SOCIAL COGNITIVE MEDIATORS AND MODERATORS OF THE RELATION BETWEEN EXPERIENCES OF COMMUNITY VIOLENCE AND ADOLESCENT OUTCOMES. Cheryl K.

Transcription

1 SOCIAL COGNITIVE MEDIATORS AND MODERATORS OF THE RELATION BETWEEN EXPERIENCES OF COMMUNITY VIOLENCE AND ADOLESCENT OUTCOMES Cheryl K. Sybesma A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY December 2008 Committee: Eric Dubow, Ph.D., Advisor Randy Leite, Ph.D. Graduate Faculty Representative Dara Musher-Eizenman, Ph.D. Jean Gerard, Ph.D.

2 2008 Cheryl Sybesma All Rights Reserved

3 iii ABSTRACT Eric Dubow, Ph.D., Advisor This study examined moderation and mediation effects of three types of social cognitions (perceived social support, future expectations, and normative beliefs about aggression) on the relation between environmental experiences of aggression/violence and adolescent outcomes (depression and aggression). Additionally, this study sought to determine if moderation and mediation effects were varied based on the type of environmental experience of aggression/violence (victimization or witnessing) and/or on the level of severity of these experiences (low-severity or high-severity). Using a shortterm longitudinal design, 248 high school students in 9 th through 12 th grade were surveyed twice, three months apart, regarding victimization experiences, witnessing experiences, perceived social support, future expectations, normative beliefs, aggressive behavior, and depressive symptoms. Teachers completed surveys about students aggressive behavior and depressive symptoms. A confirmatory factor analysis indicated that experiences of aggression/violence fit a four-factor model (low-severity victimization, high-severity victimization, lowseverity witnessing, and high-severity witnessing) better than two or one factor models. Contrary to previous research, perceived social support did not moderate the relation between victimization and depression, but had a protective-reactive effect on the relations between victimization and aggression and between witnessing and aggression. Future expectations moderated experiences of aggression/violence (both victimization and

4 iv witnessing) and adolescent outcomes (depression or aggression), but tended to have a protective-reactive effect on boys and younger adolescents and a protective-stabilizing effect on girls and older adolescents. Normative beliefs about aggression mediated the relation between victimization (both low and high severity) and aggression such that higher levels of victimization predicted higher levels of normative beliefs, which predicted higher levels of aggression. Normative beliefs did not mediate the relation between witnessing and aggression. Future expectations mediated the relation between high-severity witnessing and aggression such that increases in high-severity witnessing predicted lower future expectations that in turn predicted higher levels of aggression. Gender analyses indicated that the link between future expectations and aggression was only significant for girls. Future expectations did not mediate the relations between lowseverity witnessing and aggression or victimization and aggression and was not a strong mediator between experiences of aggression/violence and depression. Implications for future research and clinical application are discussed.

5 v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank several people who contributed to this project. My thanks to Grand Rapids Christian High School in Grand Rapids, Michigan; Jim Primus, the principal; and the students at GRCHS for their participation in this study. Sally Van Noord, for her strong coordination skills and enthusiasm, has my unending gratitude and appreciation. Robert Van Noord, Ph.D. has my sincere gratitude for his assistance in data collection and organization and with processing the implications of the results. My thanks to Dan Brower, Kara Kitts, Frank Padilla, Eve Ricketts, Tim Van Dyke, and Sally Van Noord for volunteering their classrooms for this study. Finally, I would like to thank my advisor, Eric Dubow, Ph.D., for his valuable guidance, advice, and revisions.

6 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION... 1 Definitions and Methodological Concerns... 3 Witnessing Aggression versus Victimization by Aggression... 5 Gender and Age Differences in Experiences of Aggression/Violence... 9 The Relation between Witnessing/Victimization and Aggressive Behavior The Relation between Witnessing/Victimization and Depressive Symptoms Social-Cognitive Moderators and Mediators Moderation versus mediation Perceptions of social support Future expectations Normative Beliefs Summary The Present Study Hypotheses METHOD Participants Procedures Measures Adolescent self-report measures Teacher-report measures... 41

7 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) RESULTS Overview of Analyses Preliminary Analyses: Exploration of Statistical Assumptions Hypothesis 1: Gender and Age Differences in the Major Study Variables Gender differences Age differences Racial differences Hypothesis 2: Relations among the Major Study Variables Hypothesis 3: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Witnessing and Victimization Experiences Hypothesis 4a: Moderating Effects of Perceptions of Social Support and Future Expectations on Relations between Experiences of Aggression/Violence and Adolescent Outcomes (Cross-Sectional Analyses) Main effect findings Moderating effects of social cognitions Moderating effects of perceived social support Moderating effects of future expectations Summary of cross-sectional moderation analyses Hypothesis 4b: Moderating Effects of Perceptions of Social Support and Future Expectations on Relations between Experiences of Aggression/Violence and Adolescent Outcomes (Longitudinal Analyses) Prospective effects of experiences of aggression/violence and social cognitions predicting depression and aggression Effects of changes in experiences of aggression/violence and social cognitions over time in predicting depression and aggression

