Moderating Effects of Coping Style on Externalizing Behaviors and Substance Use in Urban Adolescents Exposed to Community Violence

Abstract

Community violence exposure is associated with externalizing problems in adolescents, yet little research has examined the moderating role of coping in these relationships. Eighty-four low-income, urban adolescents (M_age = 13.36, 50%male, 95%African American) participated in two waves of a longitudinal study a year and a half apart. Youth reported their community violence exposure and coping styles at Wave 1, and their delinquent behavior, physical aggression, and substance use at Waves 1 and 2. Conduct problems were assessed by parent-report at Waves 1 and 2. Results showed that avoidant coping predicted less delinquency, aggression, substance use, and conduct problems over time. Further, avoidant coping attenuated the effect of community violence on delinquency. Problem-focused and emotion-focused coping did not moderate community violence exposure effects. Findings suggest that among low-income, minority urban youth, avoidant coping may protect against the development of externalizing problems in the context of community violence exposure.

Keywords

Community violence violence exposure externalizing problems coping adolescents

Violence exposure was declared a public health crisis in 1996 by the World Health Organization, and remains a pervasive issue today (Krug et al., 2002). This is especially true in urban areas, where up to 90%of adolescents are exposed to community violence (Mrug & Windle, 2010). Research suggests the detrimental effects of community violence exposure are especially salient in early adolescence due to the many co-occurring biological and social developmental changes (Mrug et al., 2008). When faced with a significant stressor such as exposure to community violence, adolescents use varying coping styles to manage the stress (Jose & Huntsinger, 2005). Identifying coping styles that may be associated with beneficial or harmful outcomes for adolescents dealing with community violence has important applications for interventions. Therefore, we examined coping styles as moderators of the relationships between community violence exposure and externalizing behaviors, including conduct problems, delinquency, physical aggression, and substance use using a multi-informant approach.

Community Violence Exposure and Externalizing Outcomes

Community violence is defined as witnessing or being the victim of deliberate acts intended to cause harm against a person or persons in the community (Cooley et al., 1995). A substantial body of literature has linked community violence exposure with externalizing behaviors (Fowler et al., 2009). For example, community violence exposure is associated with delinquent behaviors, or illegal acts, in adolescents (Chen et al., 2016). Although the relationship between violence exposure and delinquency is bidirectional (Mrug & Windle, 2009), more frequently witnessing community violence increases the risk of engaging in delinquent behaviors (Hardaway et al., 2012). Recent studies have also linked community violence exposure with aggression, which includes hostile or violent behavior (Gaylord-Harden et al., 2017a). One meta-analysis found a correlation of 0.75 between community violence exposure and aggression (McDonald & Richmond, 2008). Research also suggests community violence predicts more parent-reported conduct problems among adolescents (McCabe et al., 2005). In terms of mechanisms, a common explanation is that exposure to violence may contribute to externalizing behaviors through emotional and cognitive desensitization, such as diminished negative emotional response to violence and beliefs normalizing violence (Gaylord-Harden et al., 2017b; Kennedy & Ceballo, 2016; Mrug et al., 2016). Other research suggests that family- and school-related characteristics may serve as mechanisms explaining the association between community violence exposure and externalizing symptoms (Darawshy & Haj-Yahia, 2018; Haj-Yahia et al., 2018). For example, high levels of parental stress mediated the relationship between direct community violence exposure (i.e., victimization) and externalizing problems (Darawshy & Haj-Yahia, 2018). Additionally, low levels of support from family or teachers mediated the link between community violence exposure and externalizing problems (Haj-Yahia et al., 2018).

Additionally, exposure to violence poses an increased risk of substance abuse (Fagan et al., 2015). Previous research has linked community violence exposure to increased alcohol and marijuana use (Voisin et al., 2007; Wright et al., 2013). It has been posited that community violence exposure may contribute to substance use through diminished emotion regulation and self-restraint (Sullivan et al., 2007). Further, youth exposed to community violence may use substances to escape or improve negative affect (Wright et al., 2013). The negative effects of community violence exposure on adolescent adjustment highlight the need to identify protective factors that can improve developmental outcomes in youth exposed to community violence.

Violence Exposure and Coping

The Ecological Stress Process Model of Children’s Exposure to Violence provides a useful framework to conceptualize the risks for and effects of community violence exposure (Foster & Brooks-Gunn, 2009). The model posits that adolescent violence exposure is predicted by factors at multiple system levels. At the family level, socioeconomic status and low income are robust predictors of children’s exposure to violence in the neighborhood (Buka et al., 2001; McCrea et al., 2019). Low-income and impoverished families often reside in disadvantaged neighborhoods, where the effects of poverty resonate throughout. For example, in two Chicago neighborhoods, with a median annual income of $18,000–$25,000 in 2018, the homicide rate is greater than ten times the national average (McCrea et al., 2019). Further supporting the association between family income and exposure to community violence, Buka et al. (2001) reported that 47%of low-income youth had witnessed community violence, compared to only 1%of youth from more affluent backgrounds. Factors at the neighborhood (e.g., structural disadvantage) and individual level (e.g., behavioral problems) further predict community violence exposure, the effects of which accumulate to impact adjustment (Foster & Brooks-Gunn, 2009). The stress process model suggests that coping resources at the individual and social level can interrupt the relationship between community violence exposure and negative outcomes, acting as moderators.

Coping as a Moderator of Community Violence Exposure Effects

Consistent with the Ecological Stress Process Model, research has examined factors that may moderate the relationship between violence exposure and negative outcomes, such as family cohesion and social support (Foster & Brooks-Gunn, 2009). However, little research has examined the role of coping as a moderator of community violence exposure effects on adjustment (Rosario et al., 2008), despite evidence for its function as a moderator of other risk factors (D’Imperio et al., 2000). Coping includes the cognitive and behavioral strategies used to manage the internal and external demands perceived as taxing or exceeding personal resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Specific coping styles are often considered adaptive (e.g., problem-focused coping) or maladaptive (e.g., avoidant coping). However, the function of coping styles also varies with the nature of the stressor (Valentiner et al., 1994). Problem-focused coping (i.e., attempts to resolve a stressor, such as asking someone to help solve the problem), may only be protective against negative outcomes when the stressor is deemed controllable (Valentiner et al., 1994). By contrast, the use of avoidant coping style (i.e., attempts to forget the problem, such as ignoring the problem) is associated with more positive outcomes when facing uncontrollable stressors, such as community violence (Valentiner et al., 1994).

