Multiple Forms and Settings of Exposure to Violence and Values

Abstract

The general purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between multiple forms and settings of exposure to violence (ETV) as well as personal values and antisocial behavior (ASB) in adolescence. The association of ETV as witness or victim in different contexts (family, school, or neighborhood) and the association of the selected values of power, universalism, and conformity with ASB were analyzed. In addition, the role of ETV in moderating the relationship between values and ASB was tested. A total of 369 adolescents participated in the study. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed. Results revealed that ASB was independently affected by exposure to family violence as a victim, exposure to school violence as a witness, exposure to neighborhood violence as a witness, and by all three selected values. The associations of ASB with universalism and conformity were negative. Conversely, the association of ASB with power was positive. One interaction had statistically significant effects. Results revealed that exposure to school violence as a witness moderates the relationship between universalism and ASB. The results highlight a high percentage of explained variance by ETV and values on ASB and suggest the importance of adopting a socio-ecological framework in interpreting adolescent behavior.

Keywords

exposure to violence values antisocial behavior

Most individuals are exposed to violence throughout their lives, but it is during adolescence that there is a dramatic peak in violence exposure (Cyr et al., 2012; Finkelhor, Ormrod, Turner, & Hamby, 2005; Kilpatrick et al., 2003). A large body of research (e.g., Howard, Kimonis, Muñoz, & Frick, 2012; Zinzow et al., 2009) has shown a strong association between exposure to violence (ETV) and psycho-social maladjustment during development, which mainly manifests as aggressive and antisocial behavior (ASB). However, the mechanisms underlying this association are not completely known (Su, Mrug, & Windle, 2010) because the relationship between ETV and ASB can vary with the context of violence (e.g., home, neighborhood, or school) and status (e.g., witness or victim) and can be moderated by gender, age, socio-economic status (SES), familiar, and individual variables.

In relation to the role of individual dimensions, many studies have investigated the role of personality traits and temperament on ASB (Jones, Miller, & Lynam, 2011), but relatively few studies (Knafo, Daniel, & Khoury-Kassabri, 2008; Lopez-Romero & Romero, 2010; Romero, Sobral, Luengo, & Marzoa, 2001) have specifically explored the role of values on ASB during adolescence and how specific values could act on ASB in interaction with a violent context.

The general purpose of the present study was to investigate the role of ETV and personal values on ASB in adolescence, analyzing both unique and interactive relationships. To the best of our knowledge, only one previous study (Knafo et al., 2008) has analyzed the interaction between values and ETV within the school context, whereas no study has considered whether ETV in multiple contexts can moderate the relationship between values and antisocial conduct in adolescence.

ETV as a Witness and/or as a Victim Within the Community, the Family, and School

Exposure to a violent environment is a common experience for many individuals during their school years. A large body of research, well summarized in previous reviews (Evans, Davies, & DiLillo, 2008; Lynch, 2003; Margolin & Gordis, 2000), has shown that high levels of ETV during development have both short- and long-term negative effects on child–adolescent adjustment.

Considering the differential effects of ETV on ASB, one issue concerns the status of “witness” or “victim” of violence. Although the two experiences are often co-occurrent, they appear to affect child development differently. Witnesses to violence tend to display positive attitudes toward aggression and ASB (Gorman-Smith & Tolman, 1998) mainly as a result of a social learning process that leads interiorizing positive beliefs about antisocial conduct. Individuals who are exposed to high levels of violence as witnesses may learn that using aggression against others can help them to achieve goals and be accepted by others, and they are more likely to believe that aggression is an appropriate response to situations involving ambiguous peer provocation (Guerra, Huesmann, & Spindler, 2003; D. Schwartz & Proctor, 2000; Shahinfar, Kupersmidt, & Matza, 2001). In contrast, victims of community violence more often suffer from emotional disturbances, bullying by peers (D. Schwartz & Proctor, 2000), and socio-cognitive biases in processing social situations (Shahinfar et al., 2001), mainly due to the effects of violence on emotional regulation processes. These socio-cognitive biases influence the individual’s ability to solve social problems and to correctly assess the negative consequences of their actions (Dodge, Coie, & Lynam, 2006).

Another issue concerns context-specific effects of ETV. Most studies have shown a sort of equifinality of ETV across different contexts. Externalizing behaviors result from being exposed to violence in the neighborhood (Gorman-Smith & Tolman, 1998; Guerra et al., 2003), at school (Hanish & Guerra, 2002; Janosz et al., 2008), or at home (Ehrensaft et al., 2003; Evans et al., 2008). It is often difficult to distinguish context-specific effects of ETV because most people experience violence as a victim, a witness, or both in more than one setting (Cyr et al., 2012; Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2007). The studies that have compared the differential effects of ETV in multiple contexts have produced conflicting findings. Controlling for the co-occurrence of ETV at home, at school, and in the neighborhood as both a witness or a victim, Ho and Cheung (2010) found that behavioral problems were predicted only by being victimized in the community, whereas violence at school and at home predicted other types of problems. In contrast, other studies, mainly conducted in the North American context, have emphasized the stronger impact of ETV in the family than in other settings. Comparing ETV at home, at school, and in the neighborhood, Mrug, Loosier, and Windle (2008) found a major impact of ETV in the family on antisocial conducts, even if this relation was moderated by SES (a low SES amplified the effect of ETV both on externalizing and internalizing problems); additionally, in another study, Margolin, Vickerman, Oliver, and Gordis (2010) found that ETV in the family predicted many types of adolescent maladjustment, whereas ETV in the community predicted only academic failure.

Another factor that appears to play a crucial role in the relationship between ETV and ASB is gender. Most studies have reported a higher level of ETV in males than in females (Cooley, Boyd, Frantz, & Walsh, 2001), although some studies have found this difference only for the experience of victimization and not for simply witnessing violence (D. Schwartz & Proctor, 2000). The reactions of males and females to ETV are somewhat different. A possible explanation is that males are socialized to be aggressive early, whereas females are expected to be sensitive and to maintain good relationships with others. For this reason, males appear to react to ETV by adopting violent behaviors, whereas females tend to show more depressive symptoms (Bacchini, Miranda, & Affuso, 2011; Fitzpatrick, 1993).