8 viii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Hypothesis 5a: Mediator Effects of Future Expectations and Normative Beliefs about Aggression on Relations between Experiences of Aggression/Violence and Aggression and Depression (Cross-sectional Analyses) Examination of mediational effects Differences in links between experiences of aggression/violence and social cognitive mediators and links between experiences of aggression/violence and aggression or depression Gender and age differences in cross-sectional mediation model Summary of cross-sectional mediation analyses Hypothesis 5b: Mediator Effects of Future Expectations and Normative Beliefs about Aggression on Relations between Experiences of Aggression/Violence and Aggression and Depression (Longitudinal Analyses) Summary of longitudinal mediation analyses DISCUSSION Interpretation of Results/Comparisons with Other Research Hypothesis 1: Gender and Age Differences Gender differences Age differences Hypothesis 2: Relations between Variables Hypothesis 3: Experiences of Aggression/Violence are Significantly Related But Separate Constructs Hypothesis 4: Moderating Effects of Perceived Social Support and Future Expectations on the Relation between Experiences of Aggression/Violence and Adolescent Outcomes Prospective effects of experiences of aggression/violence and social cognitions on aggression and depression Moderating effects of perceived social support

9 ix TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Moderating effects of future expectations Hypothesis 5: Mediating Effects of Normative Beliefs and Future Expectations on the Relation between Experiences of Aggression/Violence and Adolescent Outcomes Mediating effects of normative beliefs Mediating effects of future expectations Clinical Implications Areas for Future Research Limitations Summary and Conclusions REFERENCES APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL TABLES APPENDIX B. ADDITIONAL FIGURES

10 x LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Means, Standard Deviation, Skewness, and Kurtosis of the Major Study Variables Significant Gender Differences in the Major Study Variables Significant Grade Differences in the Major Study Variables Significant Racial Differences in the Major Study Variables Correlations among Time 1 Variables (Below Diagonal) and among Time 2 Variables (Above Diagonal) Correlations between Time 1 and Time 2 Variables Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Experiences of Aggression/Violence: Errors Correlating Cross-sectional Hierarchical Multiple Regressions: Victimization and Perceptions of Social Support Predicting Student-Reported Outcomes Cross-sectional Hierarchical Multiple Regressions: Witnessing and Perceptions of Social Support Predicting Student-Reported Outcomes Cross-sectional Hierarchical Multiple Regressions: Victimization and Future Expectations Predicting Student-Reported Outcomes Cross-sectional Hierarchical Multiple Regressions: Witnessing and Future Expectations Predicting Student-Reported Outcomes Longitudinal Hierarchical Multiple Regressions: Victimization and Perceptions of Social Support Predicting Student-Reported Outcomes Longitudinal Hierarchical Multiple Regressions: Witnessing and Perceptions of Social Support Predicting Student-Reported Outcomes Longitudinal Hierarchical Multiple Regressions: Victimization and Future Expectations Predicting Student-Reported Outcomes Longitudinal Hierarchical Multiple Regressions: Witnessing and Future Expectations Predicting Student-Reported Outcomes... 72

11 xi LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 16 Goodness of Fit Indices for Cross-sectional Mediation Analyses Standardized Loadings for Direct and Mediated Links between Experiences of Aggression/Violence, Social Cognitions, and Adolescent Outcome for Cross- Sectional Mediation at Time 1 and Time Regression Weights and Standard Errors for Direct and Mediated Links between Experiences of Violence, Social Cognitions, and Adolescent Outcome for Males and Females at Time Longitudinal Tests of Mediation Effects of Future Expectations on the Relation between Experiences of Aggression/Violence and Depression and Aggression Longitudinal Tests of Mediation Effects of Normative Beliefs on the Relation between Experiences of Aggression/Violence and Depression and Aggression Standardized Loadings for Direct and Mediated Links Between Experiences of Aggression/Violence, Social Cognitions, and Adolescent Outcome for Males and Females and Younger and Older Adolescents in Longitudinal Analyses Summary of Major Study Hypotheses and Results A.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Experiences of Aggression and Violence: Items Not Transformed A.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Experiences of Aggression and Violence: Items Transformed

12 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Plots of significant moderating effects of perceived social support in crosssectional analyses Plots of significant moderating effects of future expectations in cross-sectional analyses Plots of significant moderating effects in longitudinal analyses Cross-Sectional Mediation Input Model: Time Cross-Sectional Mediation Input Model: Time Longitudinal Mediation Models B.1. Confirmatory Factor Analyses: Four-Factor Input Model Allowing Errors to Correlate