Although the effects of violence exposure on self- and parent-reported externalizing behaviors are well-established, much of the research on coping as a moderator of violence exposure has focused on internalizing symptoms (Rosario et al., 2008). The studies that addressed coping and externalizing problems have been mostly cross-sectional and included a single externalizing outcome (Mohammad et al., 2015; Sanchez et al., 2013). Few studies have examined the interaction between violence exposure and coping longitudinally and across multiple externalizing outcomes (Carothers et al., 2016).

Several studies examined the role of coping styles where adolescents engage directly with a stressor, such as problem-focused (Kliewer et al., 2006; McGee, 2003) and active coping (Carothers et al., 2016). One cross-sectional study found that problem-focused coping reduced the risk of delinquent behaviors in youth exposed to community violence (McGee, 2003). However, longitudinal research indicated that active or problem-focused coping amplified the effects of violence exposure on parent-reported adolescent externalizing behaviors (Carothers et al., 2016) and youth-reported delinquency and aggression (Kliewer et al., 2006). Taken together, research suggests that coping styles in which adolescents engage with the stressor may be adaptive in the short-term (McGee, 2003), but could exacerbate the negative effects of community violence exposure over time (Carothers et al., 2016). The dual-process model of coping (Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007) may provide one potential mechanism by which the adaptiveness of coping may change over time. According to this model, coping encompasses stress reactions (i.e., immediate and automatic stress responses) and action regulation (i.e., deliberate efforts to manage emotions in response to stress). Although some researchers argue that stress reactions and action regulation occur in parallel, others suggest that action regulation occurs after a stress reaction (Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007). Thus, coping responses to stress may change over time. This distinction between stress reactions and action regulation coping may help reconcile conflicting results from cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of engagement coping styles in the context of community violence exposure. Specifically, cross-sectional results where coping and adjustment are measured concurrently may be more indicative of stress reactions, whereas longitudinal results may reflect more deliberate coping responses enacted over time. To address this possibility, the present study examines both cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between coping and externalizing behaviors.

Other studies focused on the role of coping styles where adolescents disengage from the stressor, such as avoidant (Sanchez et al., 2013) or disengagement coping (Scarpa & Haden, 2006). Some cross-sectional research indicates avoidant coping attenuated the effects of violence exposure on delinquent behaviors only for boys victimized in the community (Rosario et al., 2003), while other studies found a lower effect of community violence exposure on externalizing behaviors for girls who used high levels of avoidant coping (Sanchez et al., 2013). The gender differences in these effects may be due to methodological differences in the assessment of violence exposure (victimization versus cumulative community violence) or the different outcomes examined (delinquent behaviors versus externalizing problems). However, another cross-sectional study found that disengagement coping exacerbated the effects of community violence exposure on aggressive behavior (Scarpa & Haden, 2006). Although avoidant and disengagement coping both involve disengaging from a stressor, the discrepant findings across studies may be attributed to the subtle differences in the specific coping styles examined. Overall, these findings suggest that avoidant coping may be protective against externalizing outcomes in youth exposed to community violence, but longitudinal research is needed to address this question.

Present Study

Identifying resources youth can utilize to mitigate the negative effects of community violence exposure has the potential to improve developmental outcomes for urban adolescents. Additionally, previous research in this area has predominantly examined only one type of externalizing behavior or used a composite measure of externalizing problems. However, there is evidence indicating that community violence has differential effects on specific types of externalizing behaviors (Mrug & Windle, 2010), suggesting that an examination of specific types of externalizing behaviors is warranted for a comprehensive assessment of the independent and interactive effects of community violence exposure and coping. Therefore, the present study expands existing research by examining the role of coping as a moderator of the relationship between community violence exposure and multiple types of externalizing problems in urban youth. We use a prospective, multi-informant design to establish a temporal relationship between violence exposure with coping and four types of externalizing behaviors –delinquency, physical aggression, substance use, and conduct problems. We expected that community violence exposure would predict more externalizing problems over time; and that avoidant coping would attenuate the effects of violence exposure on externalizing behaviors, whereas problem-focused coping would amplify its effects.

Method

Participants

This study included 84 adolescents (50%male, 95%African American, 4%Caucasian, and 1%Hispanic) who participated in Waves 1 and 2 of a longitudinal study (average ages 13.36 and 14.71, SD = 0.96 and 1.03, respectively). The sample was representative of the sampled schools’ populations, which were approximately 95%African American. Chi-squared tests and independent samples t-tests revealed that African American and other-race participants did not differ on any other variable included in this report. Nearly 70%of the sample resided in an area with a crime index at least 50%above the national average at the time of recruitment, with 54%residing in an area with a crime index more than two times the national average, and 48%living in an area with a crime index three to four times the national average (Esri, 2018).

The youth were recruited from 6–9th grade classrooms in public middle schools serving low income, urban communities in the Southeastern United States. Of the 240 students invited to participate in the study, 129 (54%) returned their contact information. Recruitment was closed due to limited resources after the enrollment of 84 families. Approximately 17 months after Wave 1, 76 (90%) of the youth returned for Wave 2. The retained sample at Wave 2 was younger than those lost to follow up (M_age = 13.29 vs. 14.08, t(82) = 2.28, p = 0.025), but the groups did not differ in gender, community violence exposure, or externalizing behaviors at Wave 1.

Procedure

Students received an envelope containing study information, consent and assent forms, and a contact information sheet. Interested families were contacted to schedule an interview at a university lab. Adolescents and parents were interviewed separately by trained interviewers using computer-assisted interview, with sensitive questions answered privately through audio-computer-assisted-self-interview. Adolescents and parents were compensated with $50 gift cards. Study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board.

Measures

Community Violence Exposure. At Wave 1, adolescents completed the Children’s Report of Exposure to Violence (Cooley et al., 1995) to assess their direct and indirect community violence exposure in the last 12 months. Four items assessed direct exposure to community violence; adolescents reported whether they were 1) beaten up, 2) chased or threatened with physical violence, 3) robbed or mugged, and 4) shot or stabbed. Indirect exposure to community violence was assessed with 10 items that asked adolescents to report the frequency with which they witnessed a stranger (five items) or acquaintance (5 items) 1) being beaten up, 2) chased or seriously threatened, 3) being robbed or mugged, 4) being shot or stabbed, and 5) being killed. The 14 total items evaluated the frequency of community violence using a 4-point scale from “no” (0) to “many times” (3). Responses were averaged to create a composite community violence exposure score, which showed good reliability (α= 0.84). In addition, subscales for direct and indirect violence exposure were created using averages of the respective items and used in sensitivity analyses (α= 0.52 and 0.84, respectively).