Personal Values and ASB

In the field of studies that have analyzed the role of individual characteristics in relation to ASB, numerous studies have highlighted the fundamental role of personality traits on ASB (Jones et al., 2011), whereas only a few studies have analyzed the role of personal values in relation to ASB. Although both traits and values represent stable individual differences, there are important distinctions between them. Traits are enduring dispositions that describe “what people are like,” whereas values are enduring goals that refer to “what people consider important” (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002); the latter serve as guiding principles in people’s lives and as criteria for selecting and justifying actions and for evaluating people and events (Rokeach, 1973; S. H. Schwartz, 1994). By providing personal or social goals, values motivate individuals toward certain behaviors and guide judgments regarding which actions are more justified or more desirable than their alternatives (Feather, 1995). To study values, we adopt the value theory developed by Schwartz (1992), which has been the focus of more than 200 studies in over 75 countries. Taken together, these studies support the existence of a universal structure consisting of 10 motivationally distinct types of values: universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction. Schwartz has hypothesized the existence of dynamic relationships of similarity and opposition among the 10 values.

Many studies support that values have a strong impact on the behavior of individuals, but little attention has been given to the role of motivational factors in ASB in adolescence. The few studies in this field found that members of the at-risk group attached greater importance than did controls to goals defined by “freedom-autonomy” (Carroll, Durkin, Hattie, & Houghton, 1997) or “power-oriented” (Myyry & Helkama, 2001). Moreover, Lopez-Romero and Romero (2010) found that “social recognition,” “physical/athletic,” and “antisocial” goals contributed positively to the implementation of ASB, whereas “interpersonal/familiar” goals (only for boys) and “educational” goals served as protective factors.

The few studies that have adopted Schwartz’s conceptual framework have shown that the value of power—which in Schwartz’s theory is defined as attempting to attain “social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources” (S. H. Schwartz, 2012, p. 664)—appears to be the value that most strongly favors violent behaviors (e.g., Knafo et al., 2008), delinquency (e.g., Romero et al., 2001), and bullying (Knafo, 2003; Menesini, Nocentini, & Camodeca, 2013); however, the values of universalism—“understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature” (S. H. Schwartz, 2012, p. 664)—and conformity—“restraint of actions, inclinations and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms” (S. H. Schwartz, 2012, p. 664)—appear to be the values that most strongly protect against ASB (Bond & Chi, 1997) and bullying (Menesini et al., 2013).

Regarding the conjoint influences of values and ETV on ASB, the present study adopts an interactional perspective on human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Magnusson, 1988 ), suggesting that the importance of an individual difference variable may depend on the context in which it is embedded. Within this perspective, which posits a person-by-context interaction, individual differences can predict vulnerability to conduct behaviors, whereas environmental factors can moderate the effects of these predispositions. To date, only one study has examined the interaction between values and ETV on externalizing behaviors (Knafo et al., 2008), which suggests that the higher the level of ETV, the greater the impact that values have on violent behavior becomes. As a possible explanation, the authors suggest that in contexts of low violence, there is a normative pressure against violence that inhibits such behaviors, regardless of the values of the individual; in contrast, in contexts where violence is high, this social pressure is reduced (or positive beliefs about violence may even be present), and thus, the values of the individual might have a greater impact on his or her behavior.

The Present Study

Against the background described above, the aim of this study was to explore the relationships of ETV and personal values with ASB in adolescence. Three main research questions were addressed in this study:

Research Question 1: Does ETV as witness or victim in different contexts (family, school, or neighborhood) produce different associations with ASB in adolescence?

Research Question 2: Are the selected values of power, universalism, and conformity specifically related to ASB?

Research Question 3: Does ETV moderate the relationship between values and ASB?

Even if we expect that each experience of violence could be independently associated with ASB, we might hypothesize a more powerful association for witnessing violence, controlling for victimization. Individuals who witness violence learn an antisocial way of life without experiencing the emotional disease connected to victimization; moreover, we expect a more powerful association of ETV with ASB when violence is experienced in the neighborhood and at school, given the greater sensitivity of adolescents to their environmental experiences (Dodge & Pettit, 2003). We also expect that males should have a greater sensitivity to environmental influences. Concerning values, we expect the following: The value of power could favor ASB because it leads the individual to focus on his or her own interests and to ignore the welfare of others; the value of universalism might hinder the implementation of ASB, because it encourages attention to the welfare of others even at the expense of personal welfare; and the value of conformity may lead to an avoidance of ASB because holders of this value respect social norms and social order and may thus avoid any damage to their person that might result from such violations. We lastly hypothesize, consistently with Knafo et al. (2008), that ETV can moderate the relationship between values and ASB. We expect that values could have a greater association with ASB in contexts where individuals experience high levels of ETV.

In this study, we controlled the pattern of hypothesized relationships by age, SES, and temperamental traits of the adolescents.

Method

Participants

The sample comprised 410 subjects (225 males and 185 females) aged between 15 and 19 years who were high school students from six schools. This is a critical age for involvement in ASB; moreover, during adolescence, there is an increase in exposure to multiple social contexts. Fifteen adolescents refused to participate, and 26 did not return their consent forms. The final sample thus consisted of 369 adolescents, 205 males and 164 females. All of the subjects were enrolled either in their third year (equivalent to the 11th grade; M_age = 16.61 years, SD = 0.78) or fifth year (equivalent to the 13th grade; M_age = 18.33 years, SD = 0.83) of secondary school in Naples.