13 Social Cognitive 1 Over the past decade, there has been increased focus on psychological research regarding the ways in which violence and aggression affect children. This interest has been further fueled by studies detailing a rise in youth engagement in violence during the 1980 s and 1990 s (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000) which has continued to remain high despite decreases in other crime statistics (Margolin & Gordis, 2000; Overstreet, 2000). Adolescents tend to be at higher risk of engagement in violence (either as victims or perpetrators) than any other age group (Macmillan, 2001). In her literature review of community violence exposure, Scarpa (2003) reported lifetime prevalence rates of young adults exposure to violence to be between 76% to 82% for victimization and 93% to 96% for witnessing violence. Through this body of research, a connection between environmental experiences of violence (e.g., witnessing or being a victim of violence) and maladaptive outcomes for children has been substantiated. Researchers have identified a link between experiences of aggression/violence and both externalizing (e.g., aggression; Attar, Guerra, & Tolan, 1994; Farrell & Bruce, 1997; Miller, Wasserman, Neugebauer, Gorman-Smith, & Kamboukos, 1999; Nansel, Overpeck, Ruan, Simons-Morton, & Scheidt, 2001; O Keefe, 1997; Schwab-Stone et al., 1995) and internalizing problems (e.g., depression; Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Rubin, & Patten, 2001, Hammack, Richards, Luo, Edlynn, & Roy, 2004; Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Wilson & Rosenthal, 2003). Understanding this link is essential for developing prevention and intervention programs that treat resulting emotional and behavioral problems. In their literature review of the status of research on violence and youth, Acosta, Albus, Reynolds, Spriggs, and Weist (2001) commented that most research on youth violence between 1980 and 1999 was descriptive in nature, exploring correlates, predictors, and resulting symptom sequelae of violence engagement and focused on victims and perpetrators of violence with little

14 Social Cognitive 2 focus on exposure to violence through witnessing violent events. The authors distinguished between the experience of being a victim of violence and that of witnessing or hearing about violence. In order to understand the difference between witnessing violent and aggressive acts and being a victim of these, it is useful to explore the path between these experiences and resulting outcomes as well as their relation to important mediators and moderators of that link. These mediators and moderators might be targets for prevention and intervention programs (Boxer & Dubow, 2002; Dubow & Reid, 1994). One category of mediators and moderators might be particularly important to address: social cognitions. Three types of social cognitions have been identified for the present study due to their links to environmental experiences of aggression/violence and adolescent outcomes: normative beliefs about aggression, perceptions of social support, and expectations for the future. In the present study, normative beliefs and expectations for the future are hypothesized to mediate the relation between environmental experiences and adolescent outcomes and perceptions of social support and future expectations are hypothesized to moderate this relation. The following study will use a short-term longitudinal design to explore the relation between low and high levels of experiences of aggression/violence to emotional (e.g., depression) and behavioral (e.g., aggression) outcomes for adolescents. A great deal of research has indicated that there are demographic differences in the constructs of interest in this study: exposure/victimization experiences, social-cognitive functioning, aggressive behavior, and depression. Specifically, exposure, victimization, social cognitions, aggression, and depression appear to vary by gender and age. It is unclear if gender and age also affect the relation between environmental experiences of aggression/violence and adolescent outcomes or mediation by

15 Social Cognitive 3 social cognitive variables. Therefore, these factors will be taken into account in the analyses for the present study. The following literature review will discuss definitions and methodological concerns related to this study and then review research that addresses if witnessing and victimization have similar or differential effects. The relation between witnessing and victimization by aggression/violence to both aggressive behavior and depressive symptoms will be reviewed. Finally, the mediating or moderating roles of social cognitions (normative beliefs, perception of social support, and future expectations) will be discussed before describing the goals for the present study. Definitions and Methodological Concerns As in many growing fields of research, researchers of violence and aggression have used different terms to identify their constructs of interest and measured them in varying ways. In order to review the pertinent research, several definitional issues need to be addressed. In the present study, witnessing aggression/violence includes witnessing, hearing about, or knowing someone who has been a victim of violence or aggression. Victimization by aggression/violence includes the experience of being a direct target of a violent or aggressive act. Because the present study is focused on identifying and understanding possible differences between witnessing violence and being victimized by violence, those studies that did not differentiate between witnessing aggression and being a victim of aggression are not reviewed in the following discussion of pertinent research. The present study uses Eron s (1997) definition of aggressive behavior as a behavior that is intended to injure another person (p. 140). Two methodological concerns are relevant to the review of engagement in aggressive behavior. First, there are different types of aggression

