently (Finkelhor et al., 2006). A third possible explanation relates to the fact that we used a single item to assess sibling violence, versus a more comprehensive, multi-item measure.

Thirty-two percent of the boys and 29% of the girls in our sample reported past 30-day fighting with peers and/or siblings. The most comparable estimates to these percentages come from the 2009 Boston Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance System (YRBS), which showed that 44% of boys and 29% of girls reported physical fighting within the past 12 months (NCCDPHP, 2010). The difference in estimates could be due to the fact that we specified who respondents fought with (i.e., peers or siblings), whereas YRBS questionnaire ask about fighting without referencing a relationship. Alternatively, our prevalence estimate may be lower than the Boston YRBS estimate because we used a past 30-day time frame, whereas national and local YRBS questionnaires use a past year time frame for fighting. Our decision to use a past 30-day time frame was based on the rationale that physical fighting is a frequent occurrence—nearly one third of youth report having been in a fight in the past year (Eaton et al., 2012). It was also based on the fact that longitudinal research shows that youth may change the frequency with which they engage in fighting and anti-social behaviors in intervals of 6 or fewer months (Kelley et al., 1997). Our work suggests that past 30 days is a suitable time frame for capturing fighting among adolescents. However, given that this is a low-income, predominantly minority, urban sample, additional research with different populations is warranted.

Our results suggest that physical fighting with siblings is not uncommon among high school students, and that 37% of those who fought with siblings also fought with their peers. As fighting in multiple contexts is a risk factor for life course persistent offending (Kelley et al., 1997), these youth may need indicated services.

We found that boys were more likely to report fighting with their peers versus with their siblings, whereas girls were equally as likely to fight with peers as they were with siblings. One possible explanation for the fact that boys are less likely to report sibling fighting is that they may be less likely to hit their female siblings, whereas girls may fight with both male and female siblings. Social norms condemn male violence against females, even within mixed-gender sibling relationships. Parents are less tolerant of boys hitting girls than the reverse (Aguilar et al., 2001; Reese-Weber, 2008; Straus et al., 2006). Because information on gender of siblings was not collected, we were unable to examine this topic more fully and it deserves attention in future work. Simply put, understanding gender differences in the contextual nature of the violence is important when considering prevention and intervention strategies. Therefore, future research should also address whether gender might interact with other factors, in addition to sibling fighting, to influence peer fighting.

Limitations

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting our results. First, the sample was comprised of predominately low-income, youth of color attending public schools in Boston, MA. Youth in low-income, urban neighborhoods are more likely to be exposed to neighborhood violence and social disorder, and this may impact their own use of violence (McGee et al., 2001; Schwab-Stone et al., 1999). In addition, national data show that Black and Hispanic youth are significantly more likely to report past-year fighting (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2012). For these reasons, our findings have limited external validity, and replication with other populations is warranted.

Second, we did not know the age of respondents’ siblings, and the age composition of sibling pairs impacts the level of physical aggression (Aguilar et al., 2001). Specifically, non-playful physical aggression with siblings when the age gap is greater than 7 years is unusual. Had information on sibling age been available, we would have restricted the analysis to those with siblings close to their age, as other sibling violence researchers have done (Aguilar et al., 2001).Were that the case, the reported prevalence of sibling violence might have been even higher because youth who reported no sibling fighting only because their siblings were very young would not have been included in the denominator.

Finally, it is worth noting that we modeled sibling fighting as a “predictor” of peer fighting. However, because our data are cross-sectional, we cannot draw conclusions about the temporality of fighting with siblings and with peers. Despite theoretical and empirical research suggesting that sibling fighting can lead to peer fighting, it is possible that fighting with peers influences sibling fighting, rather than the other way around. Moreover, when exploring the link between sibling fighting and peer fighting, it is important to consider the strong possibility that common factors that contribute to both. Parenting style, parental handling of sibling conflict, interparental violence, family stress, and children’s behavioral and emotional disorders impact aggressive behavior, and may lead to both sibling fighting and peer fighting (Williams, Conger, et al., 2007). Longitudinal research that accounts for a more comprehensive set of risk factors for aggression is needed to conclusively establish that sibling fighting precedes peer fighting.