Coping. Coping styles were measured with adolescent report on the Adolescent Coping Efforts Scale at Wave 1 (Jose & Huntsinger, 2005). Three subscales evaluated the extent to which adolescents dealt with the most distressing things they had ever experienced by trying to solve the problem (problem-focused coping), regulate emotions (emotion-focused coping), and forget the problem (avoidant coping). Five items assessed problem-focused coping and included items such as “I asked someone to give me help to solve the problem”. Emotion-focused coping consisted of five items, including “I thought about the problem in a different way, and tried to see the good side”. Avoidant coping was evaluated through six items, such as “I ignored or tried to get away from the problem”. Responses ranged from “not at all” (1) to “a lot” (4) and were averaged for each coping style. Problem-focused and emotion-focused coping had acceptable reliability (α= 0.78 and 0.75, respectively), but the reliability of avoidant coping was low (α= 0.60). The minimum threshold for Cronbach’s alpha is well-debated, however, the reliability of avoidant coping in the present study is within the acceptable range by some conventions (Taber, 2018), and is similar to previous studies using the measure (DiClemente & Richards, 2021; Edlynn et al., 2008).

Delinquency. Frequency of delinquent behaviors over the last 12 months was assessed at Waves 1 and 2 by averaging 11 items from the Self-Report Delinquency Scale (Elliott et al., 1985). The following are examples of items used to assess delinquency: “During the last 12 months, how many times have you broken into a vacant home or building?”, and “ . . . damaged or destroyed property belonging to someone else on purpose?”. Answers ranged on a 3-point scale from “never” (0) to “more than once” (2) and were averaged (α= 0.70 at Wave 1 and 0.85 at Wave 2).

Physical Aggression. At both Waves 1 and 2, physical aggression was measured by adolescent report on the 7-item physical aggression subscale of the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (Farrell et al., 2016). Physical aggression was evaluated with items such as “in the last 30 days, how many times have you been in a fight in which someone was hit?” and “ . . . how many times have you thrown something at someone to hurt them?”. The items assessed the frequency of physical aggression in the last 30 days using a 4-point scale from “never” (1) to “six or more times” (4). The items were averaged (α= 0.80 at Wave 1 and 0.76 at Wave 2).

Substance Use. Substance use was assessed at both Waves 1 and 2 with items adapted from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (Brener et al., 2002). Youth were asked if they used each of the following substances in the last 12 months: cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and inhalants (e.g., “Have you used marijuana in the last 12 months?”. The four dichotomous (yes/no) variables were summed to create a composite substance use score at each wave.

Conduct Problems. Parent-reported conduct problems over the previous 12 months were assessed at Waves 1 and 2 using the five–item scale from The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997). Parents were asked to report on behavior such as the extent to which their child “often fights with other children or bullies them.” Responses were rated on a 3-point scale from “not true” (1) to “certainly true” (3) and averaged, with higher scores indicating more conduct problems (α= 0.80 and 0.73 at Waves 1 and 2).

Covariates. At Wave 1, parents reported on their adolescent’s date of birth, sex, and race. Adolescent age was computed from birthdate and the date of interview. Due to limited variability, race was not included in the analyses.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics, frequency distributions, and bivariate Pearson’s correlations were examined. The independent and interactive effects of community violence exposure and coping styles at Wave 1 on Wave 2 externalizing outcomes were examined with hierarchal multiple regressions for delinquency, physical aggression, conduct problems and with Poisson regressions for substance use. Step 1 of each regression included age, sex, and the outcome variable measured at Wave 1. By controlling for Wave 1 levels of each outcome, we control for continuity in externalizing behavior and predict the change in the outcome from Wave 1 to Wave 2, thus reducing the possibility of reverse causation. The main effects of community violence exposure and one coping style at Wave 1 were then added at Step 2. The two-way interaction of community violence exposure and a coping style were added at Step 3. Because of the limited sample size, the three coping styles were tested in separate models. Simple slope tests probed significant interactions (Aiken & West, 1991). Violence exposure and each coping style were mean-centered prior to creating the interaction terms. All analyses were conducted in R version 4.0.5. (R Core Team, 2021), with p < 0.05 indicating statistical significance.

Sensitivity Analyses

As a sensitivity analysis, the effects of direct ex-posure to community violence (i.e., victimization) and indirect exposure to community violence (i.e., witnessing) on the examined outcomes were tested in separate models using the same three-step hierarchical regression models as described above. Additionally, bootstrapping with 10,000 samples was conducted for all analyses and bias-corrected 95%confidence intervals were reported.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

The means, standard deviations, and bivariate Pearson correlations of all study variables are presented in Table 1. Community violence exposure was weakly to moderately correlated with delinquent behaviors, physical aggression, and conduct problems at both waves and with substance use at Wave 2 (r’s ranging from.24 to 0.46, p < 0.05). Emotion-focused coping was weakly and negatively correlated with substance use at Wave 2 (r = –0.28). Avoidant coping was positively related to Wave 1 delinquency and physical aggression (r’s = 0.24 and 0.25, p < 0.05).

Table 1

Descriptives and Correlations of all Study Variables

	M	SD	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10	11.	12.	13.	14.	15.
Wave 1
2. Age	13.36	0.96	–0.05	––
3. CVE (total)	1.15	0.29	–0.14	0.07	––
4. CVE (indirect)	1.16	0.35	–0.11	0.04	0.97 ^**	––
5. CVE (direct)	1.12	0.27	–0.16	0.14	0.66 ^**	0.47 ^**	––
6. Problem-focused coping	2.31	0.83	–0.02	0.05	–0.11	–0.08	–0.16	––
7. Emotion-focused coping	2.46	0.81	0.18	0.01	–0.16	–0.12	–0.23 ^*	0.56 ^**	––
8. Avoidant coping	2.20	0.63	0.03	0.10	0.10	–0.08	–0.12	0.26 ^*	0.47^**	––
9. Delinquent behavior	1.12	0.19	–0.13	0.05	0.35 ^**	0.32 ^**	0.33 ^**	–0.22	–0.06	0.24 ^*	––
10. Physical aggression	1.30	0.42	0.12	–0.20	0.45 ^**	0.46 ^**	0.21	–0.18	0.09	0.25 ^*	0.37 ^**	––
11. Substance use	0.12	0.39	0.06	0.10	0.12	0.12	0.07	–0.19	0.10	0.15	0.56 ^**	0.02	––
12. Conduct problems	1.37	0.43	–0.20	0.06	0.26 ^*	0.28^*	0.10	–0.11	–0.15	0.11	0.23 ^*	0.04	0.14	––
Wave 2
13. Delinquent behavior	1.12	0.24	–0.15	0.02	0.31 ^**	0.34 ^**	0.09	–0.21	–0.16	–0.07	0.43 ^**	0.12	0.43 ^**	0.30 ^*	––
14. Physical aggression	1.24	0.35	–0.01	–0.07	0.30 ^*	0.33 ^**	0.08	–0.17	–0.18	–0.10	0.40 ^**	0.57 ^**	0.08	0.07	0.43^**	––
15. Substance use	0.21	0.51	–0.19	0.09	0.24 ^*	0.25 ^*	0.10	–0.21	–0.28 ^**	–0.15	0.29 ^**	0.24 ^*	0.35 ^**	0.13	0.57 ^**	0.49 ^**	––
16. Conduct problems	1.29	0.36	–0.11	–0.03	0.46 ^**	0.48 ^**	0.20	–0.01	–0.18	–0.03	0.25 ^*	0.19	0.13	0.72 ^**	0.55 ^**	0.29 ^*	0.37 ^**