16 Social Cognitive 4 studied in the present research and throughout the literature: overt, direct, indirect, physical, verbal, and relational. Where possible, the type of aggression assessed in the studies will be clarified. Second, a great deal of research on aggression uses the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL, Achenbach, 1991) to measure aggression. The CBCL has nine subscales and also yields a total problem score, an internalizing score (withdrawn behavior, somatic complaints, and anxious/depressed scales), and an externalizing score (delinquent behavior and aggressive behavior). The total problem score includes items endorsed on all scales. Because of this consolidation of constructs, studies using only the total problem score were excluded from the present review. However, studies that reported results based only on the externalizing subscale were included as an indicator of aggressive behavior. Although delinquent behavior is not the same as direct aggressive behavior, studies that use this index can contribute to the available knowledge base concerning aggression. The use of terms such as externalizing behavior problems in the following review will indicate a wider definition of aggressive behavior, a definition that is consistent with Eron s. Similar to the externalizing scale, the internalizing scale in the Child Behavior Checklist is a consolidation of constructs including depressed behaviors, anxious behaviors, and somatization. In this study, it would not be useful to include studies that use the CBCL internalizing scale. Although many studies have identified a link between experiences of violence and anxious or posttraumatic symptoms, the focus of this study is on depressive symptoms. Therefore, only research related to depressive symptoms would be relevant for review. Additionally, several authors use the term distress to represent internalizing or emotional outcomes. Studies using this term will be used if the measurement of distress clearly distinguishes between depressed and anxious symptoms or is clearly measuring depressive

17 Social Cognitive 5 symptoms that are similar to those found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV, American Psychiatric Association, 1994) under major depressive episode or dysthymic disorder. Finally, the terms aggression and violence are used differently in most research. Violence implies a more severe form of an aggressive act. However, studies on exposure to aggression and victimization by aggression that used a range of aggressive and violent acts could not be identified. Most studies of exposure to aggression or violence focus on community violence and survey children regarding severely violent acts (e.g., others beaten up, shooting, mugging), whereas studies on victimization by aggression focus on lower severity acts of aggression (e.g., name-calling, pushing, excluding others). The present study uses a broad range of exposure and victimization experiences, and measures low severity aggression as an outcome variable. Witnessing Aggression versus Victimization by Aggression Researchers have conceptualized witnessing aggression/violence and being a victim of violence as separate constructs (Fitzpatrick & Boldizar, 1993; Kliewer, Lepore, Oskin, & Johnson, 1998; Martinez & Richters, 1993). In their seminal article about exposure to and victimization by community violence, Richters and Martinez (1993) reported different rates of witnessing and victimization among their sample with higher rates for witnessing experiences than for victimization experiences. There is disagreement among researchers about whether these experiences have differential effects. Buka, Stichick, Birdthistle, and Earls (2001) suggested that collecting information about witnessing and victimization experiences allows the researcher to identify both individual and cumulative effects. However, Overstreet (2000) suggested that a substantive difference between witnessing and victimization experiences had yet to be illustrated

18 Social Cognitive 6 and both witnessing violence and being a victim of violence appeared to have consistent positive links to the outcome of emotional distress and therefore exert their effects through the same process. As part of an emerging field of research, a more conservative approach would be to measure these constructs separately unless they are proven to operate in the same way. This is especially true when prior research has primarily focused exclusively on either witnessing or victimization experiences, but has not routinely included both types of experiences in the same study. Those studies that have included both constructs (Musher-Eizenman et al., 2004; Sybesma, 2005) have identified differences in how witnessing low severity aggression/violence and victimization by low-severity aggression relate to aggression-related social cognitions, indicating this is area of research should be further explored. In an effort to understand how different experiences of aggression/violence affect children s adjustment, it is important to focus not only on direct links between witnessing/victimization and outcome variables but also to explore how these constructs relate to important mediators and moderators of that link. Direct links between environmental variables such as exposure and victimization and outcome variables might or might not appear similar. Even if they do appear similar, they might relate differently to important mediators or moderators that could be targeted for intervention and prevention efforts. Thus, without fully exploring possible differences between witnessing and victimization by violence as well as direct and indirect effects to relevant outcome variables, it is premature to treat them as similar experiences. Some researchers examined differences between witnessing and victimization by violence on outcomes (e.g., internalizing, externalizing behaviors) and found differences.

