                                         

 

sﬁﬁx

. Evian? ﬁr... . Jinuvwmo...“ .., - -..u.t i.‘ Imwﬁhuwpdz

Hummum 4.-

  

     
 

a (inofl. I l
I 4 It! 1:) ‘5 .
. 5.1 7311”}. J‘swhﬁlls... I

. .I T. ti. Eva... Aﬂuﬁﬂaal .1 112A”

OI

.. . ¢ .q V . .a .
, V 17A 2 .n V , ‘
r..un.,w2 an“... .Mnmm I 3 ‘ a 1. ‘ .
3.}:11. A ; . ¢ . _.
q Attila . ninﬁhwlw. d. .i. ..
1...
00

39....
. Hr

   

         

.. A».
v v _
4! «1‘ 4. , «Jo
.. . ﬁg :14... «5??» (Jr.
.1 62.. [$11114
in. WW haw. .31. 4(5)}! 5.1% Mumsicydummuw"
.mmuvvtitttnmwtdh «.ng 53419.; K. 1».
m..v.,m..w..l- 93L ahU~lkﬂﬁkdlli$C . .GWI.-..IPIS
a! . .p c...» -iu‘IJSII -1)H1U-- .3}!
I .2 1. ,1 .0 c. glgiﬂ‘lliitill {M
iii! ,0 I! .l. Itnrl‘lgo'b11n.’
, ........ I .. . s u ‘ 41.1....” :Iaxrei... I! n
. k“, 3 O0 4 L... I ll (I1ci1lnil’ l:
. . $1.. 5... . ilﬂuﬂ 4 {tgﬂhuluvur
.. ....fv.. . {mun}... . w... qiitalwhug;fﬂuvholawhh.lfa~xvptil al.
A. . MN . . c5734.. .0 “U 1w .uﬂnc.\~0\1\_léﬂﬂc4.loltol
. . NV . At.- .. :rv 1.» O» ‘ﬁﬂAq!l¢(4p|1.II:Vx«/r.ir.lﬁ :34.)
. 1 m...) = If}! .1 3.. nucLb.L.murii143¥|!1;Uxid.U
. : ... 3.. 3d . 4 .r. iuéputhu..u, "quaint? . .
O 4 ’Hv.£“./ U $110:

3 emﬁnuubmw .

J 1 I
tvl- I i. .. .. . .
3%.?! vvv . Jlo‘lnl‘
{‘6 it .5. :1! cl... 4.. cl .9: . .44 .. .
.1 . Ex

  

.
JV .1. ! . ..
n... It“; #11: 1.
.n 0...". ”10.3.0.0 '0} a Ill:
I In I; A 0| On I 0“ (t
. 3;”..dﬂnh .t I I"!!! 3‘3““.
3:"... ﬁt, .1, . an»: gins:
. . .FPdo.ﬂ:iv v. 00. VIII»;
oi... .I? ) ya. u pt) 5 .GQH'IL‘
. .2 $9. I... .- (0.:
v ‘t t vat ‘ni'
a I 0“ ’O ,I' it I'
Emma: 4:513. x a u Hf. -.
o. 5. 1‘1
t 2.1.4.. #3133. t
5F a ($691.1! 11...)..2 I
. . 1 yiuh'..§..flsup:lioor .3» $511. .u .
31W..7..I....onb.vbrv‘{l.h H. . c4“: .6!!! -
. 3...... I». to... .v . .K 1.1)---. . ! ton: , n
. u I,A'| V. .t. *1 ,I I ‘ J
. . ..¥f.-..1-.. «or.!.t$¥t..6!;1.tit.. ...I.I!Nnrl$. 54... .v
.155 mun-«ununvvnqut; . ..w...n.umu.li.ci ill}. 53» g‘in.t\-! Wyn.
I U |-40.b.‘o'c'.“' 03"! (1wa I'Dunkor ‘Gt
. !. 8..n...utl.r. Hum»... Sin... '
.. .1» .t flint... .459“? 36904.1
t A 1" Y. Obit;

 

I. o ..
Q I‘CVanbb n 43.": ﬁg: h‘v
.

r.»..w.t1thpﬁ..:rc..‘..xt... if. was:

in. .
I 3.33:. - is:
. .