Note. Bold indicates significant findings. ^*p < 0.05. ^**p < 0.01. CVE = Community violence exposure.

Main Analyses

Table 2 shows standardized regression coefficients and R² change values for the multiple regression models predicting delinquent behaviors, physical aggression, and conduct problems, and coefficients from a Poisson regression predicting substance use. Results indicated that community violence exposure at Wave 1 predicted increased conduct problems at Wave 2 (β= 0.41, p < 0.01), but was unrelated to delinquent behaviors, physical aggression, and substance use. Avoidant coping predicted fewer delinquent behaviors (β= –0.09, p < 0.05), less physical aggression (β= –0.18, p < 0.01), fewer substances used (b = –1.04, IRR = 0.36, p < 0.05), and decreased conduct problems (β= –0.11, p < 0.05) in Wave 2. Further, a medium sized effect was found for the interaction between Wave 1 community violence exposure and avoidant coping in predicting Wave 2 delinquency (β= –0.39, p < 0.01). Simple slope analyses indicated that community violence exposure was associated with more delinquency for youth who reported low avoidant coping (β= 0.48, p < 0.01), but not high avoidant coping (β= –0.003, p = 0.975; Figure 1). Problem-focused and emotion-focused coping in Wave 1 were not significant predictors of any of the examined outcomes, nor did they interact with community violence exposure.

Table 2

Regressions Predicting Wave 2 Externalizing Outcomes from Wave 1 Total Community Violence and Coping

	Predictor	Delinquency β (95%CI)	Physical Aggression β (95%CI)	Conduct Problems β (95%CI)	Substance Use b (95%CI)
Step 1	Female	–0.02 (–0.14, 0.04)	–0.05 (–0.19, 0.08)	0.05 (–0.06, 0.15)	–0.75 (–2.71, 0.25)
	Age	0.02 (–0.03, 0.07)	0.02 (–0.07, 0.09)	–0.01 (–0.08, 0.05)	0.11 (–0.54, 0.79)
	Delinquent behavior	0.61^** (0.04, 1.42)	––	––	––
	Physical aggression	––	0.54^** (0.26, 0.66)	––	––
	Substance use	––	––	––	1.10^* (–1.00, 1.99)
	Conduct problems	––	––	0.58^** (0.45, 0.79)	––
	CVE	0.11 (–0.02, 0.65)	0.12 (–0.21, 0.60)	0.41^** (0.07, 0.71)	0.81 (–6.18, 3.74)
	R ²	0.24 ^**	0.35 ^**	0.58 ^**	––
Step 2a	Problem-focused coping	–0.01 (–0.06, 0.03)	–0.02 (–0.09, 0.04)	0.01 (–0.07, 0.06)	–0.52 (–1.49, 0.74)
Step 2b	Emotion-focused coping	–0.02 (–0.07, 0.05)	–0.09 (–0.16, –0.01)	–0.03 (–0.14, 0.04)	–0.62 (–1.60, 0.62)
Step 2c	Avoidant coping	–0.09^* (–0.18, –0.003)	–0.18^** (–0.34, –0.07)	–0.11^* (–0.23, –0.015)	–1.04^* (–2.52, 0.37)
	R² Change	0.04 ^**	0.07 ^**	0.03 ^**	––
Step 3a	CVE x Problem-focused	0.09 (–0.33, 0.89)	0.13 (–0.39, 0.96)	0.16 (–0.35, 0.82)	0.65 (–3.69, 6.85)
Step 3b	CVE x Emotion-focused	–0.00 (–0.40, 0.35)	0.15 (–0.18, 0.76)	0.08 (–0.34, 0.46)	0.50 (–3.07, 8.00)
Step 3c	CVE x Avoidant	–0.39^** (–1.10, 0.10)	–0.30 (–1.04, 0.23)	–0.19 (–0.78, 0.69)	–1.76 (–8.01, 8.25)
	R² Change	0.07 ^**	0.02 ^**	0.01 ^**	––

Note. Bold indicates significant findings. ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01. Poisson regression (substance use) does not provide R² values. Linear regression was used for all other outcomes. 95%confidence intervals represent bootstrapped estimates with 10,000 iterations. CVE = community violence exposure.

Figure 1.

Interaction between community violence exposure and avoidant coping for delinquent behavior.

Sensitivity Analyses

Direct Community Violence Exposure. Direct community violence exposure was not a significant predictor of externalizing behaviors across each of the examined outcomes (Table 3). There was a significant main effect of emotion-focused coping for substance use, such that higher use of emotion focused coping predicted less substance use (b = –0.71, IRR =0.49, p < 0.01). Higher levels of avoidant coping were associated with both lower physical aggression (β= –0.17, p < 0.01) and substance use (b = –1.28, IRR = 0.28, p < 0.05) but not delinquent behaviors or conduct problems.