19 Social Cognitive 7 Rosenthal (2000) explored witnessing and victimization experiences of high-severity community violence in an urban sample of young adults and found both independent and overlapping effects on symptoms of trauma (anger, anxiety, depression, and dissociation). Zero-order correlations indicated that witnessing was more related to anger than was being a victim of violence and being a victim was more related to depression. Hierarchical regressions were used to partition the variance explained by each experience of violence on each type of trauma symptom as well as their overlapping effect. Of import to this study, the independent effects of witnessing on anger were higher (.07) than the independent effects of being a victim (.03). There was also overlapping effects of.06. For depression, only being a victim had significant effects (.02), while the independent effects of witnessing and overlapping effects were not significant (each.01). Scarpa (2001) interviewed a young adult sample regarding victimization by and witnessing high severity aggression/violence (e.g., punched, mugged, seriously wounded, stabbed). She identified low and high victim and witness groups based on the frequency they had experienced aggression and found that in comparison to the low frequency victim group, the high frequency victim group reported higher depression, verbal and physical aggression, and hostility. In a separate comparison, the high frequency witness group was compared to the low frequency witness group and reported higher levels of depression and physical aggression. The constructs were not tested together, so it is difficult to make any conjecture about the way the two highlevel or low-level groups related to each other. However, the varying results in this study suggests that differences between witnessing and victimization experiences should be explored. Other studies have examined how witnessing and victimization experiences relate to mediators and moderators of aggression and depression. Shahinfar, Kupersmidt, and Matza (2001) found that victimization by severe violence was related to different aggression-related

20 Social Cognitive 8 social cognitive mediators (e.g., approval of aggression as a social response, problems interpreting social cues, and maladaptive social goals) than was witnessing severe violence (e.g., perceived positive outcomes for using aggression). Hammack et al. (2004) found that the role of social support as a protective factor for experiences of high severity violence varied for witnesses and victims. At levels of high frequency witnessing of violence, higher levels of social support were related to lower levels of depression, whereas for high frequency victims of violence, higher levels of social support were linked with higher levels of depression. These studies indicate that similarities and differences between victimization and witnessing experiences have not been clearly understood or tested. Several questions have yet to be answered. It is unclear if witnessing and victimization are different and distinct experiences or if they represent different levels of an overarching construct such as experiences of violence. Additionally, little research has explored the effects of severity and frequency of violence. As mentioned, many studies regarding victimization experiences focus on low severity items (e.g., push, talk about), whereas studies of witnessing violence often focus high severity items (e.g., observing someone beaten up, stabbed, or shot). Researchers examining experiences of aggression/violence in the context of the development of posttraumatic stress disorder identified that the severity (Foy, Madvig, Pynoos, & Camilleri, 1996) and type (Freedy, Resnick, Kilpatrick, Dansky, & Tidwell, 1994; Scheeringa & Zeanah, 1995; Trickett, Durán, & Horn, 2003) of experience of violence affected the presence and development of later PTSD. As previously mentioned, the severity of experience of aggression/violence has not been examined in the context of the relation of these experiences to aggressive behavior or depressive symptoms or in examination of potential moderators or mediators of the relation between experiences and outcomes. Measuring a range of victimization and witnessing experiences on a continuum of

21 Social Cognitive 9 severity would aid in understanding how these experiences contribute to adolescent outcomes and if the influence of moderators and mediators varies based on the type or severity of the aggression/violence experience. Gender and Age Differences in Experiences of Aggression/Violence Previous research has found gender differences in witnessing and victimization experiences. In most studies, boys are more likely to report both witnessing and victimization than girls (Fitzpatrick & Boldizar, 1993; O Keefe, 1997; Richters and Martinez, 1993; Schwab- Stone et al., 1995; Schwab-Stone et al., 1999). These studies all surveyed children and adolescents (from first grade to age 18) on high-severity victimization and witnessing experiences. However, Berman, Kurtines, Silverman, and Sarafini (1996) found no gender differences in reports of high-severity victimization and witnessing in their high school sample. Musher-Eizenman et al. (2004) surveyed middle school students on low-severity exposure to victimization and witnessing experiences. These authors found that boys reported experiencing more low-severity victimization experiences, but there were no gender differences in reports of low-severity witnessing. Differences based on age are also varied. Richters and Martinez (1993) found that 5 th and 6 th graders were more likely to report victimization and witnessing of high-severity violence than 1 st and 2 nd graders. Schwab-Stone et al. (1999) indicated that 8 th graders endorsed more victimization and witnessing experiences than 10 th and 6 th graders in their 1996 sample and that both 10 th and 8 th graders endorsed more witnessing than 6 th graders in their 1998 sample, but there were no age differences in victimization in the more recent sample. Neither Fitzpatrick and Boldizar (1993) or Berman et al. (1996) found significant age differences in experiencing high severity witnessing or victimization.