       

 

      

II .
{Eh
: ‘ I
13: t llnrnnlcllﬂlh
X. Lg. . 1.5.1.. (goth
. 5h! ‘Eldukﬁguﬁ.

‘Ai’lﬂ‘
’loii

 

 

ply) .ulqln 371.“ a

. .‘n! 1

 

  

   

‘ I.Ipa|l:
, . h...‘ ‘I'[.a.tngc.tt.a
rlncbtll‘xbatl. '5..a.0lv
-Ev“otLuI4/o1‘l

‘OIIIOO-0 1 :‘
liu".vv,.

       

   
 

.. .AAltI'A
. ‘ (obi. . 4

x v t .. I
NIH. V! VI vtk ‘
all" y .V‘A.‘ I.“

(‘.

THESiS

’ 34

Z

q (i) ?

illmlllllllllllllllllllllllllllll‘\llllllllll

31293 015

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Youth Participation in Peer Mediation:
Congruence Between Home and School

presented by

Jennifer Lisa Juras

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

 

Wdegme in PSYCh0109y

2mm Sam

Ma!) r professor

Date lZ—lR-Q?

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

‘. _

" ‘__

r ‘V-‘— O -’

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

MTE DUE MTE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1m mus-p14

 

YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN PEER MEDIATION: CONGRUENCE BETWEEN
HOME AND SCHOOL

By

Jennifer Lisa Juras

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1997

ABSTRACT

YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN PEER MEDIATION: CONGRUENCE BETWEEN
HOME AND SCHOOL

By

Jennifer Lisa J uras

Application of an ecological approach (e.g., Kelly, 1966) to youth violence
highlights the fact that youths operate in many interrelated settings. As such,
interventions are likely to be ineffective if they focus solely on one domain in youths’
lives without considering whether the goals of the intervention are consistent with what
they are experiencing in other domains. This study examined congruence of the goals
and philosophies underlying school peer mediation programs with caregivers’ beliefs and
behaviors pertaining to violence and the relationship of congruence between these two
domains (i.e., school and family) and youth participation in peer mediation. One hundred
ﬁfty-nine caregivers of middle-school students completed a mail survey. Of these, 26
were caregivers of trained peer mediators and 133 were caregivers of students who did
not receive peer mediation training. The results indicate that the consistency of
caregivers’ beliefs and behaviors with school peer mediation programs is mixed. The
results also reveal that congruence of caregivers’ beliefs and behaviors pertaining to
violence with peer mediation goals and philosophies is related to youths being more
likely to participate in the programs. These findings support an ecological framework for
understanding children’s participation in interventions, as well as research demonstrating

a need for violence prevention programs to attend to multiple domains in children’s lives.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation to Debby Salem, my committee chair, for
her time, talents, and patience in guiding me to completion of this work. I would also
like to thank my other committee members: Bill Davidson, for his time spent reading
many earlier drafts and for his statistical assistance, and Tim Bynum, for his time and
helpful suggestions.

I am also grateful to a number of other people whose assistance contributed to the
completion of this work. Carol Lamphere provided the necessary school contacts to
make this study possible, and also offered helpful suggestions on early draﬁs of the
survey. Pat Clark, Deb Bybee, and David Lounsbury generously donated their time and
expertise to provide statistical help. Pat Clark, David Lounsbury, and Juliette Mackin
also provided helpful suggestions on earlier drafts of this work. I would also like to thank
Roger Halley for his assistance with the details of administering the survey. Funding was
generously provided through the Fairweather Fund, Department of Psychology, Michigan
State University.