Naples, which is the largest city in southern Italy, suffers from deep divisions and serious social problems. Organized crime is deeply rooted, and rates of deviant behavior (homicide, theft, and other forms of crime) and unemployment in this geographic area are the highest in Italy (Istituto Nazionale di Statistica [ISTAT], 2012). The probability that a child will be exposed to neighborhood violence is higher than in other Italian cities. The sample was relatively well distributed in terms of SES, although somewhat skewed toward lower levels. Roughly, 47% of the fathers and mothers had a low level of education (middle school diploma or less), 43% had a high school diploma, and about 10% had a university degree. At the time of the interview, 8% of the fathers were unemployed, 42% were employed with a low salary, and 50% were employed with a medium-high salary; 62% of mothers were unemployed (data consistent with the average number of women unemployed in the local area), 7% were employed with a low salary, and 31% were employed with a medium-high salary.

Measures

Control variables

Socio-demographic variables

All demographic data were obtained directly from the adolescent participants in the study. Each participant reported his or her age and gender and provided information about his or her parents. Gender was coded as 0 (boys) and 1 (girls).

SES

The SES composite was created using reports of parent’s level of education and occupational prestige. For educational level, the participants reported their parents’ level of educational attainment (from 1 = finished only some primary classes or did not go to school to 5 = finished university or higher). For parental occupational prestige, adolescents reported their mothers’ and fathers’ current job (from 1 = has never worked outside the home for pay to 10 = professional). We calculated the SES index by applying principal components analysis (PCA) to the four SES constituent items: mother’s education, father’s education, mother’s occupational status, and father’s occupational status. The PCA model is consistent with a formative measurement in that the direction of causality goes from the items to the SES index and not vice versa (Diamantopoulos, Riefler, & Roth, 2008).

Temperamental traits

A short version of the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire–Revised (EATQ-R; Ellis & Rothbart, 2001), adapted in Italy through a back-translation procedure, was used to measure the reactive and regulative temperamental traits in adolescents. More precisely, activation control (e.g., “If I have a hard assignment to do, I get started right away”), attention (e.g., “It is easy for me to really concentrate on homework problems”), and inhibitory control (e.g., “When someone tells me to stop doing something, it is easy for me to stop”) were measured. Together, these sub-dimensions constitute the factor of effortful control (16 item; α = .70). Participants responded to each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from almost never true to almost always true. In line with other studies, the EATQ-R scales referring to effortful control would be negatively related to externalizing problems (Muris & Meesters, 2008).

Independent variables

ETV

ETV as a witness and as a victim was measured in three different contexts (home, school, and neighborhood) through self-report questionnaires.

To measure exposure to family violence, an adaptation of the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979), adapted for Italian youth by Baldry (2003), was used to distinguish between being a witness of inter-parental violence and being the target of parental violence. Subjects were asked how often they had witnessed violence (verbal or physical) by each one of their parents against the other parent or against another member of the family during the previous year (e.g., “He or she insulted or said bad words to her or him”). Then, subjects were asked how often they had been victims of violence (verbal or physical) by one of their parents during the previous year (e.g., “He or she insulted you or said bad words to you”). Four items addressed violence as a witness, and four items addressed violence as a victim. Responses were made on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from never to almost always.

To measure exposure to school violence, an ad hoc scale was used. Subjects were asked how often they had witnessed violence at school (e.g., “peers assaulted a companion”) or were a victim of violence (e.g., “peers threatened you”) during the past year. Four items addressed violence as a witness, and four items addressed violence as a victim. Responses were made on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from never to almost always.

To measure exposure to community violence, a questionnaire on “exposure to violence in the community” was used (Bacchini et al., 2011). The questionnaire was derived from Schwartz and Proctor’s Community Experience Questionnaire (D. Schwartz & Proctor, 2000) and adapted to the local context. Subjects were asked how often they had witnessed violence (without being involved in the violent act) in the neighborhood (e.g., “how many times have you witnessed thefts/aggression against other people?) or were victims of violence (e.g., “how many times have you been attacked or threatened by a street gang”). Four items considered violence as a witness, and four items considered violence as a victim. Responses were made on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from never to almost always.

Values

To measure values, adolescents completed the Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ; S. H. Schwartz et al., 2001), validated in Italy by Capanna, Vecchione, and Schwartz (2005). The PVQ includes verbal portraits of different people. For each portrait, respondents answer “How much like you is this person?” on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from not like me at all to very much like me.

For the purposes of the present study, we considered the following dimensions: universalism (six items; α = .80), concerning understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature (e.g., “He or she thinks it is important that every person in the world be treated equally”); conformity (four items; α = .67), concerning restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms (e.g., “It is important for him or her always to behave properly”); and power (three items; α = .72), concerning social status and prestige, control, or dominance over people and resources (e.g., “He or she wants to have a lot of money and expensive things”). Cronbach’s α values are in line with those for the Italian version of the instrument (Capanna et al., 2005).

Dependent variable

ASB

ASB was measured using a scale that had been previously validated for use in Italy (Bacchini et al., 2011). The scale consists of a list of 20 items concerning violations of moral and socio-conventional norms, such as failing to pay for a ticket for public transportation, being involved in fights, betraying a friend, and damaging public or private property. All violations included in the list were frequent among adolescents. The participants were asked to indicate the frequency with which they had adopted these behaviors over the past year using a 5-point rating scale (1 = never to 5 = very often). Cronbach’s α was .90.

Procedure

The questionnaires were administered during spring 2010. In the first phase of the study, each student received a sealed envelope containing a letter of presentation and an informed consent form. After collecting the forms, the questionnaires were administered in the classroom during lesson time. Teachers were outside the classroom during the administration of the questionnaires. An expert researcher was always present during data collection to answer students’ questions. Research assistants made it clear that student responses were confidential and that their responses would not be seen by anyone other than the research staff. Students were not allowed to write their names on the questionnaires and were cautioned not to look at the responses of their peers. The students had approximately 45 min to complete the surveys. Students who did not have their parents’ permission to participate in the study worked on schoolwork at their desks. No compensation was offered for participation in the study.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

First, normality tests were used to determine whether variables were normally distributed. The six scales of ETV with a non-normal distribution were normalized using logarithmic transformation. We checked for multicollinearity among variables. We obtained acceptable tolerance values in the range of .26 to .91 and variance inflation factor (VIF) values in the range of 1.10 to 3.77 (including all two-way interactions variables between the six measures of ETV and the three values).