22 Social Cognitive 10 The Relation between Witnessing/Victimization and Aggressive Behavior Huesmann (1998) referenced learning and socialization theories (Eron, Walder, & Lefkowitz, 1971) to postulate that Aggression is most likely to develop in children who grow up in environments that reinforce aggression, provide aggressive models, frustrate and victimize them, and teach them that aggression is acceptable (p. 86). Establishing an empirical connection between experiences of aggression/violence and aggressive behavior is an initial step to supporting that theory. A review of studies examining the relation between witnessing/victimization and aggressive behavior identified many that established an empirical link. Most of these studies included information that was only applicable to study participants witnessing of violence (Attar et al., 1994; Farrell & Bruce, 1997; O Keefe, 1997; Miller et al., 1999; Schwab-Stone et al., 1995) or participants victimization experiences (Nansel et al., 2001; Roecker Phelps, 2001), but not both. Studies that only examined witnessing aggression/violence found a consistent link between witnessing and aggressive behavior. Schwab-Stone et al. (1995) used hierarchical regression analysis to analyze data from a sample of 6 th through 10 th graders to explore if lifetime exposure to violence and the endorsement of feeling unsafe in several different contexts were associated with children s reported use of aggression. This study found that once demographic variables had been controlled, witnessing violence explained 19.5% of variance in use of aggression. Similarly, Miller et al. (1999) also found that, in their sample of elementary school children, lifetime exposure to witnessed violence was significantly correlated (r =.23, p <.02) with concurrently measured aggressive behavior and explained an additional 3% of the variance in the use of aggressive behavior at fifteen months follow-up over what was explained by prior aggressive behavior (32% of the variance) and variables reflecting parent-child conflict (1% of

23 Social Cognitive 11 the variance). However, this relation varied based on the degree of exposure to violence within the home. At levels of high exposure to domestic violence, the predictive relation between witnessing community violence and aggressive behavior diminished because children in high conflict homes were more aggressive than children in low conflict homes, regardless of the degree to which they witnessed community violence. In their study of urban elementary school children, Attar et al. (1994) measured children s aggressive behavior via peer and teacher-reports. Additionally, the authors measured children s experience of stressful life events in the past year (e.g., having a seriously ill family member, having someone break into their home, having a family member die). The authors found that witnessing violence in the past year was associated with concurrent levels of teacherreported aggression (r =.22, p <.001). Additionally, witnessing violence explained an additional 1.4% (p <.05) of the variance in aggression one year later after controlling for level of aggression at time 1 and stressful life events. Although all of these studies of witnessing violence reliably have found a link with children s aggressive behavior, only a few have explored demographic moderators of this link. Two studies have attempted to do so by examining males and females separately. O Keefe (1997) surveyed high school students about witnessing violence in the prior year in a variety of settings: home, school, and in the community. By computing separate hierarchical regression analyses for males and females, O Keefe found that the variance in externalizing behavior explained by witnessing violence varied between genders and on the context in which the exposure occurred. For males, witnessing violence at home explained 10% of the variance in self-reported aggression. In addition, witnessing community violence and witnessing school violence combined to explain an additional 7% of self-reported aggression, a significant increase.

24 Social Cognitive 12 For females, witnessing aggression in the home accounted for 14% in self-reported aggression. However, only witnessing violence at school helped explain an additional 10% of the variance in aggressive behavior. According to this study, girls aggressive behavior did not vary significantly based on the degree to which they had witnessed violence in the community. Farrell and Bruce (1997) also analyzed data for males and females separately. Those authors measured witnessing violence, emotional distress, and violent behavior in urban middle school students, using structural equation modeling (SEM) to assess the stability of these variables over time as well as the predictive ability of these constructs over time. The authors found that all constructs were stable over time for both males and females. However, witnessing violence was positively related to increased frequency of aggressive behavior at future assessments for girls, but not for boys. Given that the studies that did explore gender differences in the link between witnessing violence and aggressive behavior found variations between boys and girls (and mixed results), it is important to continue to analyze gender differences so that they can be understood more systematically. Studies using only victims of aggressive behavior differed from those that focused on witnessing violence in that they measured low-severity violence such as bullying and relational aggression, whereas witnessing studies measured more severe forms of violence such as shootings, beatings, and seeing a dead body. Nansel et al. (2001) surveyed 6 th through 10 th graders about verbal and physical bullying in the current school term as well as problem behaviors, among other variables. The authors found that children self-identified as victims of bullying and children who identified themselves as both a bully and a victim reported engaging in significantly more fighting than children who did not report being either a bully or a victim. Roecker Phelps (2001) explored children s responses to aggression in more detail. She surveyed