Conclusion

We conducted this study because sibling violence has been overlooked as a potential risk factor for peer aggression, particularly among mid-late adolescents. Whereas psychologists have long referred to sibling violence as a “training ground” for anti-social behavior, the violence prevention field has turned a blind eye. We hope that our findings prompt violence researchers to take a closer look at sibling violence and how it relates to the development of aggressive behavior with non-family peers. This will require that we routinely incorporate questions about sibling violence in large-scale violence studies and behavioral surveillance systems, such as the National YRBSS. To the extent that we can confirm that sibling violence is linked to aggressive behavior, we should identify strategies to incorporate it into violence prevention programming, and also work with parents on how to address fighting in the home setting.

Finally, sibling violence is an important issue above and beyond its association with peer violence. Although it is frequently dismissed as harmless, sibling violence has the potential to be physically and psychologically damaging (Eriksen & Jensen, 2009; Finkelhor et al., 2006; Tucker et al., 2013). We should attend to the harms that youth face from siblings, as well as from peers. This may involve providing parents with advice and guidance about how to best manage sibling conflict (Tucker et al., 2013). Such programs could have the indirect effect of preventing peer violence in schools and communities.

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: Renee M. Johnson was supported in part by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R03-DA025823; K01-DA31738). Dustin T. Duncan was supported by the Alonzo Smythe Yerby Postdoctoral Fellowship at Harvard School of Public Health. Emily F. Rothman was supported by a career development award from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (K01-AA017630). The BYS 2008 was funded by a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U49-CE00740) to the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center (HYVPC), and in collaboration with the Boston Public Health Commission (Barbara Ferrer, Director), Boston’s Office of Human Services (Larry Mayes, Chief), Boston Public Schools (Carol Johnson, Superintendent), and the Office of the Honorable Mayor Thomas M. Menino. The survey would not have been possible without the participation of the faculty, staff, administrators, and students of Boston Public Schools as well as the faculty, staff, and students of Harvard School of Public Health and City of Boston employees who participated in survey administration. The content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC, the NIH, or the City of Boston.

Author Biographies

Renee M. Johnson is an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Mental Health. She studies violence and substance use among low-income, urban youth. She also serves as the Deputy Director of the NIDA-funded Drug Dependence Epidemiology Training Program.

Dustin T. Duncan is an assistant professor at the Department of Population Health at New York University School of Medicine. He is a social and spatial epidemiologist who studies how neighborhood characteristics impact population health.

Emily F. Rothman is an associate professor at Boston University School of Public Health, Department of Community Health Sciences. Her research addresses partner violence, adolescent health, and alcohol use.

Tamika D. Gilreath is an assistant professor at the University of Southern California School of Social Work. Her work focuses on health disparities, substance use, and mental health among African American youth.

David Hemenway is a professor at Harvard School of Public Health and serves at the director of the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center. He has written widely on injury prevention, including articles on firearm injury, violence, suicide, child abuse, motor vehicle crashes, fires, and falls.

Beth E. Molnar is an associate professor at Northeastern University, Bouvé College of Health Sciences. She is a social and psychiatric epidemiologist, studying causes and consequences of violence against children and adolescents.

Deborah Azrael is a research associate at Harvard School of Public Health and the associate director of Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center. She oversaw the development of a Boston-based, multi-tiered surveillance system designed to support city-wide policy planning and to allow multi-level analyses of neighborhood-level predictors of youth violence.

References

Aguilar

O’Brien

K. M.

August

G. J.

Aoun

S. L.

Hektner

J. M.

(2001). Relationship quality of aggressive children and their siblings: A multi-informant, multimeasure investigation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 479-489.

Azrael

Johnson

R. M.

Molnar

B. E.

Vriniotis

Dunn

E. C.

Duncan

D. T.

Hemenway

(2009). Creating a youth violence data system for Boston, Massachusetts. Australia & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42, 406-421.

Bernat

D. H.

Oakes

J. M.

Pettingell

S. L.

Resnick

(2012). Risk and direct protective factors for youth violence: Results from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43, S57-S66.

Borowsky

I. W.

Ireland

(2004). Predictors of future fight-related injury among adolescents. Pediatrics, 113, 530-536.

Bossarte

R. M.

Swahn

M. H.

Breiding

(2009). Racial, ethnic, and sex differences in the associations between violence and self-reported health among US high school students. Journal of School Health, 79, 74-81.

Duncan

R. D.

(1999). Peer and sibling aggression: An investigation of intra- and extra-familial bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 871-886.

Eaton

D. K.

Kann

Kinchen

Shanklin

Flint

K. H.

Hawkins

. . . Wechsler

(2012). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries, 61(4), 1-162.

