Individual and Family Predictors of Disrespect Sensitivity in Urban Adolescents: A Pilot Study

Abstract

This study examines individual and family predictors of disrespect sensitivity in urban adolescents. Seventy-five adolescents from Southeastern USA (95% African American, 52% female) participated in two waves of a longitudinal study (mean ages 16.1 and 17.8 years, SDs = 1.11). Youth reported on their disrespect sensitivity at both time points, as well as physical aggression and parental nurturance at Time 1. Parents reported on parental harsh discipline, household income, and highest level of education. Multiple regressions tested concurrent and longitudinal predictors of disrespect sensitivity. Physical aggression and older age predicted greater concurrent disrespect sensitivity. Physical aggression, lower family SES, and lower parental nurturance predicted greater disrespect sensitivity over time. The findings may help identify youth who are at risk to interpret ambiguous behavior as disrespectful, and in turn respond aggressively and become victimized. These youth may benefit from interventions to reduce disrespect sensitivity, which could be incorporated into existing violence prevention programs.

Keywords

Disrespect aggression African American adolescents

Interpretation of other people’s behavior is a key factor determining social responses, including socially problematic behaviors such as aggression and seeking revenge (McDonald & Asher, 2013). Several recent studies have identified interpretations of disrespect as a powerful predictor of revenge-seeking and aggressive behavior in adolescents and young adults (Burris & Leitch, 2018; McDonald & Asher, 2013, 2018). Tendency to view others’ behavior as disrespectful, termed sensitivity to disrespect, was more strongly predictive of desire for revenge than perceptions of rejection, anger, and hurt feelings across multiple relationship contexts (e.g., romantic relationships and friendships) (McDonald & Asher, 2013). Sensitivity to disrespect has been conceptualized as including two components – hypervigilance to signs of disrespect and expectations of disrespectful behavior from others (McDonald & Asher, 2018). It is conceptually related to hostile attributions of intent (i.e., interpreting others’ ambiguous behavior as hostile), but more specific in the type of attribution that is made and more personal; others’ behavior is viewed as not just generally hostile, but directly targeting the recipient and devaluing his or her social status. Given its greater specificity and emphasis on social status, it is likely that disrespect sensitivity is more relevant to aggressive behavior among adolescents and young adults than hostile attributions of intent, which are more strongly linked to aggression during middle childhood and preadolescence (Orobio de Castro, Veerman, Koops, Bosch, & Monshouwer, 2002).

The few studies that have investigated this new construct of disrespect sensitivity have only focused on its role in revenge-seeking and aggression, providing little information on factors that may contribute to the development of individual differences in sensitivity to disrespect. Furthermore, the existing studies have sampled mostly White individuals from higher SES backgrounds, despite noting that disrespect sensitivity is particularly salient for urban minority youth. Indeed, ethnographic studies in urban African American communities have vividly described the “code of the street”, a set of unwritten rules that justify aggressive behavior in response to perceived disrespect (Anderson, 2000). Conceptualized as an adaptation to the insecurity of personal status and constant threat of violence in poor inner-city communities, the code is adopted by many urban youth to appear “tough” and prevent future attacks. Paradoxically, adhering to the “code of the street” actually exacerbates youths’ risk for violent victimization (Stewart, Schreck, & Simons, 2006). However, no studies have directly examined individual differences in disrespect sensitivity among urban minority youth.

