Reactive Protection? Fear,Victimization,and Fighting Among U.S. High School Students

Abstract

Youth violence in high schools is a pervasive and persistent problem in the United States. Students engage in physical fights, experience bullying and teen dating violence (TDV), are threatened with weapons, and miss school due to safety concerns. However, despite theoretical support, research has not sufficiently addressed the relationship between students’ fear and fighting at school. This secondary analysis used data from the 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (n = 13,583) to examine the relationship between fear at school, victimization, and engagement in fighting at school among high school students. We created a 3-item composite fear variable, conducted logistic regression to examine likelihood of fighting, and multinomial regression to examine risk for multiple fights, and stratified all models by gender. Findings indicate that both male and female students who experienced fear were more likely to engage in fights at school than peers who did not experience fear, even when controlling for other factors. Likewise, the more fear incidents a student experienced, the more at risk they were for engaging in multiple fights. Findings on victimization indicate that the relationship with fighting is more straightforward for male students than for female students. For males, being bullied and experiencing multiple incidents of physical and sexual TDV were all associated with fighting at school. For females, however, only one type of victimization was associated with fighting at school: experiencing multiple incidents of physical TDV. Overall, findings suggest that fear may be more than merely a by-product of fighting, but rather—as the extant research supports—fear also can be generalized across situations and displayed through patterns of aggression. Findings support the need for interventions aimed at skill-building in areas of communication, emotion regulation, conflict resolution, and healthy relationships to help youth—particularly those in younger grades—negotiate interpersonal relationships without the use of violence.

Keywords

bullying dating violence domestic and sexual violence youth violence

Youth violence in high schools is a pervasive problem in the United States. National estimates indicate there were roughly 966,000 school-based incidents of simple assault and other serious forms of violence among students aged 12 to 18 in 2013 (Robers, Zhang, Morgan, & Musu-Gillette, 2015). Findings from the 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) further illuminate the scope of fighting as well as victimization. High school students reported engaging in at least one physical fight (8.1%) at school, being threatened with or injured by a weapon at school (6.9%), carrying a weapon at school (5.2%), being bullied (19.6%; Kann et al., 2014), and experiencing teen dating violence (20.9% of female students and 10.4% of male students; Vagi, Olsen, Basile, & Vivolo-Kantor, 2015). High school violence is not only pervasive but also persistent: Reports of feeling unsafe, experiencing threats from peers, and engaging in fights varied little from 2000 to 2011 (Dinkles, Kemp, & Baum, 2009; Rajan, Namdar, & Ruggles, 2015).

Given the multiple types of violence that occur at high schools, it is not surprising that 7.1% of students reported missing at least one day of school because they felt unsafe (Kann et al., 2014). This is concerning, as sense of safety at school is critical to students’ well-being and academic achievement (Nijs et al., 2014). For example, feeling fearful, especially when combined with victimization, increases externalizing and internalizing behaviors (Reijntjes et al., 2011; Reijntjes, Kamphuis, Prinzie, & Telch, 2010) and is related to decreased school attendance (Bowen & Bowen, 1999), all of which can affect educational outcomes (Akiba, 2010) and even lead to delinquency (Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson, 2005; Maguin & Loeber, 1996).

Despite evidence that at least a minority of students avoid school due to safety concerns, studies examining the role of fear in school violence are relatively rare. Furthermore, existing research focuses on fear as an outcome of victimization, despite mounting theoretical and empirical evidence that feelings of fear may actually be a catalyst for perpetrating physical violence (Collins, 2008; Kliewer, Dibble, Goodman, & Sullivan, 2012; Wallace, Patchin, & May, 2005). Thus, the goal of this study—which is informed by a micro-interactionist theory of violence (Collins, 2008) and social cognitive information processing theory (Huesmann, 1988)—is to examine the relationship between fear at school, victimization, and physical fights at school among a representative sample of high school students using data from the 2013 YRBS.

Literature Review

Youth violence has received an enormous amount of empirical and theoretical attention from a multitude of disciplines over the years. Herein, we focus on the literature most directly relevant to our aims: school violence, victimization, and fear in the context of high school.

School Violence

Violence in the high school setting includes both relational and physical aggression. Relational aggression refers to indirect or covert actions that harm a person’s reputation or damage one’s relationship with peers (e.g., gossip and exclusion; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Physical aggression involves actual or threatened physical harm or injury, and varies by gender, age, and race. Specifically, males are more likely than females to use (and experience) physical aggression (Crothers et al., 2007; Cullerton-Sen & Crick, 2005; Hamby, Finkelhor, & Turner, 2012; Putallaz et al., 2007). Ninth graders report the highest rates of physical violence in school, with consistent decreases at each grade increase (Kann et al., 2014; Robers et al., 2015). Finally, African American and Hispanic youth consistently report higher levels of physical fighting in schools than their White peers (Rajan et al., 2015; Robers et al., 2015).

Dating Violence

Dating violence, or teen dating violence (TDV), typically emerges in late middle school (Foshee et al., 2014), and includes physical violence, sexual violence, psychological aggression, coercive control, and/or stalking by a current or former intimate partner (Breiding, Basile, Smith, Black, & Mahendra, 2015). Rates and types of TDV vary by gender. Although physical violence victimization is only slightly higher among females (6.6%) compared with males (4.1%; Vagi et al., 2015), differences in other types of TDV are more pronounced. Specifically, females are substantially more likely than males to experience fear-inducing violence, injurious physical violence, and sexual violence (Hamby et al., 2012; Hamby & Turner, 2013; Vagi et al., 2015). TDV is associated with other types of violence, including rape, other forms of sexual assault, physical assault by non-intimates, and poly victimization (Hamby et al., 2012). A study using data from the 2013 YRBS found that teen victims of TDV were more likely to engage in a physical fight, carry a weapon, and be bullied—and that these associations were considerably stronger among female victims, especially those who had experienced both physical and sexual TDV (Vagi et al., 2015).

Fear

Fear is an emotional response generated from the amygdala serving to protect humans from harm and can be conditioned and generalized across situations, thereby leading to a distortion in one’s assessment, cognition, and perception of threats, as well as response to threats (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2010). Fear is highly correlated with previous victimization in both adults and adolescents (Alvarez & Bachman, 1997; Garofalo, 1979; Wallace et al., 2005), because—similar to fear—prior victimization has “spillover effects” resulting in higher perceptions of risk, threat, and fear generalized across situations (Wilcox, Augustine, Bryan, & Roberts, 2005). In this way, fear is an emotional and cognitive process.