My deepest appreciation also goes to my other friends and family members who
supported me through the process of completing this project. I would especially like to
thank my parents and grandparents. Without their love and support, this achievement
would not have been possible. Special thanks also go to Andreas F imhaber and Cheryl

Sutherland for their consistent support and encouragement.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................. vi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1
Overview of the Problem .......................................... l
Explanation for the Causes of Youth Violence .......................... 3
Univariate Factors ............................................. 4
Theories of Violence Causation ................................... 5
Social Cognitive Theory ........................................ 6
Conclusion .................................................. 9
School Conﬂict Resolution and Peer Mediation Programs ................ 9
Ecological Theory ................................................ 11
Congruence Across Settings ..................................... 15
Purpose of the Current Study ....................................... 19
School Violence Prevention Lessons ............................... l9
Caregivers’ Beliefs and Behaviors ................................. 19
Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................. 21
CHAPTER 2
METHOD ........................................................ 24
Sampling Procedure and Design ..................................... 24
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample ............................ 26
Measures ....................................................... 29
Independent Variables .......................................... 29
Measurement of Caregivers’ Beliefs ............................. 29
Creation of the Attitudes Toward Youth Violence Survey ......... 30
Scale Development ....................................... 31
Congruence Between Caregivers’ Beliefs and the School Program . . 34
Measurement of Caregivers’ Behaviors .......................... 35
Discipline ............................................... 3S
Reactions to Fighting ...................................... 38
Congruence Between Caregivers’ Behaviors and School Programs . . 38
Dependent Variable ........................................... 39
Utilization of School Violence Prevention Program ................ 39
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS ........................................................ 40
Youth Participation in School Violence Prevention Program .............. 40
Procedures of Analysis ........................................... 40

iv

Findings ....................................................... 41

Research Question 1 ........................................... 41
Research Question 2 ........................................... 44
Research Question 3 ........................................... 44
Hypothesis A ............................................... 48
Hypothesis B ............................................... 49
Research Question 4 ........................................... 50
Hypothesis A ............................................... 50
Hypothesis B ............................................... 50
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION ..................................................... 52
Congruence of Caregivers’ Beliefs and Behaviors with School Peer Mediation
Programs ......................................................... 52
Relationship Between Caregivers’ Beliefs and Behaviors and their Children’s
Participation in Peer Mediation ........................................ 55
Limitations of the Study ........................................... 58
Practical Implications ............................................. 60
Future Directions ................................................ 64
Conclusion ..................................................... 65
APPENDIX A -- First Letter to Caregivers ............................... 66
APPENDIX B -- Reminder Postcard to Caregivers ......................... 67
APPENDIX C -- Second Letter to Caregivers ............................. 68
APPENDIX D -- Caregiver Survey ..................................... 69
APPENDIX E -- Attitudes Toward Crime Scales - Factor Analysis ............ 78
APPENDIX F -- Scale Information ..................................... 84
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................. 99

LIST OF TABLES

Table l -- Demographic Characteristics of Study Participants ............... 27
13"]: EI'EE'lIt

Table 2 -- Principal Components Analysis - Four Factor Structure ........... 85
Table 3 -- Principal Components Analysis - Social Environmental Factor 1 . . . . 86
Table 4 -- Principal Components Analysis - Deterrence Factor 2 ............. 87
Table 5 -- Principal Components Analysis - Social Learning Factor 3 ......... 88
Table 6 -- Principal Components Analysis - Individual Factor 4 ............. 89
W1 Environmental Factor 1 .............. 90
Table 8 -- Reliability Analysis - Deterrence Factor 2 ...................... 91
Table 9 -- Reliability Analysis - Social Learning Factor 3 .................. 92
Table 10 -- Reliability Analysis - Individual Factor 4 ....................... 93
WW Factor Structure ........... 94
Table 12 -- Principal Components Analysis - Physical Discipline Factor 1 ...... 95

Table 13 -- Principal Components Analysis - Positive Parenting
Strategies Factor 2 ......................................... 96

Table 14 -- Principal Components Analysis - Verbally Confrontative

Strategies Factor 3 ......................................... 97
Bl'l'l' E 1 ED' '1' S I
Table 15 -- Reliability Analysis - Physical Discipline Factor 1 ............... 98

Table 16 -- Reliability Analysis - Verbally Confrontative Strategies Factor 3 . . . . 99

vi

Table 17 -- Interpretation of the Inference Probability Index for Correlations . . . . 42

Table 18 -- Description of Caregivers’ Attitudes Toward the Causes of Youth
Violence and How They Think Youth Violence Should be Prevented . 43

Table 19 -- Description of Caregivers’ Discipline Strategies and Reactions to
Fighting ................................................. 45