Table 3

Regressions Predicting Wave 2 Externalizing Outcomes from Wave 1 Indirect Community Violence and Coping

	Predictor	Delinquency β (95%CI)	Physical Aggression β (95%CI)	Conduct Problems β (95%CI)	Substance Use b (95%CI)
Step 1	Female	–0.03 (–0.14, 0.04)	–0.05 (–0.20, 0.08)	0.05 (–0.07, 0.15)	–0.81 (–3.05, 0.37)
	Age	0.02 (–0.03, 0.07)	0.01 (–0.08, 0.09)	–0.01 (–0.08, 0.05)	0.13 (–0.55, 0.73)
	Delinquent behavior	0.61^** (0.02, 1.36)	––	––	––
	Physical aggression	––	0.47^** (0.23, 0.64)	––	––
	Substance use	––	––	––	1.17^* (–1.57, 2.55)
	Conduct problems	––	––	0.57^** (0.43, 0.76)	––
	Indirect	0.19^* (–0.02, 0.57)	0.05 (–0.26, 0.40)	0.28^** (0.07, 0.60)	0.73 (–5.25, 2.56)
	R ²	0.25 ^**	0.36 ^**	0.59 ^**
Step 2a	Problem-focused coping	–0.02 (–0.06, 0.02)	–0.02 (–0.09, 0.03)	–0.00 (–0.08, 0.06)	–0.54 (–1.48, 1.07)
Step 2b	Emotion-focused coping	–0.02 (–0.08, 0.05)	–0.09 (–0.16, –0.01)	–0.04 (–0.14, 0.04)	–0.63 (–1.63, 0.66)
Step 2c	Avoidant coping	–0.09^* (–0.18, –0.003)	–0.18^** (–0.33, –0.07)	–0.11^* (–0.23, –0.01)	–1.05^* (–2.46, 0.17)
	R² Change	0.04 ^**	0.07 ^**	0.02 ^**
Step 3a	Indirect x Problem-focused	0.03 (–0.40, 0.60)	0.09 (–0.34, 0.85)	0.05 (–0.40, 0.55)	0.42 (–2.91, 5.37)
Step 3b	Indirect x Emotion-focused	–0.03 (–0.34, 0.30)	0.11 (–0.17, 0.66)	0.00 (–0.33, 0.33)	0.44 (–2.12, 9.66)
Step 3c	Indirect x Avoidant	–0.34^** (–0.91, 0.07)	–0.24 (–0.80, 0.28)	–0.13 (–0.67, 0.49)	–1.06 (–5.76, 6.16)
	R² Change	0.07 ^**	0.02 ^**	0.004 ^**

Note. Bold indicates significant findings. ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01. Poisson regression (substance use) does not provide R² values. Linear regression was used for all other outcomes. 95%confidence intervals represent bias-corrected bootstrapped estimates with 10,000 samples. Indirect = indirect (witnessed) community violence exposure.

Indirect Community Violence Exposure. A higher level of indirect community violence exposure at Wave 1 predicted more delinquent behaviors (β=0.19, p < 0.05) and conduct problems (β= 0.28, p < 0.01; see Table 3). Across each of the four outcomes, Wave 1 avoidant coping significantly predicted fewer Wave 2 externalizing problems (delinquent behaviors, β= –0.09, p < 0.05; physical aggression, β= –0.18, p < 0.01; conduct problems, β= –0.11, p < 0.05; substance use, b = –1.05, IRR = 0.35, p < 0.05). The interaction between indirect community violence and avoidant coping was significant (β= –0.34, p < 0.01). Simple slope analyses indicated indirect community violence exposure was associated with greater delinquency for youth who reported low (β= 0.41, p < 0.01), but not high avoidant coping (β= –0.02, p = 0.828), the same pattern of effects as total community violence (Fig. 2).

Figure 2.

Interaction between indirect community violence and avoidant coping for delinquent behavior.

Table 4

Regressions Predicting Wave 2 Externalizing Outcomes from Wave 1 Direct Community Violence and Coping

	Predictor	Delinquency β (95%CI)	Physical Aggression β (95%CI)	Conduct Problems β (95%CI)	Substance Use b (95%CI)
Step 1	Female	–0.04 (–0.16, 0.04)	–0.07 (–0.23, 0.07)	0.04 (–0.08, 0.14)	–0.91 (–3.08, 0.39)
	Age	0.02 (–0.02, 0.08)	0.02 (–0.06, 0.09)	–0.01 (–0.07, 0.06)	0.12 (–0.47, 0.76)
	Delinquent behavior	0.65^** (0.07, 1.49)	––	––	––
	Physical aggression	––	0.50^** (0.30, 0.67)	––	––
	Substance use	––	––	––	1.25^** (–0.46, 2.73)
	Conduct problems	––	––	0.65^** (0.46, 0.88)	––
	Direct	–0.02 (–0.24, 0.30)	–0.10 (–0.33, 0.22)	0.21 (0.02, 0.56)	–1.22 (–96.15, 1.26)
	R ²	0.23 ^**	0.36 ^**	0.54 ^**
Step 2a	Problem-focused coping	–0.02 (–0.06, 0.03)	–0.03 (–0.10, 0.03)	–0.00 (–0.08, 0.06)	–0.58 (–1.44, 0.33)
Step 2b	Emotion-focused coping	–0.03 (–0.09, 0.04)	–0.10 (–0.18, –0.03)	–0.03 (–0.14, 0.05)	–0.71^* (–7.19, 0.35)
Step 2c	Avoidant coping	–0.08 (–0.17, –0.003)	–0.17^** (–0.32, –0.07)	–0.11 (–0.24, –0.06)	–1.28^* (–7.82, –0.33)
	R² Change	0.04 ^**	0.07 ^**	0.03 ^**
Step 3a	Direct x Problem-focused	0.03 (–0.31, 0.75)	0.02 (–0.31, 1.46)	0.01 (–0.54, 0.77)	–0.97 (–9.79, 2.65)
Step 3b	Direct x Emotion-focused	0.01 (–0.75, 0.42)	0.14 (–0.36, 0.81)	0.15 (–0.81, 0.80)	–1.56 (–55.92, 3.80)
Step 3c	Direct x Avoidant	–0.20 (–1.03, 0.33)	–0.33 (–0.90, 0.24)	–0.05 (–0.95, 1.00)	–5.41 (–80.65, 0.25)
	R² Change	0.02 ^**	0.02 ^**	0.00 ^**

Note. ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01. Poisson regression (substance use) does not provide R² values. Linear regression was used for all other outcomes. 95%confidence intervals represent bias-corrected bootstrapped estimates with 10,000 samples. Direct = direct community violence exposure (victimization).

Bootstrapping. The 95%bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals are presented in Tables 2 (total violence exposure), 3 (direct community violence exposure), and 4 (indirect community violence exposure). The effect of total, direct, and indirect community violence exposure on conduct problems remained significant. Emotion-focused coping remained a significant predictor of physical aggression in all models. The effect of avoidant coping remained significant for delinquent behavior, physical aggression, and conduct problems in all models, as well as substance use in the model examining direct exposure to community violence. By contrast, the effect of indirect exposure to violence on delinquent behavior was no longer significant when analyzed with bias-corrected bootstrapping. Additionally, the effects of emotion-focused and avoidant coping on substance use, and the interaction effects with avoidant coping on delinquent behaviors, were significant in the main models but not when analyzed with bias-corrected bootstrapping.