A primary way in which fear manifests into action is through aggression. Research on fear, more generally, and on adolescents specifically, indicates the following. First, those who cognitively perceive the intentions of another as harmful are found to react aggressively (Lochman & Dodge, 1994; Nas, Orbio de Castro, & Koops, 2005). Second, anxiety, obsessive fears about harm to self, and fear of rejection are all positively correlated with physical aggression (Cassidy & Stevenson, 2005; Eaves, Darch, & Williams, 2004; Papolos, Hennen, & Cockerham, 2005). Third, witnessing and experiencing victimization predict adolescents’ aggression (Kimonis, Ray, Branch, & Cauffman, 2011; Tisak, Wichorek, & Tisak, 2011). Finally, exposure to violence and victimization is related to perceptions of fear and safety, especially in one’s school setting (Sharkey & Sampson, 2010). Together, these findings support the idea that fear is a catalyst for aggression in general and among adolescents; however, research to date has not examined fear and fighting in the context of the high school setting.

One’s perceptions of fear and safety, although linked to aggression, also influence self-protective measures. For example, a longitudinal study found that adolescents’ perceived risk of victimization predicted their likelihood of carrying weapons (Melde, Esbensen, & Taylor, 2009). Similarly, a study using data from several national surveys (including the YRBS) found that prior victimization was associated with carrying weapons for self-protection (Kingery, Coggeshall, & Alford, 1998). This evidence suggests that, for some, carrying weapons reflects a cognitive sense of being unsafe and in danger that is based on prior victimization experiences.

Research on factors that contribute to students’ level of fear at school specifically is scarce. However, evidence suggests that school environment and individual factors play a role. School environment factors include the presence of bullying, drugs, gangs, and weapons (Kingery et al., 1998; Bachman, Gunter, & Bakken, 2011). Individual factors include low parental attachment, social isolation (Wallace & May, 2005), and prior victimization (Bachman, Randolph, & Brown, 2011). Demographic characteristics also appear to matter: Females report higher levels of fear at school than males for all grade levels (Bachman, Gunter, & Bakken, 2011; Bachman, Randolph, & Brown, 2011), and Hispanic students consistently report higher rates of fear at school than White and Black students (Rajan et al., 2015; Robers et al., 2015). Although important, these studies typically use samples drawn from individual states, consider fear as an outcome of fighting, and use single measures to capture fear as a construct. For example, Rajan and colleagues (2015) and Bachman, Randolph, and Brown (2011) operationalized fear with a single item assessing whether the respondent felt unsafe at school. The current study adds to the knowledge base by examining the emotional and cognitive aspects of fear as a composite variable using a representative sample drawn from high schools across the United States.

Conceptual Framework and Study Hypotheses

The study’s conceptual framework draws on tenets from micro-sociological theory of violence (Collins, 2008) and social cognitive information processing (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Huesmann, 1988). We provide an overview of each before drawing connections to the current study.

Unlike broad sociological explanations of violence that focus on the overall structure of society, micro-interactionists focus on the situations themselves. Collins (2008) posited that situations (often social) must be conducive for violence to occur and that the micro-interactions at the moment determine the likelihood of violence. Underlying these assumptions is the proposition that interactions of conflict trigger a “confrontational tension and fear response” (ct/f) that acts as a barrier to violence. Five situations facilitate conquering the ct/f response: attacking the “weak,” support by an audience, physical distance from victim, deception, or absorption in the technique of violence. In schools, ways to circumvent the ct/f response and perpetrate violence include bullying, fights in public spaces, and surprise attacks (Collins, 2008).

In social cognitive information processing theory (SCIPT), humans utilize cognitive processing operations of encoding, schemas, and scripts to interpret, understand, and respond to social situations (Huesmann, 1988). Experiences are encoded into memory, formulated into schemas, and similar schemas are linked together to form scripts that represent understanding of social phenomena. Responses to social situations can be either controlled and planned, or reactive and impulsive. Reactive responses can lead to maladaptive behavior patterns such as aggression and violence (Huesmann, 1988). The social information processing model (SIP) was developed to explain the relationship between the cognitive processing operations of SCIPT and aggression (Crick & Dodge, 1994). Factors of information processing most strongly associated with aggression involve poor emotion regulation (Calvete & Orue, 2012), hostile interpretations of another’s intentions, and patterned reactive aggression (Lochman & Dodge, 1994).

Taken together, micro-interactionism and SCIPT offer insight into the current study’s hypothesized relationship between fear at school, victimization, and engaging in physical fights at school. Being threatened with a weapon at school is likely to induce feelings of fear and tension in students, just as feeling unsafe at school and carrying weapons to school indicate that a student does not feel physically safe at school—potentially leading to reactive aggression. Likewise, being bullied by ones’ peers has the potential to influence cognitive appraisal of later peer interactions as physically threatening, thereby leading to physical fighting at school. Similarly, TDV has the potential to elicit fear of and aggression toward one’s dating partner at school—and possibly other peers if the fear is generalized. As a result, for students who are already fearful—as well as those who have experienced bullying or TDV—any resultant fear becomes conditioned and encoded into the schemata used to interpret social interactions at school. Specifically, that interpretation involves attributing hostile intention to another’s actions, which then leads to an aggressive response (i.e., physical fighting). Furthermore, due to the patterning of aggressive responses, students who have already responded to fear aggressively (i.e., one fight) will be more likely to engage in multiple fights.

Study Aims

Based on the gaps in the literature, this study aims to determine the extent to which (a) female and male U.S. high school students report experiencing fear, victimization, and fights at school; (b) fear is associated with engagement of physical fighting in school among female and male U.S. high school students; (c) fear, when accounting for victimization experiences, is associated with engagement in physical fighting in school among female and male U.S. high school students; (d) fear, when accounting for victimization experiences, is associated with the frequency of physical fights at school engaged in by female and male U.S. high school students.

Method

Data Source and Study Sample

This study is a secondary analysis using the 2013 national YRBS (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2014). The YRBS is an empirically valid survey that has been administered every 2 years since 1991 and analyzed extensively (CDC, 2013). Using a multistage, cluster sampling design, the 2013 YRBS contains data from a nationally representative sample of 13,583 high school students and is weighted for generalizability. The 2013 YRBS sample is as follows: 48.8% female and 51.2 % male. The racial and ethnic composition (hereafter, “race”) is 41% White, 22.5% Black/African American, 13.1% Hispanic, 12.5% Multiple-Hispanic, 5.1% Multiple Non-Hispanic, 3.7% Asian, 1% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 0.9% American Indian. Grade distribution was ninth (26.5%), 10th (23.3%), 11th (23.5%), and 12th (26.3%). Because the rate of “missingness” for all variables was less than 0.03%, which is well below the standard of 5% (Schulz & Grimes, 2002), we excluded missing data from calculations. The final analytic sample for aims 2 to 4 was 12,429 respondents (female n = 6,135; male n = 6,288) and reflected the demographics of the full sample.