Table 20 -- Correlational Analysis of Caregivers’ Attitudes and Behaviors and
Their Children’s Participation in Peer Mediation ................. 47

vii

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Qmicmﬂthﬂimhlsm

Youth violence is increasingly becoming recognized by policy makers,
researchers, and the media as an urgent problem in the United States. Since 1985, nearly
one million adolescents between the ages of twelve and nineteen have been victims of
violent crimes each year. Youth are more often the victims of violence than any other age
group (Centers for Disease Control, 1992). Teenage males are more likely to die from
gunshot wounds than from all natural causes combined (Johnson & Johnson, 1996), and
youth violence is currently the leading preventable cause of death for adolescents (Elliott,
1994)

Many people believe that the majority of youth homicides are committed by
gangs or other individuals unknown to the victim during robberies and drug deals. The
media reinforces these beliefs by depicting youth violence as largely attributable to gangs
(Prothrow-Stith, 1991). However, contrary to these beliefs, researchers have found that
most homicide victims are killed by people they know (Prothrow-Stith & Spivak, 1992;
Centers for Disease Control, 1990; Steinmetz, 1990) and that arguments are the leading
cause of homicides (Pallone & Hennessy, 1992; Prothrow-Stith & Spivak, 1992).
Studies which focus speciﬁcally on youth violence ﬁnd that for adolescents the majority

of interpersonal violence occurs between same race and age peers and commonly

2

involves individuals who are acquaintances or friends (Hausman. Spivak. Prothrow-Stith.
& Roeber, 1992; Nuttal & Kalesnik, 1987).

Violent behavior has many deleterious effects for youths, their families, and their
communities. Violence leads to diminished quality of life for victims of violence and
people who reside in areas that are high in crime, reduced earning potential for juveniles
who are incarcerated, the risk that siblings will model violent behavior, and the emotional
stress that family members of both victims and perpetrators experience (Farrington,
1987). The detrimental outcomes of youth violence may also extend beyond offenders,
victims, and their families. For example, an impoverished learning environment may
result when violence touches schools. The frequency and severity of conﬂicts in schools
appears to be increasing. For the ﬁrst time, the problem of ﬁghting and violence was
reported to be tied with lack of discipline as the biggest problem confronting public
schools (Elam, Rose, & Harris, 1994). The National Crime Victimization Survey found
that nearly one-in-ten students between the ages of twelve and nineteen years are victims
of crime either in or near their school during a six month period (Bastian & Taylor,
1991).

This literature review explores the topic of violence perpetrated by youth. The
first section delineates some of the major explanations of the causes of violence. Second,
the review examines school-based conﬂict resolution and peer mediation programs,
which are some of the most common interventions for youth violence. School conﬂict
resolution and peer mediation programs are becoming increasingly popular because they

are inexpensive and easy to implement, but very little has been done to examine whether

the programs reach youths who need them.

To address this question, the third section draws on ecological theory as a guide
for understanding development and evaluation of interventions. When an ecological
analysis is applied to interventions, the importance of ensuring congruency across
domains emerges. Youths will be more likely to participate in an intervention when the
goals and philosophies of the program are consistent with those valued in the other
domains of their lives. The family is an especially important domain in which youths
spend a great deal of their time and acquire many of their beliefs and behaviors. The
congruence of the goals and phiIOSOphies underlying school-based violence prevention
programs with those valued at home may have implications for whether youths choose to
participate in the programs.

Finally, the fourth section outlines the current study, which examines congruence
between youths’ homes and school violence prevention programs by examining
caregivers' beliefs and behaviors that are relevant to youth violence and comparing them
to the goals and philosophies underlying school programs. In addition, it examines the
impact of congruence between these two domains on whether youths participate in their
school's violence prevention program.