Discussion

The present study examined individual coping styles as a moderator of the link between community violence exposure and externalizing behaviors in urban adolescents. While community violence exposure was correlated with all examined externalizing behaviors over time, only total violence exposure predicted changes in parent-reported conduct problems, and indirect exposure to violence predicted changes in both delinquent behaviors and conduct problems. Additionally, avoidant coping predicted lower levels of delinquency, aggression, and conduct problems, and less substance use over time. Finally, the use of avoidant coping mitigated the risk of increased delinquent behaviors in youth exposed to total and indirect community violence. Problem-focused and emotion-focused coping did not moderate the effects of community violence exposure on externalizing behaviors.

The present findings are consistent with previous research suggesting that community violence exposure predicts more externalizing behaviors, but these effects differ according to the type of externalizing problems examined (Mrug & Windle, 2010). While total and indirect community violence predicted parent-reported conduct problems and indirect exposure to violence predicted self-reported delinquent behaviors in the present study, community violence exposure was not related to changes in phy-sical aggression or substance use over time. These differences may be due to different underlying mech-anisms explaining the associations between community violence exposure and specific types of externalizing problems. For example, cognitive desensitization (Mrug et al., 2016) and family characteristics (Darawshy & Haj-Yahia, 2018) may partly explain the effects of community violence on delinquent behavior and conduct problems, whereas diminished self-restraint is a suggested mechanism for the effects on substance use (Sullivan et al., 2007). Additional research testing multiple externalizing outcomes and relevant mechanisms is needed to better understand these relationships.

Interestingly, avoidant coping was associated with higher levels of delinquency and aggression reported at the same time, but over time it predicted lower levels in all externalizing outcomes. While seemingly contradictory, these two sets of results address different types of relationships. The cross-sectional associations could be due to youth with more behavioral problems using more avoidant coping, or other variables contributing to both behavioral problems and avoidant coping. By contrast, the regressions tested the directional relationship between avoidant coping and later externalizing problems, adjusting for baseline externalizing problems and other variables. The regression results suggested that urban youth who utilize more avoidant coping develop fewer behavioral problems over time than youth who do not utilize avoidant coping as much. These findings are also consistent with the dual-process model of coping (Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007), which suggests that the efficacy of a coping style may change over time. For example, avoidant coping may become more protective against behavioral problems over time, rather than initially. In sum, the findings suggest that the use of avoidant coping may be adaptive for behavioral adjustment over time among youth living in low-income communities, but more research is needed to better understand this relationship.

The present findings provide partial support for the hypothesis that avoidant coping would reduce the impact of community violence exposure across externalizing outcomes. Specifically, there was a medium-sized attenuating effect of avoidant coping on the link between both total and indirect community violence exposure and delinquent behavior, but not for the other externalizing behaviors examined in this study. These findings are consistent with recent research, which found that the buffering or exacerbating effect of coping in the context of community violence exposure differs by externalizing outcome (DiClemente & Richards, 2021). Although other research found moderating effects of avoidant coping on physical aggression (Scarpa & Haden, 2006), the lack of effects in the present study may be due to methodological differences (i.e., the use of an older and predominantly White sample). Future research should continue to investigate coping as a moderator of the relationship between community violence exposure and distinct types externalizing behaviors to better understand the costs and benefits of coping styles for adjustment in the context of community violence.

Problem-focused and emotion-focused coping were unrelated to externalizing behaviors in the current study. Despite some evidence that problem-focused coping exacerbates the effects of community violence exposure on externalizing outcomes (Kliewer et al., 2006), other research indicates that problem-focused and emotion-focused coping have no significant moderating effects in the context of community violence exposure and externalizing problems (Mohammad et al., 2015; Scarpa & Haden, 2006). It has been suggested that the lack of effects for problem-focused coping may be due to lower use of this coping style (Scarpa & Haden, 2006). Specifically, previous research suggested that children and adolescents with higher levels of aggression generate less effective problem-solving solutions (Scarpa & Haden, 2006), reducing youth engagement in this coping style and diminishing its effects. This same rationale may be applicable for youth exhibiting other externalizing behaviors. Research directly testing this hypothesis is needed.

Implications

While avoidant coping is broadly considered maladaptive for youth adjustment, this study found that avoidant coping predicted fewer externalizing behaviors across all examined outcomes and buffered the effects of community violence exposure on delinquent behaviors. Therefore, contextual factors should be considered when teaching adolescents coping skills (Boxer & Sloan-Power, 2013). For instance, although problem-focused coping is broadly categorized as an adaptive response, attempting to solve a problem one cannot fundamentally solve may result in poorer adjustment (Boxer & Sloan-Power, 2013). However, ignoring a problem may have negative consequences if the stressor could be reduced by problem-solving efforts. Therefore, teaching youth to tailor their coping responses to different types of stressors may be more beneficial than focusing on specific coping styles out of context. Although there is limited research examining the benefits of coping interventions in the context of community violence exposure, specifically, studies have investigated the effects of coping interventions following traumatic events or in the context of chronic stress (Allen et al., 2016). For example, the Resilience and Coping Intervention (RCI) involves five weekly one-hour sessions during which children and adolescents describe previous or current challenges, identify the coping strategies they used to deal with the challenge (e.g., active, distraction, avoidance, support-seeking), and identify possible alternative coping strategies (Allen et al., 2016). A test of the effectiveness of RCI in a sample of at-risk children and adolescents (i.e., residing in neighborhoods with high rates of poverty, unemployment, and single-parent homes) found that youth’s self-reported difficulty managing their emotions was significantly reduced (Allen et al., 2016). A similar intervention may be effective in reducing externalizing behaviors within the context of exposure to violence; future research should directly test this possibility. In sum, for communities affected by violence, adolescents may benefit from being taught to utilize avoidant and other coping skills for uncontrollable stressors, such as community violence.

The present findings provide support for application of the Ecological Stress Process Model of Exposure to Violence (Foster & Brooks-Gunn, 2009). Although only avoidant coping buffered the impact of community violence in this study, the stress process model accounts for a broad-spectrum coping resources impacting adjustment (Foster & Brooks-Gunn, 2009). Future research should investigate coping resources in other domains, such as social support, as a buffer of the relationship between exposure to violence and negative outcomes.