Variables and Data Analysis

The dependent variable in this study was past-year engagement in physical fights on school property. For the main independent variable of interest, fear at school (hereafter, “fear”), we created a composite ordinal variable consisting of three variables—feeling unsafe at school, being threatened with a weapon at school, and carrying weapons at school—to represent the number of fear incidents. A principal component factor analysis confirmed that these variables were satisfactorily correlated, with an eigenvalue of 1.6 and factor loadings ranging from 0.66 to 0.80. Each of the three ordinal variables included in the fear variable was collapsed into three categories (none, 1 time, 2+ times) before being added together to create number of fear incidents (i.e., none, 1, and 2 or more). Informed by the conceptual framework and empirical literature, we included three victimization types as covariates—physical TDV, sexual TDV, and bullied—and controlled for race and grade. For a description of variables, see the appendix.

To address the first aim, we calculated frequencies and percentages. For aims 2 to 4, we conducted exploratory analysis by examining the correlations between the dependent variable (physical fights at school) and all other variables. Because fear, physical TDV, sexual TDV, and grade are ordinal variables and not normally distributed, we conducted Spearman’s rho. For the categorical variables “bullied” and “race,” we used chi square tests. Each variable was significantly correlated with the dependent variable at p < .001. Finally, analysis of variance inflation factors (VIF) indicated that multicollinearity was not an issue (VIF scores from 1.01 to 1.17).

To address aims 2 and 3, we conducted logistic regression in which the dependent variable was coded as a dichotomous variable (i.e., no fights vs. 1 or more fights). We developed three models. We first tested for the main effects of fear on engagement of physical fights at school (Model 1), then included grade and race as control variables (Model 2), then included the victimization variables: bullied, physical TDV, and sexual TDV (Model 3). To address aim 4, we conducted multinomial logistic regression. Recall that the aim was to determine the relationship between fear and frequency of fighting, rather than presence of fighting—as was the case with aims 2 and 3—thus, fighting in school was coded into three categories: none, 1 fight, and 2 or more fights. Multinomial logistic regression is an appropriate test for this aim as there is (a) no assumption of normality; (b) allows for two or more categories of the dependent variable; and (c) assumes independence among the dependent variable (Starkweather & Moske, 2011).

All analyses were weighted, adjusted for sampling design, and conducted using Stata 14.0. All multivariate analyses were stratified by gender, which is consistent with similar investigations using YRBS data (e.g., Olsen, Kann, Vivolo-Kantor, Kinchen, & McManus, 2013; Vagi et al., 2015), and informed by research supporting gender differences in school fighting and experiences of dating violence victimization, particularly fear-inducing and injurious violence (Hamby et al., 2012; Hamby & Turner, 2013).

Results

First Study Aim

In Table 1, we present the percentage of students who reported experiencing either one incident or multiple incidents (i.e., 2+) of fear, victimization, and fighting at school. Here, we present overall patterns. For females, the percentage who reported one incident of fear (6.7%) was similar to that of multiple incidents (7.3%). For males, the percentage of multiple fear incidents (10.5%) was higher than that of one fear incident (5.5%). For both females and males, it was more common to experience multiple incidents of physical TDV and of sexual TDV than to experience only one incident. Being bullied was also higher among females (22.3%) than males (15%). Opposite patterns were observed for fighting at school: A higher percentage of males than females reported one fight (7.1% vs. 4.6%) and multiple fights (4.8% vs. 2.1%). For males and females, engaging in one fight was more common than engaging in multiple fights.

Table 1.

High School Students’ Experience of Fear, Dating Violence, Bullying, and School Violence (%).

	Fear at School		Physical TDV^a		Sexual TDV^a		Bullied	Physical Fighting at School
	1 Time	2+ Times	1 Time	2+ Times	1 Time	2+ Times	At Least 1 Time	1 Time	2+ Times
Gender
Female (n = 6,621)	6.7	7.3	5.5	7.9	5.8	8.7	22.3	4.6	2.1
Male (n = 6,950)	5.5	10.5	2.4	5.8	2.3	4.6	15.0	7.1	4.8
Race and ethnicity
White (n = 5,449)	5.2	8.5	3.3	6.6	3.8	6.3	22.3	4.8	2.1
Black (n = 2,293)	6.7	9.1	4.2	7.1	3.3	5.7	12.2	8.5	5.1
Hispanic (n = 1,734)	5.8	7.5	4.9	4.3	5.0	5.2	14.7	5.0	3.0
Multiracial (n = 2,342)	7.2	7.0	4.0	8.3	4.7	8.3	20.7	6.5	4.7
Other (n = 747)	6.5	7.0	5.0	6.8	5.3	11.1	19.6	3.2	3.2
Grade
9th (n = 3,588)	7.1	10.1	3.4	5.4	4.8	6.5	24.8	7.7	5.2
10th (n = 3,152)	7.0	8.1	4.1	6.7	4.8	6.7	20.9	6.9	3.2
11th (n = 3,184)	6.0	9.2	3.2	7.0	3.5	6.5	15.9	5.3	3.1
12th (n = 3,557)	4.4	3.4	4.4	7.7	3.2	6.6	12.5	3.4	2.2

Note. TDV = teen dating violence.

Percentages reflect only those participants (n = 9,718) who indicated that they had dated within the past year.

Across race, the percentage of students reporting one incident of fear ranged from 5.2% (White students) to 7.2% (Multiracial students), with multiple fear incidents ranging from 7% (Multiracial students) to 9.1% (Black students). Regardless of race, multiple incidents of physical TDV and of sexual TDV were more common than only one incident. Multiple incidents of physical TDV were highest among Multiracial students (8.3%); multiple incidents of sexual TDV were highest among Other students (11.1%). The percentage of being bullied ranged from 12.2% (Black students) to 22.3% (White students). Engaging in one fight ranged from 3.2% (Other students) to 8.5% (Black students); multiple fights ranged from 2.1% (White students) to 5.1% (Black students). Finally, the general pattern for grade was that as students advanced to higher grades, reports of fear, bullying, and physical fighting decreased. Physical and sexual TDV were the exceptions, consistently hovering between 3% and 7%, regardless of grade.

Second and Third Study Aims

In Tables 2 and 3, we present the results from the logistic regression models for female students and male students, respectively. For both, the final models were significant: F(14, 28) = 17.96, p < .001 for females, and F(14, 28) = 32.08, p < .001 for males.