Next, we examined subjects’ experience of violence within each of the different contexts. The percentage of subjects who had been exposed to violence as a witness at least once during the previous year was 92.4% at school, 73.7% in the neighborhood, and 49.5% at home. The percentage of subjects who had been exposed to violence as a victim at least once during the previous year was 57.5% at school, 68% in the neighborhood, and 58.5% at home.

We then examined the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of all study variables (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Correlations Among the Variables (N = 369).

Measure	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. Gender	1
2. Age	−.06	1
3. SES	.21***	−.09	1
4. Effortful control	.00	−.14**	.04	1
5. ETV-W (family)	−.03	.09	.03	−.21***	1
6. ETV-V (family)	.02	.07	−.05	−.21***	.63***	1
7. ETV-W (school)	.11*	.08	.04	−.13*	.23***	.33***	1
8. ETV-V (school)	.11*	.06	−.02	−.08	.25***	.29***	.32***	1
9. ETV-W (neighborhood)	.25***	.11*	.08	−.17**	.27***	.35***	.43***	.26***	1
10. ETV-V (neighborhood)	.19***	.06	.09	−.12*	.26***	.30***	.25***	.39***	.55***	1
11. Universalism	−.22***	−.03	−.05	.17**	−.05	−.13*	−.11*	−.01	−.14**	−.08	1
12. Power	.35***	.05	.12*	−.11*	.11*	.19***	.22***	.03	.26***	.15**	−.35***	1
13. Conformity	−.19***	−.11*	−.06	.30***	−.18***	−.30***	−.14**	.02	−.27***	−.17**	.46***	−.26***	1
14. Antisocial behavior	.30***	.10*	.03	−.30***	.29***	.39***	.37***	.18***	.51***	.31***	−.35***	.38***	−.49***	1
M		17.73	0.04	3.36	1.42	1.64	2.57	1.44	1.66	1.43	4.51	3.08	4.05	1.93
SD		1.14	0.99	0.46	0.68	0.86	1.04	0.60	0.74	0.53	0.81	1.15	0.90	0.58

Note. Gender is coded 0 for females, 1 for males; SES = socio-economic status; ETV = exposure to violence; W = witness; V = victim.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

We found significant correlations (negative in case of universalism and conformity) between ASB and all of the variables considered in the present study except for SES. Significant correlations were also found among the different settings of ETV (both as a victim and as a witness). All of the relations between the three values and ETV were significant except for victimization at school, universalism and victimization in the neighborhood, and universalism and witnessing in the family. With respect to the control variables, gender was significantly associated with all variables except for exposure to family violence as a witness and as a victim and for age and effortful control. Age was significantly correlated with being a witness of violence in the neighborhood, conformity, and ASB. SES was significantly correlated only with power, and effortful control was significantly associated with all variables except for victimization at school, gender, and SES.

Unique and Interactive Effects of ETV and Values on ASB

To examine the independent contributions of ETV and values to ASB, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed. In addition, the bootstrap method for assessing statistical accuracy was used. Bootstrapping techniques entail resampling random subsets of data and estimating regression coefficients in each sample, repeating the procedure over a large number of iterations, and subsequently using the sampling distribution of the regression coefficients to derive bootstrap confidence intervals for the regression coefficients. If the bootstrapped confidence interval does not contain zero, we can infer that the predictor has a significant association with the dependent variable. Gender, age, SES, and effortful control were entered at Step 1 as control variables; Step 2 involved entering the six measures of ETV based on context (three modes: home, school, and neighborhood) and status (two modes: witness and victim). Step 3 involved entering the three selected values (universalism, conformity, and power). Step 4 involved entering all two-way interactions between the six measures of ETV and the three values. Each step led to a statistically significant increase in the R² value.

Although we hypothesized a significant interaction only between ETV and values, we also tested five additional models to detect possible two-way interactions of gender, age, SES, and effortful control with ETV and values and between the six measures of ETV. These regressions did not show a significant increase in the fourth step: respectively, ΔR² = .01, ΔF(9, 347) = 0.87, p > .05 for interactions of gender with ETV and values; ΔR² = .02, ΔF(9, 347) = 1.82, p > .05 for interactions of age with ETV and values; ΔR² = .01, ΔF(9, 347) = 0.68, p > .05 for interactions of SES with ETV and values; ΔR² = .02, ΔF(9, 347) = 1.32, p > .05 for interactions of effortful control with ETV and values; ΔR² = .02, ΔF(15, 341) = 1.07, p > .05 for interactions between the six modes of ETV.

Regression findings are shown in Table 2. At Step 1, gender, age, SES, and effortful control explain 19% of the variance. At Step 2, ETV accounts for a further 21% of the variance. At Step 3, values explain a further 9% of the variance. Last, at Step 4, interactions between the six modes of ETV and the three values explain another 5% of the variance. Overall, the model accounts for 54% of the observed variance. More specifically, regarding control variables, significant main effects were found for gender (males are more involved in ASB) and effortful control (adolescents that have more control are less involved in ASB); there were no statistically significant effects for SES and age. Regarding ETV, only three modes of ETV showed positive and significant betas: exposure to family violence as a victim, exposure to school violence as a witness, and exposure to neighborhood violence as a witness. In addition, all three values were significantly associated with ASB: Universalism and conformity were negatively associated with ASB, and power was positively associated with ASB.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Multiple Regression of Exposure to Violence and Values on Antisocial Behavior Outcome.