Given the evidence of the central role of disrespect sensitivity in revenge-seeking and aggression, the salience of respect among urban minority youth, and the lack of research on developmental predictors of disrespect sensitivity, the goal of the current study was to explore factors that may predict disrespect sensitivity concurrently and over time among urban African American adolescents. As disrespect sensitivity was conceptualized from Anderson’s (2000) description of youth living in communities characterized by the threat of violence and their use of aggression when they perceived threats, we expected that youth physical aggression would be correlated with disrespect sensitivity (Anderson, 2000; Stewart et al., 2006). Although aggression is typically conceptualized as the outcome of disrespect sensitivity, it is possible that youth who are more aggressive may also be more likely to perceive disrespect. McDonald and Asher (2018) suggested harsh or power assertive parenting would contribute to the development of disrespect sensitivity. Thus, the current study examines how parental nurturance and harsh discipline would be associated with disrespect sensitivity and greater disrespect sensitivity over time. Because adolescence is a time when youth become more concerned with social status (Xie, Dawes, Wurster, & Shi, 2013), we hypothesized disrespect sensitivity would be positively associated with adolescents’ age. We also considered gender because two studies reported greater disrespect sensitivity in males than females (McDonald & Asher, 2013, 2018). Finally, SES was also considered as a predictor of disrespect sensitivity, because respect (and the code of the street) may be more salient for youth from lower-resource families and those residing in more disadvantaged neighborhoods (Stewart et al., 2006).

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 75 adolescents and their parents who participated in Waves 3 and 4 of the Coping with Violence study (Mrug, Tyson, Turan, & Granger, 2016). Youth were recruited from middle school classrooms (serving grades 6–9) in low income urban communities in Birmingham, Alabama, USA. After securing written parental consent and youth assent, participants were interviewed individually at a university research lab, with four waves of data collection occurring approximately 1.5 years apart. Because disrespect sensitivity was not measured during waves 1 and 2, only data from Waves 3 and 4 are included in this report. The adolescents included 52% females; 95% African American, 4% Caucasian, 1% Hispanic. The average youth age at Wave 3 was 16.1 years (range 14.3 to 19.6). At Wave 4, the average age was 17.8 (range 15.8 to 21.0). Average family income was $20,000–$25,000 per year. This study was approved by the university Institutional Review Board.

Measures

Disrespect sensitivity was measured at Waves 3 and 4 using the Disrespect Sensitivity measure (McDonald & Asher, 2018), an 8-item self-report of adolescents’ perceptions of disrespect in everyday life, rated on a scale of 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree” (e.g., “Signs that others disrespect you are everywhere”). McDonald and Asher (2018) found that the measure was internally reliable (α= 0.82) and distinguished between children who endorsed revenge-seeking and those who did not in response to peer provocation. In the current sample, the measure had acceptable internal consistency (α= 0.76 and 0.73 at Waves 3 and 4).

At Wave 3, physical aggression in the last 30 days was reported by the adolescent using a 7-item subscale of the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (e.g., “How many times have you hit or slapped another teen?”), rated on a scale of 1 “never” to 4 “six or more times” (α= 0.71). This measure is widely used and has good validity and reliability (Farrell, Sullivan, Goncy, & Le, 2016). At Wave 3, the 3-item Harsh Discipline Scale was used to measure parent-reported parental harsh discipline (e.g., “How often do you spank or slap your child?”) on a scale of 1 “never” to 4 “always,” while parental nurturance (e.g., “How often do you give your child praise or encouragement?”) was measured on a scale of 1 “almost always” to 3 “almost never” using the 5-item adolescent-reported Parental Nurturance scale. These measures have acceptable validity and reliability (Guion, Mrug, & Windle, 2008) (α= 0.62 and 0.70, respectively, in this sample). All scales were created by averaging the respective items. The average of standardized mother’s education level and household income indicated SES.