Table 2.

Fear, Victimization, and Likelihood of Engaging in Physical Fights Among Female Students (n = 6,135).

	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
	SE	OR	CI	SE	OR	CI	SE	OR	CI
Fear (vs. No Fear)
1 time	0.62	3.00***	[1.96, 4.53]	0.58	2.70***	[1.76, 4.18]	0.48	2.27***	[1.47, 3.51]
2+ times	1.02	6.20 ***	[4.35, 8.76]	1.10	5.74***	[3.91, 8.43]	0.78	4.00***	[2.67, 5.93]
Grade (vs. Grade 12)
Grade 9				0.67	2.90***	[1.82, 4.63]	0.71	3.08***	[1.93, 4.89]
Grade 10				0.39	1.84**	[1.20, 2.82]	0.38	1.88**	[1.25, 2.82]
Grade 11				0.42	1.34	[0.72, 2.52]	0.44	1.46	[0.79, 2.69]
Race (vs. White)
Black				0.46	2.80***	[2.01, 3.90]	0.56	3.18***	[2.22, 4.55]
Hispanic				0.21	1.13	[0.77, 1.63]	0.24	1.25	[0.84, 1.85]
Multiracial				0.35	1.85**	[1.26, 2.70]	0.36	1.93***	[1.31, 2.83]
Other				0.25	0.83	[0.45, 1.51]	0.25	0.87	[0.49, 1.54]
Victimization (vs. None)
Bullied							0.23	1.34	[0.95, 1.89]
P-TDV (vs. None)
1 time							0.60	1.80	[0.93, 3.50]
2+ times							0.65	2.69***	[1.65, 4.38]
S-TDV (vs. None)
1 time							0.35	1.41	[0.85, 2.35]
2+ times							0.27	1.05	[0.63, 1.76]

Note. CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio; P-TDV = physical teen dating violence; S-TDV = sexual teen dating violence.

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

Table 3.

Fear, Victimization, and Likelihood of Engaging in Physical Fights Among Male Students (n = 6,288).

	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
	SE	OR	CI	SE	OR	CI	SE	OR	CI
Fear (vs. No Fear)
1 time	0.56	3.54***	[2.58, 4.88]	0.53	3.28***	[2.37, 4.54]	0.50	3.00***	[2.13, 4.18]
2+ times	0.68	4.94***	[3.74, 6.53]	0.70	5.20***	[3.96, 6.84]	0.51	3.87***	[2.96, 5.05]
Grade (vs. Grade 12)
Grade 9				0.36	2.06***	[1.44, 2.93]	0.38	2.10***	[1.46, 3.02]
Grade 10				0.30	1.70**	[1.18, 2.43]	0.32	1.76**	[1.21, 2.55]
Grade 11				0.27	1.54*	[1.08, 2.21]	0.28	1.61**	[1.12, 2.30]
Race (vs. White)
Black				0.24	1.67***	[1.26, 2.23]	0.24	1.71***	[1.28, 2.28]
Hispanic				0.17	1.25	[0.95, 1.65]	0.15	1.31**	[1.04, 1.65]
Multiracial				0.16	1.37**	[1.09, 1.73]	0.15	1.31**	[1.04, 1.65]
Other				0.26	0.92	[0.52, 1.63]	0.19	0.75	[0.44, 1.26]
Victimization
Bullied (vs. None)							0.22	1.69***	[1.30, 2.20]
P-TDV (vs. None)
1 time							0.38	1.10	[0.55, 2.22]
2+ times							0.47	2.04**	[1.28, 3.25]
S-TDV (vs. None)
1 time							0.36	1.07	[0.54, 2.13]
2+ times							0.71	3.12***	[1.97, 4.95]

Note. CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio; P-TDV = physical teen dating violence; S-TDV = sexual teen dating violence.

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

Female students

For all models, fear was significantly associated with engaging in physical fights in school (Table 2). In Model 1, females who reported one incident of fear (vs. none) had three times greater odds of engaging in fights (odds ratio [OR] = 3.00, p < .001), and those who reported two or more incidents of fear (vs. none) had six times greater odds of engaging in fights (OR = 6.20, p < .001). Grade and race were both associated with fighting at school (Model 2), but only slightly decreased the effect of fear on fighting. Adding the victimization variables (Model 3) also reduced the effect of fear on fighting in school; however, fear—whether one incident or multiple—still increased the odds of fighting (OR = 2.27, p < .001; OR = 4.00, p < .001, respectively). Grade and race were also still significant. Specifically, the odds of fighting at school were higher among females in ninth and 10th grades (OR = 3.08, p < .001; OR = 1.88, p < .01, respectively) and among Black and Multiracial females (OR = 3.18, p < .001; OR = 1.93, p < .001, respectively). The only victimization variable associated with fighting at school was multiple incidents of physical TDV (OR = 2.69, p < .001).

Male students

For all models, fear was significantly associated with engaging in physical fights in school (Table 3). In Model 1, males who reported one fear incident (vs. none) had three times greater odds of engaging in fights at school (OR = 3.54, p < .001), and those who reported two or more fear incidents (vs. none) had almost five times greater odds (OR = 4.94, p < .001). Grade and race were both associated with fighting at school (Model 2), but only slightly altered the effect of fear on fighting. Adding the victimization variables (Model 3) reduced the effect of fear on fighting; however, experiencing one fear incident or multiple incidents still increased the odds of fighting in school (OR = 3.00, p < .001; OR = 3.87, p < .001). In addition, the odds of fighting were higher for males in each of the lower grades compared with those in the 12th grade; however, the effect was most pronounced for ninth graders (OR = 2.10, p < .001). Similarly, race continued to be associated with fighting in school, especially for Black males (OR = 1.71, p < .001). Being bullied increased the odds of fighting (OR = 1.69, p < .001), as did dating violence. Specifically, males who reported two or more experiences of physical TDV (vs. none) had double the odds of fighting at school (OR = 2.04, p < .01) and those who reported two or more experiences of sexual TDV (vs. none) had triple the odds (OR = 3.12, p < .001, respectively).

Fourth Study Aim

Table 4 contains the final multinomial logistic regression models for engaging in one fight at school and for engaging in two or more fights. Final models include variables for fear, demographics, and victimization and are stratified by gender.

Table 4.

Fear and Victimization on the Frequency of Physical Fights at School Among Female and Male High School Students (Relative Risk Ratios).