Predictor	β	β	β	β	Bootstrap 95% CI		ΔR²
Predictor	β	β	β	β	Lower	Upper	ΔR²
Step 1
Gender	.31***	.23***	.13***	.13**	.054	.245	.19***
Age	.08	.03	.01	.03	−.027	.057
SES	−.02	−.03	−.05	−.04	−.074	.021
Effortful control	−.29***	−.19***	−.11***	−.10*	−.214	−.007
Step 2
ETV-W (F)		.03	.05	.03	−.305	.477	.21***
ETV-V (F)		.20***	.10*	.13*	.079	.796
ETV-W (S)		.13**	.12**	.10*	.033	.581
ETV-V (S)		−.04	.02	.01	−.288	.379
ETV-W (N)		.30***	.26***	.24***	.491	1.184
ETV-V (N)		.00	−.01	−.01	−.449	.404
Step 3
Universalism			−.08*	−.12*	−.147	−.022	.09***
Power			.12**	.10*	.002	.092
Conformity			−.24***	−.25***	−.221	−.098
Step 4
ETV-W (F) × Universalism				−.07	−.771	.302	.05**
ETV-W (F) × Power				.01	−.339	.417
ETV-W (F) × Conformity				.03	−.347	.564
ETV-V (F) × Universalism				.00	−.541	.459
ETV-V (F) × Power				−.08	−.581	.124
ETV-V (F) × Conformity				−.01	−.416	.360
ETV-W (S) × Universalism				−.13*	−.935	−.029
ETV-W (S) × Power				.03	−.184	.315
ETV-W (S) × Conformity				.09	−.077	.668
ETV-V (S) × Universalism				.09	−.135	.553
ETV-V (S) × Power				.06	−.092	.538
ETV-V (S) × Conformity				−.01	−.460	.352
ETV-W (N) × Universalism				−.02	−.656	.536
ETV-W (N) × Power				.08	−.125	.543
ETV-W (N) × Conformity				−.05	−.607	.217
ETV-V (N) × Universalism				−.06	−1.048	.246
ETV-V (N) × Power				−.03	−.485	.279
ETV-V (N) × Conformity				−.08	−.878	.196
R² total							.54

Note. Gender is coded 0 for females, 1 for males; Bootstrap = Results based on 1,000 bootstrap samples. CI = confidence interval; SES = socio-economic status; ETV = exposure to violence; W = witness; V = victim; (F) = family; (S) = school; (N) = neighborhood.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

One interaction exhibited statistically significant effects: exposure to school violence as a witness by universalism. To interpret the nature of this interaction, we used the continuous predictors procedure described by Jaccard, Wan, and Turrisi (1990). More specifically, we classified the predictive power of interaction as being low (1 SD below the mean), medium (0), and high (1 SD above the mean). Decomposition of the two interaction effects revealed that exposure to school violence as a witness moderates the relationship between universalism and ASB (Figure 1). The results showed that when the level of exposure to school violence as a witness was low (t = −1.98, p < .05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [−.18, −.00]), the levels of ASB were low, independently of the levels of universalism. In contrast, when the level of exposure to school violence was medium (t = −6.88, p < .001, 95% CI = [−.29, −.15]) or high (t = −7.51, p < .001, 95% CI = [−.45, −.26]), the levels of ASB were related to the levels of universalism, that is, the level of ASB was low for the adolescents who reported high levels of universalism and high for the individuals who reported low levels of universalism.

Figure 1.

Witness of violence at school moderates the effect of universalism on antisocial behavior.

Discussion

Our study investigated the unique and interactive relationships of ETV and personal values with ASB in adolescence. Although a wide range of research has posited an association between ETV and ASB, few studies have investigated the differential effects of specific settings and forms of ETV. Similarly, few studies have specifically examined the role of personal values in determining ASB, and to the best of our knowledge, no study has examined the interactive effects of ETV in multiple contexts and personal values on ASB in adolescence.

The high prevalence of ETV (over 90% of the sample experienced violence one time or more during the last year) is consistent with previous studies conducted at school (Fonzi, 1997) and in the community (ISTAT, 2012) in the metropolitan area of Naples in the south of Italy, a community that can be considered to be at high risk of adolescent ETV in different settings. Consistent with other studies (Mrug et al., 2008), our findings show that the probability of experiencing violence is globally higher at school, followed by the neighborhood and the family.

Moreover, even after controlling for demographic (gender, age, and SES) and individual factors as temperamental traits (effortful control in the present study), which may increase the risk of adolescents being exposed to violence, our findings show that ETV in the three different contexts and values were significantly associated with ASB.

Differential Effects of ETV on ASB

The first research question we addressed was whether ETV as a witness or as a victim in different contexts (family, school, or neighborhood) had a specific association with ASB in adolescence. As we expected, bivariate linear correlations showed that each mode of ETV is significantly related to ASB. At the same time, the results are consistent with the literature adopting an ecological approach (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), according to which violence in different microsystems of the social ecology does appear to covary (Boxer et al., 2013; Clark et al., 2010). To account for the covariance of the six modes of ETV (three settings by two status), the unique effects of all modes of ETV on ASB, controlling for the effects of gender, age, status, and effortful control, were simultaneously tested. Two main findings were obtained: (a) ETV, globally considered, explained a very high percentage of variance (30%), and (b) being a witness to school violence, being a witness to neighborhood violence, and being a victim of family violence all showed unique and significant effects on ASB.

The results highlight a higher percentage of explained variance by ETV on ASB compared with some studies (Mrug et al., 2008; Ziv, 2012), but the result is otherwise similar to the results of previous studies (Tisak, Wichorek, & Tisak, 2011). Our findings highlight the high sensitivity of adolescents to environmental influences, confirming the postulate according to which “violence breeds violence.” High-risk contexts appear to desensitize young people to violent and ASB via a type of “pathologic adaptation” (Ng-Mak et al., 2004), in which antisocial conduct becomes effective and socially acceptable (Anderson, 1999), inasmuch as it is supported by normative beliefs that mediate the relationship between structural characteristics of the context and ASB (Guerra, Huesmann, & Hanish, 1995).