Analyses

Using IBM SPSS version 22, Pearson’s and point-biserial correlations among Waves 3 and Wave 4 disrespect sensitivity and Wave 3 physical aggression, age, gender, parental nurturance, parental harsh discipline, and family SES were calculated. Paired samples t-test evaluated whether average levels of disrespect sensitivity changed over time. The main analyses consisted of two multiple regressions testing gender and Wave 3 age, SES, physical aggression, parental harsh discipline, and parental nurturance as predictors of disrespect sensitivity at Wave 3 and at Wave 4. The Wave 4 regression also adjusted for Wave 3 disrespect sensitivity. The multiple regressions were conducted in Mplus using Full Information Maximum Likelihood to handle missing data (2.5% of data points) and maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors to provide results robust against violations of normality and independence.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations for all variables are presented in Table 1. The mean score for disrespect sensitivity at both Waves 3 and 4 was 3.16 (SD = 0.69 and 0.64, respectively), falling between “unsure” and “agree” on the response scale. The paired samples t-test indicated that the average levels of disrespect sensitivity did not change over time [t (67) = –0.171, p = 0.865]. Greater disrespect sensitivity at Wave 3 was associated with older age and more physical aggression. Disrespect sensitivity at Wave 4 was correlated only with greater Wave 3 physical aggression. The stability of disrespect sensitivity over the 1.5 years was low and did not reach significance. In the regression analyses, disrespect sensitivity at Wave 3 was uniquely predicted by concurrent older age and physical aggression (Table 2). Over time, greater disrespect sensitivity at Wave 4 was predicted by lower family SES, greater physical aggression, and lower parental nurturance at Wave 3. By contrast, gender and parental harsh discipline did not predict disrespect sensitivity concurrently nor over time. The regression models explained 22% and 26% of the variance in disrespect sensitivity at Waves 3 and 4, respectively.

Table 1

Descriptives and Correlations among Variables

	M (SD/%)	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.
1. Disrespect sensitivity, W3	3.16 (0.69)	––
2. Disrespect sensitivity, W4	3.16 (0.64)	0.23	––
3. Age, W3	16.14 (1.11)	0.26*	0.04	––
4. Female	52%	0.15	–0.09	0.03	––
5. SES, W3	0.00 (1.00)	–0.000	–0.22	–0.19	–0.13	––
6. Physical aggression, W3	1.18 (0.27)	0.31**	0.31*	–0.03	0.09	–0.08	––
7. Parental harsh discipline, W3	1.56 (0.48)	0.14	0.15	0.06	–0.15	–0.07	–0.01	––
8. Parental nurturance, W3	1.53 (0.38)	0.12	–0.16	–0.01	–0.01	0.03	0.02	0.06

Note: W3 – Wave 3; W4 – Wave 4; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Table 2

Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Predictors of Disrespect Sensitivity

	Disrespect sensitivity Wave 3		Disrespect sensitivity Wave 4
	Beta	P-value	Beta	P-value
Disrespect sensitivity, W3	––	––	0.178	0.055
Age, W3	0.275	0.003	–0.030	0.771
Female gender	0.152	0.142	–0.166	0.133
SES	0.099	0.355	–0.240	0.015
Physical aggression, W3	0.306	0.000	0.282	0.004
Parental harsh discipline, W3	0.150	0.118	0.100	0.430
Parental nurturance, W3	0.107	0.433	–0.207	0.039
R²	0.221	0.004	0.260	0.004

Note: W3 – Wave 3. Significant effects are bolded.

Discussion

To help elucidate factors that may contribute to the development of disrespect sensitivity and to extend research on this construct to urban minority youth, this preliminary study examined correlates and predictors of sensitivity to disrespect in a sample of urban, mostly African American adolescents. Older age and physical aggression emerged as correlates and unique concurrent predictors of greater sensitivity to disrespect. Additionally, more aggressive youth, those from lower-SES families, and youth reporting lower levels of parental nurturance showed greater disrespect sensitivity over time. By contrast, gender and parental harsh discipline were not related to disrespect sensitivity.