E l . [1 l :2 [1: l V' I

The problem of youth violence is complex and, as such, explanations for the
causes of youth violence vary tremendously. The multiplicity in explanations for youth
violence is seen in the popular press. We read in the newspapers and hear on the news

about a wide range of factors thought to lead to youth violence. These factors include

4

social inﬂuences such as poor schools. poor parenting, the decline in family values, or
violence portrayed in music and television. They also include individual-level
explanations based on the assumption that youths who commit violent acts are somehow
inherently different from other youths. For example, it is not uncommon today to hear
adolescents who commit acts of violence referred to as " j uvenile super-predators"
(DiIulio, 1996, Juvenile Predator Act, 1996).

mm. Researchers and theorists have also employed a variety of
approaches in seeking to explain youth violence. Many researchers have identiﬁed
univariate factors that are associated with violence or delinquency. Empirically identified
risk factors for serious antisocial behavior include: 1) individual-level characteristics such
as biases and deﬁcits in cognitive processing (Dodge, 1986; Slaby & Guerra, 1988);
constitutional factors which have a biological or physiological basis, such as genes or
neurotoxins that lower intelligence and attention levels and increase physical activity,
attention-deﬁcit disorder, and neurological impairments (Hawkins & Lam, 1987); 2)
family-level characteristics, such as poor parental management methods (Loeber &
Southarner-Loeber, 1987; Patterson & Southamer-Loeber, 1984); family management
problems (Patterson & Dishion, 1985; Farrington, 1991; Kandel & Andrews, 1987;
Thomberry, 1994); family conﬂict (Rutter & Giller, 1983); favorable parental attitudes
toward and involvement in the problem behavior (Brook, Brook, Gordon, Whiteman, &
Cohen, 1990; Kandel, Kessler, & Maguiles, 1978; Hansen, Graham, Shelton, Flay, &
Johnson, 1987); 3) peer inﬂuences, such as friends who engage in the problem behavior

(Barnes & Welte, 1986; Farrington, 1991; Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Gest, and Gairepy.

5

1988; Elliott et al., 1989); and 4) community and societal inﬂuences that are mediated
through family characteristics or affect the likelihood of individual. family, and peer
inﬂuences leading to violence. These community and societal inﬂuences include the
availability of ﬁrearms (Alexander, Massey, Gibbs, Altekruse, 1985); media portrayals of
violence (Eron & Huesman, 1987); transitions and mobility (F arrington, 1991); low
neighborhood attachment and community organization (Murray, 1983; Wilson &
Hemstein, 1985); extreme economic deprivation (Farrington, Loeber, Elliott, Hawkins,
Kandel, Klein, McCord, Rower, & Tremblay, 1990)

Theodosouiolonoooaggon. Other researchers have deveIOped theories that
incorporate one or more of these risk factors to explain youth violence. Examples of
theories that focus on individual-level explanations for youth violence causation include
biological theories (e.g., Booth & Osgood, 1993; Mednick & Christiansen, 1977;
Eysenck & Gudjonsson, 1989), personality theories (see Sutherland, Cressey, and
Luckenbill, 1992), and psychoanalytic theories (e.g., Friedlander, 1947). Theories that
incorporate social inﬂuences on youth violence causation include social cognitive theory
(e.g., Bandura, 1977), social bonding and control theories (e.g., Hirschi, 1969;
Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), labeling theory (e.g., Ritzer, 1992), social disorganization,
anomie, and strain theories (e.g., Agnew, 1992), Elliott's integrative model of strain,
bonding, and learning (Elliott, Huizinga, and Ageton, 1985), interactional theory
(Thomberry, 1987), network theory (Krohn, 1986), and self-derogation theory (Kaplan,
1975). Although there are many theories which purport to explain why youth violence

occurs, this review will focus on social cognitive theory because it provides the

6

theoretical framework underlying school-based conﬂict resolution and peer mediation
programs. One of the premises underlying social cognitive theory is that youths who
commit acts of violence are not inherently bad. Social cognitive theory instead assumes
that youths learn violent behavior through various social inﬂuences, thus it is possible to
teach them to resolve conﬂicts using nonviolent strategies.

3mm. Social cognitive theory' is based upon the supposition
that social behavior is learned and reinforced through interactions with other people
(Bandura, 1977). Violence is viewed as a response to various environmental sources of
conﬂict learned from previous interactions (Bandura, 1977; Prothrow-Stith, 1991).
According to social cognitive theory, adolescents who use violence to solve problems are
often mirroring conﬂict resolution techniques they see at home (Bandura & Ross, 1963;
Strauss, 1985) or on television (Liebert, Neale, & Davidson, 1973; Eron & Huesman,
1984; Zuckerman & Zuckerman, 1985). Social cognitive theory posits that behavior is
learned and maintained through the processes of observational learning, self-regulation
and self-efﬁcacy, and reciprocal determinism.