A specific contribution of our study concerns the detection of differential effects of multiple modes of ETV. A researcher who assigns more importance to the family environment could hypothesize that family violence has the strongest impact on the adjustment of adolescents because adolescents have a more intimate relationship with those who perpetrate the violence and face a consequent threat to their internal sense of security. In addition, the familial environment is the context in which the child spends most of his or her time and from which the child cannot escape (Mrug & Windle, 2010). However, other theoretical perspectives (e.g., the group socialization theory by Harris, 1995) assign more importance to the experiences of the adolescent outside the home rather than within the home and argue that violence in the neighborhood or at school will have a stronger impact on adolescent behavior because adolescents appear to be highly sensitive to their environmental and peer influences (Dodge, Dishion, & Lansford, 2006; Dodge & Pettit, 2003).

Our findings show that witnessing violence at school and in the neighborhood have independent effects on ASB, as does victimization at home. Unfortunately, the cross-sectional nature of our data does not allow us to make inferences about the developmental trajectory that leads from the experience of violence in one domain to that in another. It is undeniable that among the different forms of violence, there exists a sort of vicious cycle; for example, adolescents who suffer violence at home could adopt an aggressive way of life, leading them to frequent deviant contexts. On the contrary, adolescents who frequently expose themselves to violent episodes as witnesses could enhance the aggressive reactions from their parents.

Nevertheless, the fact that violence witnessed outside of the home had the strongest impact on adolescent behavior deserves reflection; adolescents appear to be particularly sensitive to environmental and peer influences, especially when they do not have a direct experience of victimization. In general, the company of deviant peers is universally considered to be one of the most influential factors associated with ASB in adolescence, both in the neighborhood and at school (Dodge, Dishion, & Lansford,2006; Tisak et al., 2011). Therefore, in our study, witnessing neighborhood and school violence was more predictive than witnessing violence at home, whereas only victimization at home yielded a direct contribution to ASB. Indeed, harsh parental practices are common in the Italian context, as cross-cultural studies have revealed (Lansford et al., 2010), and it is plausible to hypothesize that a vicious cycle takes place between parents and children: Children learn aggressive behavior from their parents, and parents frequently use aggressive behavior to discipline their sons and daughters.

Personal Values and ASB

The second research question we addressed was whether the selected values of universalism, conformity, and power exerted an independent influence on ASB, taking into account the effects of ETV. Above all, it is noteworthy that, in most cases, there are significant bivariate correlations between being exposed to a violent environment and personal values. Even though we cannot make causal inferences due to the cross-sectional nature of the study, we can assume an existing interdependence between subjective values and contextual climate.

Regarding the specific contribution of values to ASB, our findings are consistent with those of previous research. The value of universalism (concerning understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people) and the value of conformity (concerning restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms) are both negatively associated with ASB in adolescence. Conversely, the value of power (concerning social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources) is positively associated with ASB. These findings are interesting for many reasons. The effect size of the values on ASB is quite large (approximately 13%) after controlling for the effects of gender, SES, effortful control, and ETV. The fact that personal values yield a unique contribution to ASB supports the hypothesis that involvement in ASB in adolescence can be considered, at least in part, an intentional, deliberate act and not only a consequence of environmental influences or the effect of lack of control. This finding is consistent with Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) and Reputation Enhancement Theory (Emler & Reicher, 1995), which support the thesis that ASB is also the result of a deliberate choice that aims to project to others a certain image.

The value that appears to have the strongest impact on ASB is conformity, which always serves as a protective factor. Universalism has a negative association with ASB but to a lower degree than conformity. Thus, it appears that attributing importance to the respect of socially established norms (conformity) protects adolescents from acting in an antisocial way more than giving priority to the well-being of others (universalism). This relationship could be partly due to the construct of ASB, which encompasses a very wide typology of behaviors, some of which do not imply damage to another person (e.g., use of illegal substances) or damage that is not immediately evident (e.g., violation of the Highway Code). Regarding power, our hypothesis that this value could positively contribute to ASB is supported by our results, perhaps because adolescents could implement this type of behavior in an instrumental way to obtain benefits and to accumulate resources. In addition, ASB has a certain charm in adolescence; thus, adolescents could act in an antisocial manner to strengthen their reputation and to achieve a higher status within their peer group.

Interactive Effects

The results reveal a significant interaction between the value of universalism and being a witness to violence at school, confirming findings by Knafo et al. (2008). The value of universalism has a stronger impact on ASB under conditions of high ETV because in a violent environment the regulatory pressure against the implementation of ASB is lacking, and thus, individual differences play a greater role. In fact, our results show that under conditions of low exposure to school violence, the levels of ASB are low both for adolescents who attribute high importance to universalism and for those who attach little importance to it. Under conditions of high ETV, on the contrary, the greater the importance attached to universalism, the lower the frequency with which adolescents involve in ASB.

Limitations, Future Research, and Implications

Our results contribute to the conceptualization of the impact of ETV and personal values on ASB in adolescence. Nevertheless, several limitations warrant attention. First, we used only self-reported measures. Beyond the effects of social desirability, which are always present when we detect ASB, it is important to consider possible effects due to cognitive distortions in social information processing because antisocial individuals tend to perceive the context in which they live as more hostile. The use of other sources of information (e.g., peers or parents) could remedy this limitation. Second, the cross-sectional nature of the study does not allow for inferences about the developmental trajectory. Future studies should investigate how violence within one context may moderate the ETV in another context, amplifying or even reducing it. A longitudinal design would also allow us to better understand the ways in which ETV affects the formation of personal values and whether values are consistent and stable over time, relatively independent of context after childhood. Third, we must proceed with great caution in generalizing our results because of the nature of the sample. As we discussed above, adolescents who live in the Neapolitan area are highly likely to be exposed to environmental violence. Moreover, we conducted our study with subjects who regularly attended school, and for this reason, they are relatively well-adjusted people compared with school drop-outs or young delinquents.