Elliott

A. C.

Reisch

J. S.

(2006). Paper 204-231.Implementing a multiple com-parison test for proportions in a 2xc crosstabulation in SAS®. In SAS Institute Inc (Ed.), Proceedings of the thirty-first annual SAS® users group international conference. Cary, NC. Retrieved from http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi31/204-31.pdf

Ensor

Marks

Jacobs

Hughes

(2010). Trajectories of antisocial behaviour towards siblings predict antisocial behaviour towards peers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 1208-1216.

10.

Eriksen

Jensen

(2009). A push or a punch: Distinguishing the severity of sibling violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 183-208.

11.

Finkelhor

Turner

Ormrod

(2006). Kid’s stuff: The nature and impact of peer and sibling violence on younger and older children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 1401-1421.

12.

Gelles

R. J.

(1997). Intimate violence in families (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

13.

Henry

D. B.

Tolan

P. H.

Gorman-Smith

Schoeny

M. E.

(2012). Risk and direct protective factors for youth violence: Results from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Multisite Violence Prevention Project. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43, S67-S75.

14.

Herrenkohl

T. I.

Maguin

Hill

K. G.

Hawkins

J. D.

Abbott

R. D.

Catalano

R. F.

(2000). Developmental risk factors for youth violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 26, 176-186.

15.

Kelley

B. T.

Loeber

Keenan

DeLamatre

(1997). Developmental pathways in boys’ disruptive and delinquent behavior (Juvenile Justice Bulletin). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165692.pdf

16.

Kramer

Conger

K. J.

(2009). What we learn from our sisters and brothers: For better or for worse. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 126, 1-12.

17.

Kreiter

S. R.

Krowchuk

D. P.

Woods

C. R.

Sinal

S. H.

Lawless

M. R.

DuRant

R. H.

(1999). Gender differences in risk behaviors among adolescents who experience date fighting. Pediatrics, 104, 1286-1292.

18.

McGee

Z. T.

Davis

B. L.

Brisbane

Collins

Nuriddin

Irving

. . .Martin

(2001). Urban stress and mental health among African-American youth: Assessing the link between exposure to violence, problem behavior, and coping strategies. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 8, 94-104.

19.

Menesini

Camodeca

Nocentini

(2010). Bullying among siblings: The role of personality and relational variables. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28, 921-939.

20.

Moffitt

T. E.

(1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.

21.

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (2010). 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/index.htm

22.

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2012). Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars

23.

Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Healthy people 2020 objectives. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/

24.

Office of the Surgeon General, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, National Institute of Mental Health, and Center for Mental Health Services. (2001). Youth violence: A report of the surgeon general. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44294

25.

Reese-Weber

(2008). A new experimental method assessing attitudes toward adolescent dating and sibling violence using observations of violent interactions. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 857-876.

26.

Rudatsikira

Muula

A. S.

Siziya

(2008). Variables associated with physical fighting among US high-school students. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 4, 16.

27.

SAS Institute Inc. (2004). SAS system for Windows, version 9.1.3. Cary, NC: Author.

28.

Schwab-Stone

Chen

Greenberger

Silver

Lichtman

Voyce

(1999). No safe haven. II: The effects of violence exposure on urban youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 359-367.

29.

Solomon

B. S.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Wright

Cheng

T. L.

(2008). Youth and parental attitudes toward fighting. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 544-560.

30.

Spiegelman

Hertzmark

(2005). Easy SAS calculations for risk or prevalence ratios and differences. American Journal of Epidemiology, 162, 199-200.

31.

Stocker

C. M.

Burwell

R. A.

Briggs

M. L.

(2002). Sibling conflict in middle childhood predicts children’s adjustment in early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 50-57.

32.

Straus

M. A.

Gelles

R. J.

Steinmetz

S. K.

(2006). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

33.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Finkelhor

Moore

D. W.

Runyan

(1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 249-270.

34.

Tucker

C. J.

Finkelhor

Turner

Shattuck

(2013). Association of sibling aggression with child and adolescent mental health. Pediatrics, 132, 79-84.

35.

Williams

Rivera

Neighbours

Reznik

(2007). Youth violence prevention comes of age: Research, training and future directions. Annual Review of Public Health, 28, 195-211.

36.

Williams

S. T.

Conger

K. J.

Blozis

S. A.

(2007). The development of interpersonal aggression during adolescence: The importance of parents, siblings, and family economics. Child Development, 78, 1526-1542.

37.

Wolke

Samara

M. M.

(2004). Bullied by siblings: Association with peer victimisation and behaviour problems in Israeli lower secondary school children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1015-1029.