	Female (n = 6,135)				Male (n = 6,288)
	Final Model: 1 Fight		Final Model: 2+ Fights		Final Model: 1 Fight		Final Model: 2+ Fights
	RR	CI	RR	CI	RR	CI	RR	CI
Fear (vs. None)
1 time	1.95**	[1.23, 3.11]	3.52**	[1.60, 7.75]	2.50***	[1.64, 3.78]	4.38***	[2.43, 7.88]
2+ times	2.12**	[1.32, 3.40]	11.35***	[6.22, 20.74]	2.31***	[1.75, 3.04]	8.06***	[5.40, 12.03]
Race (vs. White)
Black	3.24***	[2.15, 4.88]	3.00***	[1.85, 4.76]	1.27	[0.94, 1.74]	2.93***	[1.77, 4.85]
Hispanic	1.35	[0.83, 2.21]	1.00	[0.41, 2.44]	1.11	[0.76, 1.62]	1.95**	[1.26, 3.02]
Multiracial	1.80*	[1.11, 2.92]	2.24*	[1.05, 4.74]	1.12	[0.84, 1.49]	1.85**	[1.23, 2.78]
Other	0.52	[0.24, 1.12]	1.63	[0.63, 4.27]	0.50*	[0.25, 0.99]	1.24	[0.62, 2.50]
Grade (vs. 12th)
9th	2.57***	[1.59, 4.15]	4.46***	[1.94, 10.20]	2.00**	[1.29, 3.09]	2.25**	[1.28, 3.95]
10th	1.88**	[1.18, 3.00]	1.87	[0.97, 3.60]	1.84**	[1.20, 2.83]	1.55	[0.89, 2.68]
11th	1.61	[0.85, 3.07]	1.02	[0.42, 2.51]	1.40	[0.90, 2.18]	2.01**	[1.23, 3.30]
Victimization
Bullied (vs. None)	1.51	[0.99, 2.29]	1.02	[0.64, 1.64]	1.80*	[1.26, 2.57]	1.50**	[1.10, 2.02]
P-TDV (vs. None)
1 time	1.46	[0.75, 2.84]	2.48	[0.73, 8.38]	1.00	[0.41, 2.27]	1.26	[0.49, 3.20]
2+ times	2.71***	[1.62, 4.54]	2.56**	[1.22, 5.38]	1.34	[0.73, 2.46]	2.91***	[1.55, 5.48]
S-TDV (vs. None)
1 time	1.37	[0.69, 2.74]	1.50	[0.74, 3.03]	1.00	[0.44, 2.21]	1.27	[0.56, 2.87]
2+ times	0.86	[0.37, 1.97]	1.44	[0.70, 2.94]	1.73	[0.97, 3.08]	4.78***	[2.54, 8.96]

Note. RR = relative risk ratio; CI = confidence interval; P-TDV = physical teen dating violence; S-TDV = sexual teen dating violence.

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

Female students

There was a positive association between fear and frequency of physical fighting at school for females, F(28, 14) = 15.36, p < .001. Specifically, they were twice as likely to engage in one fight at school with one (relative risk ratio [RR] = 1.95, p < .01) or more fear incidents (RR = 2.12, p < .01). The relationship is even stronger for engaging in multiple fights: One fear incident more than triples the likelihood (RR = 3.52, p < .01), and with multiple fear incidents, the likelihood is 11 times greater (RR = 11.35, p < .001). Race was associated with fighting at school for certain groups. Compared with White females, Black females’ likelihood of engaging in one fight and in multiple fights was tripled (RR = 3.24, p < .001; RR = 3.00, p < .001); for Multiracial females, the likelihood was doubled (RR = 2.24, p < .05). Females in ninth grade were two and a half times more likely than 12th grade females to engage in fights (RR = 2.57, p < .001); this likelihood increased to more than four times for multiple fights (RR = 4.46, p < .001). The only significant victimization type was multiple incidents of physical TDV, which nearly tripled the likelihood for one fight and for multiple fights (RR = 2.71, p < .001; RR = 2.56, p < .01).

Male students

Similar to female students, there was a positive association between fear and frequency of physical fighting at school for male students, F(24, 14) = 18.96, p < .001. One fear incident and multiple fear incidents more than doubled the likelihood of engaging in one fight at school (RR = 2.50, p < .001 and RR = 2.31, p < .001, respectively). This relationship was more pronounced for multiple fights: Experiencing one incident of fear increased the likelihood of fighting fourfold, and experiencing multiple incidents of fear increased the likelihood eightfold (RR = 4.38, p < .001; RR = 8.06, p < .001). Race was also associated with fighting at school, especially for Black males (RR = 2.93, p < .001), but also for Hispanic and Multiracial males. The likelihood of fighting—one or multiple incidents—was doubled for ninth-grade males compared with 12th grade males (RR = 2.00, p < .01 and RR = 2.25, p < .01). Being bullied increased the likelihood of one fight (RR = 1.80, p < .05) and multiple fights (RR = 1.50, p < .01). Males who experienced multiple incidents of physical TDV or sexual TDV were three and four times more likely to engage in multiple fights (RR = 2.91, p < .001; RR = 4.78, p < .001).

Discussion

The goal of this study was to examine the relationship between students’ experiences of fear at school, victimization, and engaging in physical fights at high school. This is one of the few studies on school violence to examine fighting as an outcome of fear (vs. fear as merely a by-product of fighting), and, as we will discuss, findings support this hypothesis. Moreover, our use of micro-interactionism and SCIPT provides a unique—and underexplored—framework through which to understand the relationship between fear and fighting among high school students. In this section, we situate the findings in the context of the existing literature before discussing study limitations and implications for practice and policy.

Descriptive findings underscored what other studies have demonstrated; namely, that victimization and fighting are common experiences for a minority of high school students (e.g., Hamby & Turner, 2013; Rajan et al., 2015; Vagi et al., 2015). Our findings also build upon the extant literature. First, we found that a small percentage of both male and female students engaged in multiple fights over the course of 1 year; thus, not only does fighting occur, it occurs repeatedly for some students. Such findings extend those of prior studies with this population, which have examined fighting in terms of presence or absence, rather than enumerating the number of incidents (e.g., Rajan et al., 2015; Robers et al., 2015). Second, as discussed, prior studies have examined fear relatively narrowly (e.g., Bachman, Randolph, & Brown, 2011; Rajan et al., 2015). This study, by conceptualizing fear as a latent variable consisting of several indicators, presents a more expansive picture of the extent of fear at school among high school students: Roughly 15% of male students and of female students reported at least one fear incident.