Strengths and Limitations

This study provided one of the first examinations of the interactive effects of community violence exposure and coping style on substance use and conduct problems. Further strengths include the longitudinal and multi-informant design and inclusion of multiple externalizing outcomes. Despite the strengths of the study, several limitations should be noted. First, the study was limited by a small sample size. However, the power was sufficient (0.94) to detect medium or large effects, but not to detect small effects (0.25). Bootstrapping was conducted to combat issues associated with small sample sizes and the study provides a meaningful contribution to the literature despite the small sample. Second, associations between community violence exposure and externalizing behaviors may have been attenuated by the relatively low prevalence of violence exposure compared to other studies with urban adolescents (Ozer & Weinstein, 2004), but the sample is derived from high-crime neighborhoods and the rate of past-year community violence exposure in the present study was similar to the rate of lifetime community violence exposure in urban adolescents in a nationally representative sample (McCart et al., 2007). Additionally, evidence suggests that the rates of both community violence exposure (Weist et al., 2001) and externalizing symptoms (Reitz et al., 2005) increase over adolescence. Thus, the lower rates of community violence exposure and externalizing behaviors may be typical for early adolescence.

Another limitation relates to the timeframes utilized in this study’s measurement. Community violence exposure was assessed for the past year, which yields weaker associations with externalizing behaviors than lifetime exposure (Fowler et al., 2009). Future research should examine lifetime community violence exposure. Additionally, most measures used the timeframe of the last 12 months (i.e., violence exposure, delinquent behavior, and substance use), others did not provide a specific timeframe (i.e., coping) or used a more recent time period (i.e., aggression in the last 30 days). Although varying timescales are typical in this area of research (DiClemente & Richards, 2021; Sanchez et al., 2013), these inconsistencies may have created some bias in the results. Future research should strive to use consistent timeframes for all measures.

Conclusions

This study contributes to our understanding of the negative impact of community violence exposure on early adolescents and the protective effect of avoidant coping style. The findings indicate that youth exposed to community violence are at risk for increased delinquency a year later, but this risk may be mitigated by the use of avoidant coping. Future research should further evaluate the extent to which avoidant coping is adaptive by using longer follow up and additional developmental outcomes. Another avenue for future research is to examine the effects of community violence exposure and coping on internalizing symptoms. In general, more longitudinal studies are needed to investigate the effects of coping styles on developmental outcomes in youth exposed to violence.

Footnotes

Bio Sketches

Bria Gresham is a Developmental Psychology PhD student at the University of Minnesota’s Institute of Child Development. Her research examines the structural factors that lead to childhood and adolescent adversity, as well as sequalae of negative outcomes associated with such exposures.

Catheryn A. Orihuela is a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Psychology at University of Alabama at Birmingham. Dr. Orihuela’s research examines the effects of poverty and residence in disadvantaged neighborhoods on adolescent health and well-being.

Sylvie Mrug is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at University of Alabama at Birmingham. Her research is focused on the interplay of risk and protective factors in the development of behavioral and emotional problems in adolescence.

References

Aiken,

L. S.

, & West,

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions (pp. 9–27). Sage.

Allen,

S. F.

, Pfefferbaum,

, Nitiéma,

, Pfefferbaum,

R. L.

, Houston,

J. B.

, Mccarter Iii,

G. S.

, & Gray,

S. R.

(2016). Resi-lience and coping intervention with children and adolescents in at-risk neighborhoods, Journal of Loss and Trauma, 21(2), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2015.1072014

Boxer,

, & Sloan-Power,

(2013). Coping with violence: A comprehensive framework and implications for understanding resilience, Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 14(3), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013487806

Brener,

N. D.

, Kann,

, McManus,

, Kinchen,

S. A.

, Sundberg,

E. C.

, & Ross,

J. G.

(2002). Reliability of the youth risk behavior survey questionnaire, Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(4), 336–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00339-7

Buka,

S. L.

, Stichick,

T. L.

, Birdthistle,

, & Earls,

F. J.

(2001). Youth exposure to violence: Prevalence, risks, and consequences, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71(3), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.71.3.298

Carothers,

K. J.

, Arizaga,

J. A.

, Carter,

J. S.

, Taylor,

, & Grant,

K. E.

(2016). The costs and benefits of active coping for adolescents residing in urban poverty, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(7), 1323–1337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0487-1

Chen,

, Voisin,

D. R.

, & Jacobson,

K. C.

(2016). Community violence exposure and adolescent delinquency: Examining a spectrum of promotive factors, Society, 48(1), 33–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X13475827.

Cooley,

M. R.

, Turner,

S. M.

, & Beidel,

D. C.

(1995). Assessing community violence: The children’s report of exposure to violence, Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 34(2), 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199502000-00015

D’Imperio,

R. L.

, Dubow,

E. F.

, & Ippolito,

M. F.

(2000). Resilient and stress-affected adolescents in an urban setting, Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29(1), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424jccp2901_13

10.

Darawshy,

N. A.-S.

, & Haj-Yahia,

M. M.

(2018). Palestinian adolescents’ exposure to community violence and internalizing and externalizing symptoms: Parental factors as mediators, Children and Youth Services Review, 95, 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.11.017

11.

DiClemente,

C. M.

, & Richards,

M. H.

(2021). Community violence in early adolescence: Assessing coping strategies for reducing delinquency and aggression. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2019.1650365

12.

Edlynn,

E. S.

, Miller,

S. A.

, Gaylord-Harden,

N. K.

, & Richards,

M. H.

(2008). African American inner-city youth exposed to violence: coping skills as a moderator for anxiety, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78(2), 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013948

13.

Elliott,

, Huizinga,

, & Ageton,

(1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use (pp. 84–97). Sage.

14.

Esri (2018). [U.S. map illustrating crime indices by zip code]. Retrieved from https://utility.arcgis.com/usrsvcs/servers/bcebaddccfa/rest/services/USA_Crime/MapServer.

15.

Fagan,

A. A.

, Wright,

E. M.

, & Pinchevsky,

G. M.

(2015). Exposure to violence, substance use, and neighborhood context, Social Science Research, 49, 314–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.08.015

16.

Farrell,

A. D.

, Sullivan,

T. N.

, Goncy,

E. A.

, & Le,

A.-T. H.

(2016). Assessment of adolescents’ victimization, aggression, and problem behaviors: Evaluation of the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale, Psychological Assessment, 28(6), 702–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000225

17.

Foster,

, & Brooks-Gunn,

(2009). Toward a stress process model of children’s exposure to physical family and community violence, Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 12(2), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-009-0049-0

18.

Fowler,

P. J.

, Tompsett,

C. J.

, Braciszewski,

J. M.

, Jacques-Tiura,

A. J.

, & Baltes,

B. B.

(2009). Community violence: A meta-analysis on the effect of exposure and mental health outcomes of children and adolescents, Development and Psychopathology, 21(1), 227–259

10.1017/S0954579409000145

19.