It is possible that as adolescents get older, they become more focused on respect and social power, which may increase their sensitivity to disrespect. Alternatively, older youth may have accumulated more experiences of disrespect or been more strongly socialized into the street culture and its emphasis on respect. However, the effect of age may be specific to middle adolescence, as age did not predict greater disrespect sensitivity between average ages 16 and 17. Additionally, youth from poorer families were more likely to report greater disrespect sensitivity over time, perhaps because they resided in more disadvantaged neighborhoods with stronger “code of the street” culture, or because they had fewer resources and alternatives to the street culture. However, disrespect sensitivity was not related to gender, indicating the importance of respect for both urban African American males and females. Interestingly, this was a notable difference from suburban adolescents and college students where males endorsed greater sensitivity to disrespect than females (McDonald & Asher, 2013, 2018).

Physical aggression is closely related to perceptions of disrespect as shown in this study and by others (Anderson, 2000; Stewart et al., 2006), and is also related to a focus on retaliation for perceived slights (McDonald & Asher, 2018). Physical aggression and focus on retaliation may serve both as risk factors for disrespect sensitivity and its consequences, and these bidirectional relationships should be examined in future research. Previous research points to the role of disrespect sensitivity as a risk factor for aggressive behavior (Stewart et al., 2006), and our longitudinal results support the contributions of physical aggression to greater disrespect sensitivity over time. Although the great majority of studies have investigated aggression as the outcome (and not a predictor) of social cognitions (Orobio de Castro et al., 2002), there is corroborating evidence that aggressive behavior contributes to more negative patterns of social information processing (including more hostile attributions) that then further reinforce more aggressive behavior (Calvete, Gamez-Guadix, & Garcia-Salvador, 2015). Aggressive behavior may contribute to greater disrespect sensitivity by priming youth to pay more attention to signs of disrespect, increasing the expectations of being victimized and disrespected by others, and by eliciting more actual victimization from others (e.g., as a revenge) (Bondü, Rothmund, & Gollwitzer, 2016).

Parental nurturance may protect youth against perceiving disrespect in ambiguous situations, perhaps because it conveys respect and value of the child (Barber et al., 2012). By contrast, children who feel disrespected by their less-nurturing parents may be sensitized to perceive disrespect in other contexts, such as in interactions with peers and other neighborhood residents. Contrary to predictions, parental harsh discipline was not related to disrespect sensitivity, possibly due to developmentally normative declines in the use of harsh discipline throughout adolescence (Burke, Pardini, & Loeber, 2008).

The construct of disrespect sensitivity is a promising way to assess adolescents’ cognitions that contribute to revenge-seeking and aggression, as well as identification with the “code of the street” among urban minority youth. Supporting its relevance for urban African American youth, average levels of disrespect sensitivity reported by youth in this study were higher than those found in samples of suburban adolescents and college students (3.16 vs. 2.99 and 3.02 on a 1–5 scale) (Burris & Leitch, 2018; McDonald & Asher, 2018). Our findings of lower family SES predicting greater disrespect sensitivity over time provide further support for the relevance of the measure to low income, urban youth. However, disrespect sensitivity was not stable over the 1.5 year period utilized in this study (r = 0.23, p > 0.05), suggesting high fluidity over time, similar to other aspects of social information processing such as hostile attributions, access to aggressive responses, and anticipation of positive or negative consequences of one’s aggressive behavior (Calvete et al., 2015; Lansford, Malone, Dodge, Petit, & Bates, 2010). It is possible that adolescents’ differential experiences in their social contexts, both positive (e.g., high quality friendships) and negative (e.g., victimization, discrimination), dampen or enhance sensitivity to disrespect over time. It is also possible that disrespect sensitivity is more variable during adolescence when social cognitions are still forming, and then becomes more stable in young adulthood. However, no other study has assessed disrespect sensitivity over multiple time points, so there is currently no other information available on the construct’s stability over time. More research is needed to further validate the construct of disrespect sensitivity and its measure, examine its stability over various periods of time during different developmental periods (including test-retest reliability) and its possible dependence on specific environmental influences, and investigate its similarity and distinctiveness from related constructs such as rejection sensitivity and hostile attributionbias.