In general, the multivariate findings support our hypotheses that fear is associated with fighting at school. For both male and female students, fear was associated not only with the likelihood of engaging in physical fighting but it also increased the risk of engaging in multiple fights. These findings are congruent with previous research (Eaves et al., 2004; Tisak et al., 2011) and align with the SIP model; specifically, that attributing hostile intent to someone’s actions determines a reactive aggressive response (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Raine et al., 2006). Viewed through SIP, students who experience fear may attribute hostile intention to others, thus leading to fights in school. Moreover, the association between experiencing multiple incidents of fear and engaging in multiple fights suggests a patterning of the fear response (Lochman & Dodge, 1994). For example, among females especially, we found the relationship between multiple incidents of fear and fighting was stronger for engaging in multiple fights than in one fight.

Consistent with prior research, race and grade are important factors to consider when examining fighting at school (Rajan et al., 2015; Robers et al., 2015). We found that students of color were more likely than their White peers to engage in fighting. Although more research is needed to tease out this relationship, it is possible that other factors such as discrimination, racism, and disadvantage within and outside the school setting play a role in fighting among students of color (Sampson, Morenoff, & Raudenbush, 2005; Sharkey, 2006). Also, we found an inverse relationship between grade and fighting; that is, as grade increased, the likelihood of fighting decreased. This finding supports existing research suggesting that aggression peaks during early adolescence and then declines (Perlus, Brooks-Russell, Wang, & Iannotti, 2014; Sampson et al., 2005). One way to understand this relationship is through a developmental lens; that is, fighting decreases with age because as adolescents mature, they become more adept at simultaneously managing their emotions and considering the consequences of their actions (Blakemore & Choudhury, 2006; Leon-Carrion, Garcia-Orza, & Perez-Santamaria, 2004).

Findings on victimization indicate that the relationship with fighting is more straightforward for male students compared with female students. For males, being bullied and experiencing multiple incidents of physical and sexual TDV were all significantly associated with fighting. This finding aligns with previous literature indicating that males externalize their victimization experiences (Cullerton-Sen & Crick, 2005). Conversely, being bullied was not significantly associated with fighting at school for female students. This lack of association may be explained by research on relational aggression, which indicates that females engage in higher rates of relational aggression than males (Crothers et al., 2007). Female students who are bullied might respond through indirect or covert actions aimed at hurting another’s relationships and reputation instead of reacting in a physical manner (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Moreover, although multiple experiences of physical TDV were associated with fighting among female students, sexual TDV—regardless of frequency—was not.

In general, the findings on TDV and fighting align to some extent with those of Vagi and colleagues (2015). They found significant associations between physical and sexual TDV for both male and female students, and, although we did not find a significant relationship for sexual TDV among females, patterns are generally similar. It is possible that our inclusion of fear into the model—a variable they did not consider—better explains the relationship between sexual TDV and fighting for females. Hamby and Turner (2013) found that female adolescents were significantly more likely than male adolescents to describe the sexual TDV they experienced as fear-inducing. Although more research is needed to understand sexual TDV and fighting, it is possible that females who experience such violence may be compromised by the subsequent emotional response and—even though they attribute hostile intent in subsequent situations—they are less likely to engage in reactive aggression.

Another noteworthy difference with Vagi et al. (2015) involves consideration of victimization frequency. Rather than considering only the presence or absence of sexual and physical TDV, we examined TDV as an ordinal variable (i.e., none, 1 time, and 2+ times). Doing so revealed that one incident of TDV was not associated with fighting but multiple incidents were. Additional research is needed to understand whether there is a cumulative effect of TDV, particularly physical TDV; however, this finding comports with prior research indicating that victimization produces a heightened sensitivity to risk, leading to attribution of hostile intention and aggression (Wilcox et al., 2005).

Study Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, as is true with any secondary analysis, operationalization of constructs is dependent upon available questions. For example, the question about fighting in school does not ask who initiated the fight, which limits the extent to which we can understand whether it was reactive aggression. In addition, the question about feeling unsafe at school (part of our composite fear variable) includes feeling unsafe traveling to and from school; therefore, it is possible that community violence is contributing to students’ feelings of fear. Second, because data are cross-sectional, we were not able to examine whether fear is a true predictor of fighting. However, findings support the need for longitudinal studies in which the temporal order between the experience of fear and the engagement in fighting can be determined. Third, the findings are generalizable only to the population of students who attend public or private school and are present on the day of YRBS administration. Students suspended or attending alternative schools—a population at increased risk for involvement in physical aggression—are not included (CDC, 2013). Finally, because of the self-report nature of the YRBS, social desirability bias is a concern for validity. These limitations notwithstanding, this study has several notable strengths and is an important step in understanding school violence.

Implications for Practice and Research

School safety is a concern for parents, students, school administrators, and the larger social community. Findings support interventions aimed at skill-building in areas of communication, emotion regulation, and conflict resolution to provide youth with avenues through which to address concerns and effectively negotiate interpersonal relationships. For example, socio-emotional learning is an intervention that has been applied to school settings with promising results for improved social-emotional skills, attitudes, and behavior among the student body (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011).

Another example is trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. Although more specifically targeted to youth with histories of fear and trauma, it has been found to be effective in helping these youth to manage their affect, as well as to identify, evaluate, and alter their cognitive reactions to trauma-triggering situations and interactions (Putnam, 2003). Moreover, our findings support introducing these interventions early on in high school, as younger students were more likely than older students to experience fear and to engage in fights.

In addition, multipronged efforts to address dating violence are needed. All teachers and staff should receive dating violence trainings to better identify, intervene, and support students. Similarly, students would benefit from programs about healthy relationships. One example is DATING MATTERS® from the CDC, which targets students in middle school and involves parents, teachers, and community members. Our findings support the need to provide information about healthy relationships prior to high school, given the presence of physical and sexual teen dating among ninth graders.

Finally, understanding the other factors that influence fighting at school is crucial. Future research should include methodological approaches tailored to capture the nuances inherent in constructs such as fear, social cohesion, emotion regulation, and conflict resolution. Individual, school-related, and community-level characteristics also should be considered as potential predictors that, when combined with fear and victimization, more fully explain the incidence of physical fighting in school. Potential factors for future research include school culture, structure, and rule enforcement, as well as structural issues such as racism and poverty. Such investigations are critical in understanding how to make the high school setting a safe place for all students.

Footnotes

Appendix

Survey Questions for Measurement of Variables.

Dependent Variable-Fights at School

“During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight on school property?” with the following response options: “0 times,” “1 time,” “2 or 3 times,” “4 or 5 times,” “6 or 7 times,” “8 or 9 times,” “10 or 11 times,” and “12 or more times.” The variable was collapsed to three categories (0, 1, and 2 or more) based on natural breaks in the data.