25 Social Cognitive 13 3 rd through 6 th graders on their experiences of both overt (e.g., name calling, hitting, pushing) and relational (e.g., being told they would not be liked) aggression and identified a group of highly targeted children. She found that highly targeted victims endorsed more use of internalizing strategies and less use of problem-solving strategies than their peers. However, the author found no differences in the use of externalizing, distancing, or support-seeking strategies. The lack of a significant relation between victimization and aggressive behavior reported by Roecker Phelps (2001) could suggest that victimization by aggression is different than witnessing aggression. However, as noted earlier, Roecker Phelps study measured different forms of aggression than many of the studies on witnessing violence. In order to understand similarities and differences between exposure to and victimization by violence, similar forms of aggression should be measured for each. The Relation between Witnessing/Victimization and Depressive Symptoms In their meta-analytic review of research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment, Hawker and Boulton (2000) indicated that there are many theoretical perspectives on why victims of aggression/violence might suffer greater psychosocial maladjustment than nonvictims. The authors suggested that social psychological experiences play a central role in the development and maintenance of depression such as threats to peer bonds, social withdrawal, submissiveness, and unpopularity with peers. Additionally, Hawker and Boulton found that effect sizes were stronger between victimization experiences and depression-related constructs (e.g., depression, loneliness, global self-esteem, and social selfconcept) than between victimizing experiences and anxiety-related constructs (e.g., social anxiety, generalized anxiety).

26 Social Cognitive 14 Other studies also explored the relation between victimization and depressive symptoms. In his study of Norwegian 8 th grade children, Roland (2002) examined low severity aggression and found that for boys, victims of bullies reported much higher depressive symptoms than did bullies and both groups reported higher levels of depressive symptoms than children who were neither bullies nor victims. Both male bullies and male victims reported higher levels of suicidal ideation than other children; however, bullies reported the highest levels of suicidal ideation. For girls, both victims and bullies reported higher levels of depressive symptoms than neutral girls, and levels were similar for victims and bullies. Girl bullies reported higher levels of suicidal ideation than girl victims, and both were higher than neutral girls. Prinstein, Boergers, and Vernberg (2001) evaluated the relative contribution of victimization by overt and relational aggression on depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and externalizing symptoms in 9 th to 12 th grade adolescents. Using hierarchical regression, the authors found that, for boys, victimization by overt aggression contributed to depression-related constructs (e.g., depressive symptoms, loneliness, self-esteem) and externalizing symptoms, whereas victimization by relational aggression only contributed to depression-related constructs. A similar pattern was noted for girls, although victimization by overt aggression did not relate to self-esteem for this group. The authors noted an interactive effect for gender on victimization by overt aggression where depressive symptoms were more highly related to victimization for boys than for girls. Similar to patterns observed between victimization experiences and depressive symptoms, witnessing aggressive or violent events also might affect a child s or adolescent s mood, interest in engagement in activities, and sleep patterns and instill feelings of hopelessness. Studies that have examined the relation between witnessing violence and depressive

27 Social Cognitive 15 symptomatology only have focused on witnessing high severity violence. Fitzpatrick (1993) studied the effect of victimization by and witnessing of high severity violence on depressive symptoms in children age 7 to 18. He found interactive effects with both gender and age. Gender interacted with victimization such that female victims reported more depressive symptoms than males. Age interacted with witnessing violence, such that older children who witnessed violence reported more depressive symptoms than younger children. Overall, studies of both victimization by and witnessing aggression/violence have found links to depressive symptoms. Gender differences were identified in the way experiences of aggression/violence relate to adolescent outcomes (e.g., depression and aggression). While many studies did not explore age differences, the study that did explore variations by age identified higher links to depression for older children. However, no studies have examined both types of environmental experiences using a broad range of severity or frequency of experiences. Additionally, few studies have examined both depressive symptoms and aggressive behavior as outcomes related to these experiences. It is unknown if different experiences of community violence at different levels of severity affect changes in depression and aggressive behaviors. Social-Cognitive Moderators and Mediators Increasingly, researchers have taken up the search for mediating and moderating variables that might help explain processes accounting for the link between experiences of aggression/violence and behavioral and emotional outcomes for children and adolescents. Social cognitions can operate as both moderators and mediators of that relation. As moderators, social cognitions act as a buffer or protective factor. For example, when children who perceive higher levels of social support are victimized by community violence, they might be less likely to develop a negative self-perception and depressive symptoms. Likewise children who witness

28 Social Cognitive 16 violence or aggression might be less likely to use aggressive behavior themselves if they have higher expectations for the future. Their future expectations affect how they evaluate their own use of aggression despite what they witness in the community. Other social cognitions might act as mediators in the relation between environmental experiences of aggression and adolescent outcomes. Mediators help explain the mechanism of how a predictor variable relates to an outcome variable. According to Huesmann (1998), social cognitions might act as mediators between external situations, internal schemas, and social behavior. For these mediators, exposure to aggression/violence might cue different types of social cognitions than does being a victim of aggressive acts. Additionally, these experiences might affect the maintenance or evaluation of these cognitions differently. Finally, children who are victims of aggression might interpret the environmental response to their aggression differently than children who are exposed to aggression against others. Identifying moderators and mediators and understanding how they affect the relations between environmental experiences and adolescent outcomes is imperative because these can be targeted for change by prevention and intervention efforts and help identify those needing more intensive intervention (Boxer & Dubow, 2002; Dubow & Reid, 1994). The following review will first discuss differences between mediation and moderation effects and how these are measured, then it will examine the social cognitions assessed in the present study and how these might operate as moderators (e.g., perception of social support, future expectations) and mediators (e.g., future expectations, normative beliefs about aggression). Moderation versus mediation. Moderation and mediation processes are often misunderstood or mislabeled, even among researchers. Both types of effects help explain the relation between a predictor variable and an outcome variable, but they address different