Bandura (see Bandura, 1969, 1977, 1986) states that there are four components
involved in the process of observational learning. Observational learning ﬁrst requires
that the individual attend to live or symbolic events that are modeled. Modeling may
occur through observation of other people's behaviors, verbal discussions, or discipline

encounters. Powerful and attractive models are ideal for capturing attention (e. g.,

 

1 Social cognitive theory was originally called social learning theory, but was relabeled by Bandura
in 1986 to incorporate self-regulative capacities and self-efﬁcacy.

7

caregivers, television, or peers). Next, the information is retained in memory through an
imaginal or verbal representational system. The individual then enacts behaviors that are
similar to the originally modeled behavior. Finally, incentives, such as others' reactions
and any additional positive consequences of the behavior. motivate the individual to
continue the behavior.

Applying the four components of observational learning to youth violence, youths
learn violent responses to conﬂict from powerful, attractive models by observing their
reactions to conﬂict, or during discussions or discipline encounters. After retaining the
behaviors in memory, youths may then later enact behaviors similar to the modeled
behaviors. If they receive positive reactions from their peers or obtain other desired
outcomes in that situation, it is likely that they will continue to use the violent strategies
to respond to conﬂict.

According to social cognitive theory, the newly learned violent responses to
conﬂict shiﬁ from being maintained by expectations of externally administered
consequences to being maintained by youths themselves through self-regulation
(Bandura, 1977). In the process of self-regulation, youths compare behaviors to their
own internal standards, and behaviors that meet these standards are judged positively and
those that do not are judged negatively. Youths choose standards from numerous
possibilities that are modeled by different individuals as well as by the same individual in
differing domains or situations. The selection of standards depends on factors such as the
belief that the model is more competent than the youth, the extent to which the modeled

behavior is perceived as valued by others, and the extent to which youths view their

8

behavior as contingent upon their own effort and ability rather than on external factors
over which they have little control. Thus, youths may be more likely to choose the
standards of violent models if they believe that they are not as competent as the
nonviolent models, if they perceive that violent behavior is valued more than nonviolent
behavior, or if they believe that factors external to themselves "cause" them to ﬁght.

Self-regulation is largely determined by self-efﬁcacy. According to self-efﬁcacy
theory (Bandura, 1977), individuals form domain-speciﬁc beliefs regarding their own
abilities and characteristics which guide their behavior by determining what they attempt
to accomplish and how much effort they put into their performance in a particular domain
or situation. These beliefs about self-efﬁcacy stem from their history of achievement in a
particular domain and from observing the accomplishments of other people. If youths
have been taught that they are "just bad kids" or if they believe that they are unable to
handle conﬂicts at school without ﬁghting, they are unlikely to try to resolve conﬂicts
nonviolently.

Finally, Bandura (1977, 1986) proposes that behavior, the environment, cognition,
and other personal factors have a bidirectional inﬂuence on each other. In other words,
youths' competencies, self-efﬁcacy beliefs, and self-regulatory capacities are acquired
through experience, but they in turn determine their experiences in such a way that they
are maintained. For example, youths who believe that they are not as competent as the
nonviolent models in their lives or that they are unable to resolve conﬂicts nonviolently
may behave in ways that evoke responses from their environments that reinforce these

beliefs. Alternatively, youths may choose environments that value, and thus reinforce,

their violent conﬂict resolution strategies.

Conolgoion. According to social cognitive theory, youths learn violent behavior
from powerful, attractive models in a variety of social experiences. Social cognitive
theory is supported by research which indicates that associations with delinquent or
violent peers can increase the likelihood that youths will engage in delinquent or violent
behavior (Barnes & Welte, 1986; Farrington, 1991; Cairns et al., 1988; Elliott et al.,
1989), parental attitudes toward delinquent or violent behavior inﬂuence the attitudes and
behaviors of their children (Brook et al., 1990; Kandel et al., 1978; Hansen et al., 1987),
and media portrayals of violence can increase aggressive behavior (Eron & Huesman,
1987; National Research Council, 1993).