Independent Variable-Fear

Feeling unsafe: “During the past 30 days, how many days did you not go to school because you felt you would be unsafe at school or on your way to or from school?” (1, 2 or 3, 4 or 5, 6 or more)

Being threatened: “During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you with a weapon such as a gun, knife or club on school property?” (1, 2 or 3, 4 or 5, 6 or 7, 8 or 9, 10 or 11, 12 or more)

Carrying weapons: “During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property?” (0, 1, 2 or 3, 4 or 5, and 6 or more)

Feeling unsafe, being threatened and carrying weapons were combined to create a composite variable “Fear.” The variable was collapsed to three categories (0, 1, and 2 or more) based on the natural breaks in the data.

Covariates

Being bullied: “During the past 12 months were you ever bullied on school property?” (yes/no)

Dating violence

Physical dating violence (P-TDV): “During the past 12 months, how many times did someone you were dating or going out with physically hurt you on purpose?”

Sexual dating violence (S-TDV): “During the past 12 months, how many times did someone you were dating or going out with force you to do sexual things that you did not want to do?” labeled as “sexual teen dating violence (S-TDV)”

Responses were measured along a 6-point scale: “I did not date or go out with anyone during the past 12 months,” “0 times,” “1 time,” “2 or 3 times,” “4 or 5 times,” and “6 or more times” but were collapsed into three categories (0, 1, and 2 or more) based on the natural breaks in the data. Responses for “I did not date or go out with anyone during the past 12 months” and “0 times” were combined into one category “0 times.”

Demographics

Gender: “What is your sex” (male/female), which does not offer a transgender option (CDC, 2014)

Grade: 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and “ungraded or other” grade. The numbers of students in the “ungraded or other” category were included in the analysis, but their numbers are too small for meaningful analysis and are not shown in the results.

Race: The 2013 YRBS measures race and ethnicity with two questions, which are combined to include eight exhaustive categories (herein referred to as “race”): Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic, multiple-Hispanic, multiple-non-Hispanic, Native American/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and White. Because Asian, Native American/Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander represented a small percentage of total participants, they were collapsed into one category: “Other.” Multiple-Hispanic and multiple non-Hispanic were collapsed into one category, “Multi-racial.”

Note. YRBS = Youth Risk Behavior Survey

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

Leslie J. Sattler, LICSW, MSW, is a PhD candidate at Simmons School of Social Work and a full-time instructor at Bridgewater State University School of Social Work, where she teaches courses on clinical practice and adolescent trauma. She has worked for more than 22 years with adolescents involved in the juvenile justice system, specializing in cognitive behavioral and adventure-based therapies. Her research focuses on youth violence, and she has presented both nationally and internationally on issues of trauma and treatment of youth who have committed sexual offenses. Additional areas of expertise include supervising candidates for licensure, and program development.

Kristie A. Thomas, PhD, MSW, assistant professor at Simmons School of Social Work, has extensive practice, teaching, and research experience in the fields of intimate partner violence and service delivery for marginalized populations. Additional areas of expertise include community organizing and development, program evaluation, interdisciplinary research, and community-university partnerships. She also teaches at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Prior to joining Simmons faculty, she worked as assistant director of the Ortner Center on Family Violence at the University of Pennsylvania and a research consultant for the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women.

Tamara L. Cadet, PhD, MSW, MPH, assistant professor at Simmons School of Social Work, has more than 20 years of clinical practice experience working with disadvantaged populations. Her teaching and research experiences reflect her practice experiences within an interdisciplinary framework that includes health disparities and healthcare. Additional areas of expertise include statistical consultation and mixed methods research. She also holds a faculty appointment at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. Prior to joining the Simmons faculty in 2012, she was a community organizer providing technical assistance to communities across the country in solving substance-abuse-related problems.

References

Akiba

(2010). What predicts fear of school violence among U.S. adolescents? Teachers College Record, 112, 68-102.

Alvarez

Bachman

(1997). Predicting the fear of assault at school and while going to and from school in an adolescent population. Violence and Victims, 12, 69-86.

Bachman

Gunter

W. D.

Bakken

N. W.

(2011). Predicting feelings of school safety for lower, middle, and upper school students: A gender specific analysis. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 7(2), 59-76.

Bachman

Randolph

Brown

B. L.

(2011). Predicting perceptions of fear at school and going to and from school for African American and White students: The effects of school security measures. Youth & Society, 43, 705-726.

Blakemore

S. J.

Choudhury

(2006). Development of the adolescent brain: Implications for executive function and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 296-312.

Bowen

N. K.

Bowen

G. L.

(1999). Effects of crime and violence in neighborhoods and schools on the school behavior and performance of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 319-342.

Breiding

M. J.

Basile

K. C.

Smith

S. G.

Black

M. C.

Mahendra

(2015). Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Calvete

Orue

(2012). The role of emotion regulation in the predictive association between social information processing and aggressive behavior in adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 36, 338-347.

Cassidy

E. F.

Stevenson

H. C.

Jr. (2005). They wear the mask: Hypervulnerability and hypermasculine aggression among African American males in an urban remedial disciplinary school. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 11(4), 53-74.

10.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Methodology of the youth risk behavior surveillance system. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 62(RR-1), 4-7.

11.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). 2013 Youth risk behavioral surveillance users guide. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/data/yrbs/2013/YRBS_2013_National_User_Guide.pdf

12.

Christle

C. A.

Jolivette

Nelson

C. M.

(2005). Breaking the school to prison pipeline: Identifying school risk and protective factors for youth delinquency. Exceptionality, 13, 69-88.

13.

Collins

(2008). Violence: A micro-sociological theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

14.

Crick

N. R.

Dodge

K. A.

(1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74

15.

Crick

N. R.

Dodge

K. A.

(1996). Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67, 993-1002.

16.

Crick

N. R.

Grotpeter

J. K.

(1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.

17.

Crothers

L. M.

Field

J. E.

Kolbert

J. B.

Bell

G. R.

Blasik

J. L.

Camic

L. A.

. . . Keener

(2007). Relational aggression in childhood and adolescence: Etiology, characteristics, diagnostic assessment, and treatment. Counseling and Human Development, 39, 1-24.

18.

Cullerton-Sen

Crick

N. R.

(2005). Understanding the effects of physical and relational victimization: The utility of multiple perspectives in predicting social-emotional adjustment. School Psychology Review, 34, 147-160.

19.

Dinkles

Kemp

Baum

(2009). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2008 (NCES 2009-002/NCJ226343). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Educational Services, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

20.

Durlak

J. A.

Weissberg

R. P.

Dymnicki

A. B.

Taylor

R. D.

Schellinger

K. B.

(2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405-432.

21.