Gaylord-Harden,

N. K.

, Bai,

G. J.

, & Simic,

(2017). Examining a dual-process model of desensitization and hypersensitization to community violence in African American male adolescents, Journal of Traumatic Stress, 30(5), 463–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22220

20.

Gaylord-Harden,

N. K.

, So,

, Bai,

G. J.

, Henry,

D. B.

, & Tolan,

P. H.

(2017). Examining the pathologic adaptation model of community violence exposure in male adolescents of color, Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 46(1), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2016.1204925

21.

Goodman,

(1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(5), 581–586.

22.

Haj-Yahia,

M. M.

, Leshem,

, & Guterman,

N. B.

(2018). The roles of family and teacher support in moderating and mediating externalized and internalized outcomes of exposure to community violence among Arab and Jewish adolescents in Israel, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(14), 4465–4488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18759624

23.

Hardaway,

C. R.

, McLoyd,

V. C.

, & Wood,

(2012). Exposure to violence and socioemotional adjustment in low-income youth: An examination of protective factors, American Journal of Community Psychology, 49(1-2), 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9440-3

24.

Jose,

P. E.

, & Huntsinger,

C. S.

(2005). Moderation and mediation effects of coping by Chinese American and European American adolescents, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(1), 16–44. https://doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.166.1.16-44

25.

Kennedy,

, & Ceballo,

(2016). Emotionally numb: Desensitization to community violence exposure among urban youth, Developmental Psychology, 52(5), 778–789. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000112

26.

Kliewer,

, Parrish,

K. A.

, Taylor,

K. W.

, Jackson,

, Walker,

J. M.

, & Shivy,

V. A.

(2006). Socialization of coping with community violence: Influences of caregiver coaching, modeling, and family context, Child Development, 77(3), 605–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00893.x

27.

Krug,

E. G.

, Mercy,

J. A.

, Dahlberg,

L. L.

, & Zwi,

A. B.

(2002). The world report on violence and health, The Lancet, 360(9339), 1083–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11133-0

28.

Lazarus,

R. S.

, & Folkman,

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping (pp. 141–143). Springer.

29.

McCabe,

K. M.

, Hough,

R. L.

, Yeh,

, Lucchini,

S. E.

, & Hazen,

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

30.

McCart,

M. R.

, Smith,

D. W.

, Saunders,

B. E.

, Kilpatrick,

D. G.

, Resnick,

, & Ruggiero,

K. J.

(2007). Do urban adolescents become desensitized to community violence? Data from a national survey, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(3), 434–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.77.3.434

31.

McCrea,

K. T.

, Richards,

, Quimby,

, Scott,

, Davis,

, Hart,

, Thomas,

, & Hopson,

(2019). Understanding violence and developing resilience with African American youth in high-poverty, high-crime communities, Children and Youth Services Review, 99, 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.12.018

32.

McDonald,

C. C.

, & Richmond,

T. R.

(2008). The relationship between community violence exposure and mental health symptoms in urban adolescents, Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 15(10), 833–849. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2008.01321.x

33.

McGee,

Z. T.

(2003). Community violence and adolescent development: An examination of risk and protective factors among African American youth, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 19(3), 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986203254527

34.

Mohammad,

E. T.

, Shapiro,

E. R.

, Wainwright,

L. D.

, & Carter,

A. S.

(2015). Impacts of family and community violence exposure on child coping and mental health, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(2), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-9889-2

35.

Mrug,

, Loosier,

P. S.

, & Windle,

(2008). Violence exposure across multiple contexts: Individual and joint effects on adjustment, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.78.1.70

36.

Mrug,

, Madan,

, & Windle,

(2016). Emotional desensitization to violence contributes to adolescents’ violent behavior, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-9986-x

37.

Mrug,

, & Windle,

(2009). Bidirectional influences of violence exposure and adjustment in early adolescence: Externalizing behaviors and school connectedness, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(5), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9304-6

38.

Mrug,

, & Windle,

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

39.

Ozer,

E. J.

, & Weinstein,

R. S.

(2004). Urban adolescents’ exposure to community violence: The role of support, school safety, and social constraints in a school-based sample of boys and girls, Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(3), 463–476. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3303_4

40.

R Core Team. (2021). R:Alanguage and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.

41.

Reitz,

, Deković,

, & Meijer,

A. M.

(2005). The structure and stability of externalizing and internalizing problem behavior during early adolescence, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(6), 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-8947-z

42.

Rosario,

, Salzinger,

, Feldman,

R. S.

, & Ng-Mak,

D. S.

(2008). Intervening processes between youths’ exposure to community violence and internalizing symptoms over time: The roles of social support and coping, American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1-2), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9147-7

43.

Rosario,

, Salzinger,

, Feldman,

R. S.

, & Ng-Mak,

D. S.

(2003). Community violence exposure and delinquent behaviors among youth: The moderating role of coping, Journal of Community Psychology, 31(5), 489–512. https://doi.org/10.1002/jco10066

44.

Sanchez,

Y. M.

, Lambert,

S. F.

, & Cooley-Strickland,

(2013). Adverse life events, coping and internalizing and externalizing behaviors in urban African American youth, Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9590-4

45.

Scarpa,

, & Haden,

S. C.

(2006). Community violence victimization and aggressive behavior: The moderating effects of coping and social support, Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 32(5), 502–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20151

46.

Skinner,

E. A.

, & Zimmer-Gembeck,

M. J.

(2007). The development of coping, Annual Review of Psychology., 58, 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085705

47.

Sullivan,

T. N.

, Farrell,

A. D.

, Kliewer,

, Vulin-Reynolds,

, & Valois,

R. F.

(2007). Exposure to violence in early adolescence: The impact of self-restraint, witnessing violence, and victimization on aggression and drug use, The Journal of Early Adolescence, 27(3), 296–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431607302008

48.

Taber,

K. S.

(2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education, Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

49.

Valentiner,

D. P.

, Holahan,

C. J.

, & Moos,

R. H.

(1994). Social support, appraisals of event controllability, and coping: An integrative model, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(6), 1094–1102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.6.1094

50.

Voisin,

D. R.

, Crosby,

, Yarber,

W. L.

, Salazar,

L. F.

, DiClemente,

R. J.

, & Staples-Horne,

(2007). Witnessing community violence and health-risk behaviors among detained adolescents, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(4), 506–513. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.77.4.506

51.

Weist,

M. D.

, Acosta,

O. M.

, & Youngstrom,

E. A.

(2001). Predictors of violence exposure among inner-city youth, Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3002_6

52.

Wright,

E. M.

, Fagan,

A. A.

, & Pinchevsky,

G. M.

(2013). The effects of exposure to violence and victimization across life domains on adolescent substance use, Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(11), 899–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.04.010