Although providing important and novel insights into correlates of disrespect sensitivity in urban adolescents, this study is limited by its small sample size and reliance on youth and parent reports for all constructs. Future research should address predictors of disrespect sensitivity using larger and more diverse samples with additional sources of information, while also incorporating a broader set of predictors, such as peer antisocial behavior and peer support, and more complex bidirectional relationships (e.g., between disrespect sensitivity and aggression).

In conclusion, the findings suggest that among urban adolescents, those who are older, from lower SES families, more aggressive, and with a history of low parental nurturance are at the greatest risk to interpret ambiguous behavior as disrespectful, and in turn may respond aggressively and become victimized. Urban youth may benefit from interventions to reduce disrespect sensitivity, which could be incorporated into violence prevention programs.

References

Anderson

(2000). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York: Norton.

Barber

B. K

, Xia

, Olsen

J. A

, Mcneely

C. A

, Bose

(2012). Feeling disrespected by parents: Refining the measurement and understanding of psychological control. Journal of Adolescence35, 273–287. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.10.010.

Bondü

, Rothmund

, Gollwitzer

(2016). Mutual long-term effects of school bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence48, 62–72. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.01.007.

Burris

C. T

, Leitch

(2018). Harmful fun: Pranks and sadistic motivation. Motivation and Emotion42, 90–102. doi: 10.1007/s11031-017-9651-5.

Burke

J. D

, Pardini

D. A

, Loeber

(2008). Reciprocal relationships between parenting behavior and disruptive psychopathology from childhood through adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology36, 679–692. doi:10.1007/s10802-008-9219-7.

Calvete

, Gámez-Guadix

, García-Salvador

(2015). Social information processing in child-to-parent aggression: Bidirectional associations in a 1-year prospective study. Journal of Child and Family Studies24, 2204–2216. doi:10.1007/s10826-014-0023-4.

Farrell

A. D

, Sullivan

T. N

, Goncy

E. A

, Le

A. H.

(2016). Assessment of adolescents’ victimization, aggression, and problem behaviors: Evaluation of the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale. Psychological Assessment28, 702–714. doi:10.1037/pas0000225.

Guion

, Mrug

, Windle

(2008). Predictive value of informant discrepancies in reports of parenting: Relations to early adolescents’ adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology37, 17–30. doi:10.1007/s10802-008-9253-5.

Lansford

J. E

, Malone

P. S

, Dodge

K. A

, Pettit

G. S

, Bates

J. E.

(2010). Developmental cascades of peer rejection, social information processing biases, and aggression during middle childhood. Development and Psychopathology22, 593–602. doi: 10.1017/S0954579410000301.

10.

McDonald

K. L

, Asher

S. R.

(2013). College students’ revenge goals across friend, romantic partner, and roommate contexts: The role of interpretations and emotions. Social Development22, 499–521. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00650.x.

11.

McDonald

K. L

, Asher

S. R.

(2018). Pacifists and revenge-seekers in response to unambiguous peer provocation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence47, 1907–1925. doi: 10.1007/s10964-017-0767-4.

12.

Mrug

, Tyson

, Turan

, Granger

D. A.

(2016). Sleep problems predict cortisol reactivity to stress in urban adolescents. Physiology and Behavior155, 95–101. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.12.003.

13.

Orobio de Castro

, Veerman

J. W

, Koops

, Bosch

J. D

, Monshouwer

(2002). Hostile attribution and aggressive behavior: A meta-Analysis. Child Development73, 916–934. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00447.

14.

Stewart

E. A

, Schreck

C. J

, Simons

R. L.

(2006). I ain’t gonna let no one disrespect me”. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency43, 427–458. doi: 10.1177/0022427806292338.

15.

Xie

, Dawes

, Wurster

T. J

, Shi

(2013). Aggression, academic behaviors, and popularity perceptions among boys of color during the transition to middle school. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry83, 265–277. doi: 10.1111/ajo12039.