Despite these limitations, the findings of the study highlight the importance of conceptualizing the negative impact of ETV on adolescent behavior, assigning special importance to violence experienced in contexts outside the family. Even if it is obvious that the best remedy against the negative effects of violence is to prevent violent behaviors, we also need to implement educational programs that combat common perceptions that consider violence a common normative behavior. Unfortunately, few intervention programs have been implemented according to an evidence-based approach even though more recently researchers have begun to take initial steps in this direction (see Mulford & Low, 2013; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011).

Another strength of the present study is the emphasis placed on the role of values, which must be considered not only as abstract, ideal aspirations but also as real protective factors against ASB in adolescence and perhaps childhood. For this reason, future research programs could try to better understand the process of value formation, considering not only the influence of the familiar context but also the influence of the broad social context.

Last, the fact that we take into account the interaction between ETV and values in ASB is another important strength of this study. The research topic explored in this study is rather new; to the best of our knowledge, only one previous study (Knafo et al., 2008) has examined the impact that both values and ETV have on externalizing behaviors. Moreover, the presence of significant interactions between values and ETV suggests that values are not immutable and static concepts but act in different ways in relation to the specific context in which the individual is embedded. Clearly, it is important to conduct follow-up studies to verify that the interactions can be replicated with new data.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Dario Bacchini is an associate professor of developmental psychology _Department of Psychology, Second University of Naples, Caserta, Italy. His research areas are bullying at school, antisocial and prosocial behavior, moral development, parenting. He has coordinated various research projects into the above-mentioned topics granted by University, Scientific Research Minister, and Local Government. He is actually taking part at the cross-cultural research “parenting across cultures” funded by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Gaetana Affuso is an assistant professor of developmental psychology - Department of Psychology, Second University of Naples, Caserta, Italy. Her research areas are exposure to community violence and peer relationships.

Serena Aquilar is a professional psychologist. She collaborates with the Department of Psychology, Second University of Naples, Caserta, Italy.

References

Anderson

(1999). Code of the streets: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Bacchini

Miranda

M. C.

Affuso

(2011). Effects of parental monitoring and exposure to community violence on antisocial behavior and anxiety/depression among adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 269-292.

Baldry

A. C.

(2003). Bullying in schools and exposure to domestic violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 713-732.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bond

M. H.

Chi

V. M.

(1997). Values and moral behaviour in mainland China. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 40, 251-264.

Boxer

Rowell Huesmann

Dubow

E. F.

Landau

S. F.

Gvirsman

S. D.

Shikaki

Ginges

(2013). Exposure to violence across the social ecosystem and the development of aggression: A test of ecological theory in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Child Development, 84, 163-177. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01848

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Capanna

Vecchione

Schwartz

S. H.

(2005). La misura dei valori. Un contributo alla validazione del Portrait Value Questionnaire su un campione italiano [The measurement of values. A contribution to the validation of the Portrait Values Questionnaire on an Italian sample]. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 246, 29-41.

Carroll

Durkin

Hattie

Houghton

(1997). Goal setting among adolescents: A comparison of delinquent, at risk and not at-risk youth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 39, 441-450.

10.

Clark

C. J.

Everson-Rose

S. A.

Suglia

S. F.

Btoush

Alonso

Haj-Yahia

M. M.

(2010). Association between exposure to political violence and intimate partner violence in the occupied Palestinian territory: A case-control study. The Lancet, 375, 310-316.

11.

Cooley

M. R.

Boyd

R. C.

Frantz

Walsh

(2001). Emotional and behavioral impact of exposure to community violence in inner-city adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 199-206.

12.

Cyr

Chamberland

Lessard

Clément

M.-È.

Wemmers

J.-A.

Collin-Vézina

Gagné

M.H.

Damant

(2012). Polyvictimization in a child welfare sample of children and youths. Psychology of Violence, 2, 385-400. doi:10.1037/a0028040

13.

Diamantopoulos

Riefler

Roth

K. P.

(2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1203-1218.

14.

Dodge

K. A.

Coie

J. D.

Lynam

(2006). Aggression and antisocial behavior in youth. In Eisenberg

Damon

Lerner

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 719-788). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

15.

Dodge

K. A.

Dishion

T. J.

Lansford

J. E.

(Eds.). (2006). Deviant peer influences in programs for youth. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

16.

Dodge

K. A.

Pettit

G. S.

(2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 39, 349-337.

17.

Ehrensaft

M. K.

Cohen

Brown

Smailes

Chen

Johnson

J. G.

(2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 741-753.

18.

Ellis

L. K.

Rothbart

M. K.

(2001). Revision of the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire. Poster presented at the 2001 Biennial meeting of the Society of Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN, April 2001.

19.

Emler

Reicher

(1995). Adolescence and delinquency. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

20.

Evans

S. H.

Davies

DiLillo

(2008). Exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent outcomes. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 131-140.

21.

Feather

N. T.

(1995). Values, valences, and choice: The influence of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1135-1151.

22.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

R. K.

Turner

H. A.

(2007). Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child victimization trauma. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 7-26.

23.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

Turner

Hamby

(2005). The victimization of children and youth: A comprehensive, national survey. Child Maltreatment, 10, 5-25.

24.

Fitzpatrick

K. M.

(1993). Exposure to violence and presence of depression among low-income, African-American youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 424-430.

25.

Fonzi

(1997). Il bullismo in Italia [Bullying in Italy]. Firenze, Italy: Giunti Editore.

26.

Gorman-Smith

Tolman

(1998). The role of exposure to community violence and developmental problems among inner-city youth. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 101-116.

27.

Guerra

N. G.

Huesmann

L. R.

Hanish

(1995). The role of normative beliefs in children’s social behavior. In Eisenberg

(Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology, development, and social psychology: The interface (pp. 140-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28.