Eaves

R. C.

Darch

Williams

T. O.

(2004). Attention to novelty, fear-anxiety, and age: Their effects on conduct problems. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 165, 425-450.

22.

Foshee

V. A.

Reyes

H. L. M.

Vivolo-Kantor

A. M.

Basile

K. C.

Chang

L. Y.

Faris

Ennett

S. T.

(2014). Bullying as a longitudinal predictor of adolescent dating violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 439-444.

23.

Garofalo

(1979). Victimization and the fear of crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 16, 80-97.

24.

Hamby

Finkelhor

Turner

(2012). Teen dating violence: Co-occurrence with other victimizations in the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV). Psychology of Violence, 2, 111-124. doi:10.1037/a0027191

25.

Hamby

Turner

(2013). Measuring teen dating violence in males and females: Insights from the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence. Psychology of Violence, 3, 323-339. doi:10.1037/a0029706

26.

Huesmann

(1988). The role of social information processing and cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior. In Geen

Edward

(Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for social policy (pp. 73-109). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

27.

Kann

Kinchen

Shanklin

S. L.

Flint

K. H.

Hawkins

J. H.

Harris

W. A.

. . . Zaza

(2014). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 63, 7-11.

28.

Kimonis

E. R.

Ray

J. V.

Branch

J. R.

Cauffman

(2011). Anger mediates the relation between violence exposure and violence perpetration in incarcerated boys. Child & Youth Care Forum, 40, 381-400.

29.

Kingery

P. M.

Coggeshall

M. B.

Alford

A. A.

(1998). Violence at school: Recent evidence from four national surveys. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 247-258.

30.

Kliewer

Dibble

A. E.

Goodman

K. L.

Sullivan

T. N.

(2012). Physiological correlates of peer victimization and aggression in African American urban adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 637-650.

31.

Leon-Carrion

Garcia-Orza

Perez-Santamaria

F. J.

(2004). Development of the inhibitory component of the executive functions in children and adolescents. International Journal of Neuroscience, 114, 1291-1311.

32.

Lochman

J. E.

Dodge

K. A.

(1994). Social cognitive processes of severely violent moderately aggressive, and non-aggressive boys: Effects of prior expectations, context, and boys’ age. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 495-512.

33.

Maguin

Loeber

(1996). Academic performance and delinquency. In Tonry

(Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

34.

Melde

Esbensen

F. A.

Taylor

T. J.

(2009). “May piece be with you”: A typological examination of the fear and victimization hypothesis of adolescent weapon carrying. Justice Quarterly, 26, 348-376.

35.

Nas

C. N.

Orbio

Castro

Koops

(2005). Social information processing in delinquent adolescents. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 363-375.

36.

National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2010). Persistent fear and anxiety can affect young children’s learning and development. Available from www.developingchild.net

37.

Nijs

M. M.

Bun

C. J.

Tempelaar

W. M.

de Wit

N. J.

Burger

. . . Boks

M. P.

(2014). Perceived school safety is strongly associated with adolescent mental health problems. Community Mental Health Journal, 50, 127-134.

38.

Olsen

E. O. M.

Kann

Vivolo-Kantor

Kinchen

McManus

(2014). School violence and bullying among sexual minority high school students, 2009-2011. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 432-438.

39.

Papolos

Hennen

Cockerham

(2005). Obsessive fears about harm to self or others and overt aggressive behaviors in youth diagnosed with juvenile-onset bipolar disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 89, 99-105.

40.

Perlus

J. G.

Brooks-Russell

Wang

Iannotti

R. J.

(2014). Trends in bullying, physical fighting, and weapon carrying among 6th- through 10th-grade students from 1998 to 2010: Findings from a national study. American journal of public health, 104, 1100-1106.

41.

Putallaz

Grimes

C. L.

Foster

K. J.

Kupersmidt

J. B.

Cole

J. D.

Dearing

(2007). Overt and relational aggression and victimization: Multiple perspectives within the school setting. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 523-547.

42.

Putnam

F. W.

(2003). Ten-year research update review: Child sexual abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 269-278.

43.

Raine

Dodge

K. A.

Loeber

Gatzke-Koop

Lynam

Reynolds

. . . Liu

(2006). The reactive–proactive aggression questionnaire: Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 159-171. doi:10.1002/ab.20115

44.

Rajan

Namdar

Ruggles

K. V.

(2015). Aggressive and violent behaviors in the school environment among a nationally representative sample of adolescent youth. Journal of School Health, 85, 446-457.

45.

Reijntjes

Kamphuis

J. H.

Prinzie

Boelen

P. A.

Van der Schoot

Telch

M. J.

(2011). Prospective linkages between peer victimization and externalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 215-222.

46.

Reijntjes

Kamphuis

J. H.

Prinzie

Telch

M. J.

(2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 244-252.

47.

Robers

Zhang

Morgan

R. E.

Musu-Gillette

(2015). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2014 (NCES 2015-072/NCJ 248036). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

48.

Sampson

R. J.

Morenoff

J. D.

Raudenbush

(2005). Social anatomy of racial and ethnic disparities in violence. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 224-232.

49.

Schulz

K. F.

Grimes

D. A.

(2002). Sample size slippages in randomised trials: Exclusions and the lost and wayward. The Lancet, 359, 781-785.

50.

Sharkey

P. T.

(2006). Navigating dangerous streets: The sources and consequences of street efficacy. American Sociological Review, 71, 826-846.

51.

Sharkey

P. T.

Sampson

R. J.

(2010). Destination effects: Residential mobility and trajectories of adolescent violence in a stratified metropolis. Criminology, 48, 639-681.

52.

Starkweather

Moske

A. K.

(2011, September 10). Multinomial logistic regression. Retrieved from http://www.unt.edu/rss/class/Jon/Benchmarks/MLR_JDS_Aug2011

53.

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.

54.

Vagi

K. J.

Olsen

Basile

K. C.

Vivolo-Kantor

A. M.

(2015). Teen dating violence (physical and sexual) among U.S. high school students: Findings from the 2013 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey. JAMA Pediatrics, 169, 474-482. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3577

55.

Wallace

L. H.

May

D. C.

(2005). The impact of parental attachment and feelings of isolation on adolescent fear of crime at school. Adolescence, 40, 457-474.

56.

Wallace

L. H.

Patchin

J. W.

May

J. D.

(2005). Reactions of victimized youth: Strain as an explanation of school delinquency. Western Criminology Review, 6, 104-116.

57.

Wilcox

Augustine

M. C.

Bryan

J. P.

Roberts

S. D.

(2005). The “reality” of middle-school crime: Objective vs. subjective experiences among a sample of Kentucky youth. Journal of School Violence, 4, 3-27.