29 Social Cognitive 17 questions about that relation. Baron and Kenny (1986) describe a moderator as a variable that affects the direction and/or strength of the relation between an independent or predictor variable and a dependent or criterion variable (pg. 1174). A mediator, however, explains how a predictor variable relates to an outcome variable. According to Baron and Kenny, a given variable may be said to function as a mediator to the extent that it accounts for the relation between the predictor and the criterion (pg. 1176). Frazier, Tix, and Barron (2004) further differentiate between mediators and moderators by the types of questions they answer. Moderators address questions of when or for whom a variable predicts or causes an outcome variable. For example, if gender was found to be a significant moderator of the relation between witnessing aggression/violence and aggressive behavior we might find that this relation is stronger for males than females. This information could be used to help identify groups (males who have witnessed aggression/violence in this example) that should be targeted for more extensive interventions or should be more closely monitored for negative outcomes. Mediators address questions related to how or why one variable predicts or causes an outcome variable (Frazier et al., 2004). Mediators might be viewed as processes that intervene between the predictor variable and outcomes and describe steps or stages that explain how external events take on internal psychological significance (Baron & Kenny, 1986). An example of mediation effects in this study are normative beliefs about aggression. Experiences of violence in the community (e.g., witnessing or victimization by aggression/violence) might cue beliefs that aggression is acceptable or using aggression is the best way to get what you want. These beliefs then make the choice of engaging aggressive behavior more acceptable to an adolescent and increase the likelihood that an adolescent engages in aggressive behavior. This information

30 Social Cognitive 18 is especially useful for developing targeted interventions or preventions. If experiences of violence are known to influence aggression-related beliefs that often lead to increased aggressive behavior, interventions can try to inoculate adolescents against developing these beliefs or believing they are acceptable. Additionally, the link between experiences of violence and aggression-related beliefs can be explained to adolescents who have experienced community violence to aide insight into the influence these events might have for them. Just as moderators and mediators answer different questions, they are measured differently. Moderators are basically interaction effects which can be identified through analysis of variance (ANOVA) or multiple regression techniques. Frazier et al. (2004) suggest that multiple regression techniques are preferable for both continuous and categorical variables because of the flexibility this procedure has for coding categorical variables. Mediators can be analyzed using both hierarchical regression and structural equation modeling (SEM). Frazier et al. list several advantages to using SEM because it controls measurement error, provides information on the degree of fit of the entire model, and is more flexible than regression. Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker (2000) summarized labels for different types of moderating effects to describe and understand the nature of significant moderating results. These types of moderating effects labels include protective, protective-stabilizing, protective-reactive, and protective-enhancing. According to Luthar et al. (2000), a protective effect is not a moderating effect but rather a direct effect, where adolescents with a specified attribute (e.g., perceived social support or future expectations) have better outcomes at both low and high levels of a stressor compared to adolescents without that attribute. Protective-stabilizing, protectivereactive, and protective-enhancing effects are more traditional moderating effects. Protectivestabilizing effects are present when there is stability in competence for those with an attribute

31 Social Cognitive 19 (e.g., perceived social support or future expectations) despite the severity of the stressor, but those without the attribute experience poorer outcomes at higher levels of the stressor. A protective-reactive effect describes an attribute that is advantageous at low levels of the stressor but less so at high levels of the stressor; that is, when the severity of the stressor is overwhelming, even a high level of an attribute such as social support loses its beneficial effect. Finally, a protective-enhancing effect describes the result that children with a particular attribute exhibit increased competence when engaged in increased stress. That is, children with the attribute who experience a stressor actually exhibit better adjustment at higher levels of risk than at lower levels of risk. Now that moderators and mediators have been defined, the mediators and moderators proposed for this study will be discussed. Perception of social support. Social support has been viewed as a moderator of the relation between environmental experiences of violence and depressive symptoms. This construct is often framed as a coping strategy (the ability to seek help) or as a protective factor (experiences of support from friends, family and neighbors). The present study conceptualizes social support as the belief that others are available for support, regardless of what support is actually available. On face value, this perception should relate to depression. Depression is often related to cognitive distortions such as overgeneralization, minimization, or magnification (Beck, 1972) that can lead to social withdrawal and beliefs that the individual will be deserted and powerless. Even if a social network is available, a child or adolescent might not recognize social support as a resource. Thus, the perception that others are available to provide support might be an important moderator between environmental experiences of violence and depression.