Guerra

N. G.

Huesmann

L. R.

Spindler

(2003). Community violence exposure, social cognition, and aggression among urban elementary school children. Child Development, 74, 1561-1576.

29.

Hanish

Guerra

N. G.

(2002). A longitudinal analysis of patterns of adjustment following peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 69-89.

30.

Harris

J. R.

(1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102, 458-489.

31.

M. Y.

Cheung

F. M.

(2010). The differential effects of forms and settings of exposure to violence on adolescents’ adjustment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1309-1337.

32.

Howard

A. L.

Kimonis

E. R.

Muñoz

L. C.

Frick

P. J.

(2012). Violence exposure mediates the relation between callous-unemotional traits and offending patterns in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40, 1237-1247. doi:10.1007/s10802-012-9647-2

33.

Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. (2012). Rapporto annuale. La situazione del paese nel 2012 [National Institute of Statistics. Annual report. The situation of the country in 2012]. Retrieved from http://www.ristretti.it/commenti/2013/gennaio/pdf6/istat_giustizia.pdf

34.

Jaccard

Wan

C. K.

Turrisi

(1990). The detection and interpretation of interaction effects between continuous variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 467-478.

35.

Janosz

Archambault

Pagani

L. S.

Pascal

Morin

A. J. S.

Bowen

(2008). Are there detrimental effects of witnessing school violence in early adolescence? Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 600-608.

36.

Jones

S. E.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

(2011). Personality, antisocial behavior and aggression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 329-337.

37.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Ruggiero

K. J.

Acierno

R. E.

Saunders

B. E.

Resnick

H. S.

Best

C. L.

(2003). Violence and risk of PTSD, major depression, substance abuse/dependence, and comorbidity: Results from the national survey of adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 692-700.

38.

Knafo

(2003). Authoritarians, the next generation: Values and bullying among adolescent children of authoritarian fathers. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3, 199-204.

39.

Knafo

Daniel

Khoury-Kassabri

(2008). Values as protective factors against violent behavior in Jewish and Arab high schools in Israel. Child Development, 79, 652-667.

40.

Lansford

J. E.

Alampay

L. P.

Al-Hassan

Bacchini

Bombi

A. S.

Bornstein

. . . Zelli

(2010). Corporal punishment of children in nine countries as a function of child gender and parent gender. International Journal of Pediatrics, 2010, 1-12. doi:10.1155/2010/672780

41.

Lopez-Romero

Romero

(2010). Goals during adolescence and their relationship with antisocial behavior. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13, 166-177.

42.

Lynch

(2003). Consequences of children’s exposure to community violence. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 265-274.

43.

Magnusson

(1988). Individual development from an interactional perspective: A longitudinal study. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

44.

Margolin

Gordis

E. B.

(2000). The effects of family and community violence on children. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 445-479.

45.

Margolin

Vickerman

K. A.

Oliver

P. H.

Gordis

E. B.

(2010). Violence exposure in multiple interpersonal domains: Cumulative and differential effects. Journal of Adolescent Health, 47, 198-205.

46.

Menesini

Nocentini

A. L.

Camodeca

(2013). Morality, values, traditional bullying, and cyberbullying in adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31, 1-14.

47.

Mrug

Loosier

P. S.

Windle

(2008). Violence exposure across multiple contexts: Individual and joint effects on adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78, 70-84.

48.

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, 953-961.

49.

Mulford

Low

(2013). Addressing children’s exposure to violence across settings: Linking innovative science and practice. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 22, 1-5.

50.

Muris

Meesters

(2008). Reactive and regulative temperament in youths: Psychometric evaluation of the early adolescent temperament questionnaire-revised. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31, 7-19.

51.

Myyry

Helkama

(2001). University students’ value priorities and emotional empathy. Educational Psychology, 21, 25-40.

52.

Ng-Mak

D. S.

Salzinger

Feldman

Stueve

C. A.

(2004). Pathologic adaptation to community violence among inner-City youth. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74, 196-208.

53.

Roccas

Sagiv

Schwartz

H. S.

Knafo

(2002). The big five personality factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 789-801.

54.

Rokeach

(1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.

55.

Romero

Sobral

Luengo

M. A.

Marzoa

J. A.

(2001). Values and antisocial behaviour among Spanish adolescents. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162, 20-40.

56.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). New York, NY: Academic Press.

57.

Schwartz

S. H.

Cieciuch

Vecchione

Davidov

Fischer

Beierlein

Ramos

Verkasalo

Lönnqvist

J.-E.

Demirutku

Dirilen-Gumus

Konty

(2012). Refining the Theory of Basic Individual Values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 663-688.

58.

Schwartz

Proctor

L. J.

(2000). Community violence exposure and children’s social adjustment in the school peer group: The mediating roles of emotion regulation and social cognition. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 670-683.

59.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.

60.

Schwartz

S. H.

Melech

Lehmann

Burgess

Harris

Owens

(2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 519-542.

61.

Shahinfar

Kupersmidt

J. B.

Matza

L. S.

(2001). The relation between exposure to violence and social information-processing among incarcerated adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 136-141.

62.

Straus

M. A.

(1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.

63.

Mrug

Windle

(2010). Social cognitive and emotional mediators link violence exposure and parental nurturance to adolescent aggression. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39, 814-824.

64.

Tisak

M. S.

Wichorek

M. G.

Tisak

(2011). Relation between exposure to and consequences of aggression: U.S. national sample of adolescents. Journal of School Violence, 10, 355-373.

65.

Ttofi

M. M.

Farrington

D. P.

(2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27-56. doi:10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1

66.

Zinzow

H. M.

Ruggiero

K. J.

Resnick

Hanson

Smith

Saunders

Kilpatrick

(2009). Prevalence and mental health correlates of witnessed parental and community violence in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 441-450.

67.

Ziv

(2012). Exposure to violence, social information processing, and problem behavior in preschool children. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 429-441.