Given that social cognitive theory states that violence is a learned behavior, it
logically follows that youths may be taught nonviolent strategies with which to respond
to conﬂict. Some of the most common school-based programs utilize this strategy to
prevent violence. School conﬂict resolution and peer mediation programs aim to reduce
youth violence by changing the school climate to one in which violent behavior is
unacceptable, providing models of nonviolent conﬂict resolution, and teaching youths
new strategies for responding to conﬂict. The next section of this review describes
school-based conﬂict resolution and peer mediation programs.

SIICU'BI' 1E IIIHE

There has been an increase in the implementation of violence prevention efforts in

schools in response to the detrimental consequences of youth violence. Violence

prevention in schools ranges from metal detectors at school entrances, guards, intercoms

10

to facilitate communication, and expulsions for students caught with weapons to
parenting and after-school programs. Recently, violence prevention strategies have been
expanded to include conﬂict resolution and peer mediation programs (Webster, 1993 ).
These programs have been developed upon the supposition that violence results from
interpersonal conﬂicts and are largely based on social cognitive theory.

School conﬂict resolution programs have been one of the most frequently
implemented public health strategies to reduce violence (Wilson-Brewer, 1991). Conﬂict
resolution programs now exist in thousands of middle and high schools (Webster, 1993).
In accordance with the tenets of social cognitive theory, students are taught that violence
is a preventable health problem that may be addressed by teaching alternative responses
to conﬂict (Spivak, Hausman, & Prothrow-Stith, 1989). Conﬂict resolution programs
attempt to create an environment that reinforces the idea that violence is an unacceptable
response to conﬂict as well as increase youths' perceptions of self-efﬁcacy for socially
competent behavior. The programs primarily focus on teaching students to use
nonviolent methods of resolving disputes. Other common components of the programs
include providing information regarding the causes of violence, the risks of victimization.
and methods to challenge beliefs that support the use of violence. Students are taught
that violence stems from social inﬂuences, such as our violent culture, the media, and
structural inequalities in our society (National Institute of Justice, 1994).

School-based conﬂict resolution programs also frequently include a peer
mediation component. In peer mediation programs, students are taught mediation skills

and then encouraged to help their peers resolve their interpersonal conﬂicts through

ll

verbal communication instead of ﬁghting. The students selected to be peer mediators are
trained in conﬂict resolution skills which include active listening, problem deﬁnition,
brainstorming for possible solutions to the conﬂict at hand, skills for rephrasing the
points back to the disputants, agreement writing, and other mediation principles such as
impartiality and conﬁdentiality of cases (Benson & Benson, 1993).

In a review of school-based conﬂict resolution and peer mediation programs for
adolescents, Webster (1993) discusses how conﬂict resolution programs are becoming
increasingly popular because they are inexpensive to implement compared to other
interventions. However, very little has been done to evaluate the programs. He warns
that conﬂict resolution and peer mediation programs need longitudinal evaluation to
determine their effectiveness and whether they are being utilized by the students who
need them most.

In order to address some of these questions, the next section of this review will
use ecological theory as a framework for understanding the development and evaluation
of interventions. Applying an ecological analysis to interventions facilitates our
understanding of factors which inﬂuence whether they are utilized by their intended
target populations.

Winger!

As discussed earlier, youth violence is a complex problem with multiple causes
that span multiple domains of youths' lives and include inﬂuences outside of their direct
life experiences. Ecological theory provides a framework for understanding complex

social problems, such as youth violence, and developing and evaluating interventions that

are sensitive to this complexity.

Ecological theorists emphasize that human behavior does not occur in a social
vacuum, but exists as part of a complex system. People operate in many settings and are
inﬂuenced by factors at many levels. While some aspects of a problem or behavior may
be understood by examining one setting, it is necessary to examine multiple settings and
levels in order to fully understand all of the potential inﬂuences that may converge to
cause a problem. Examining the multiple immediate social environments in which
people operate, how these settings interact with one another, and the inﬂuences of broader
community and societal factors will provide a more comprehensive understanding of a
social problem than would examining only one setting (e. g., Kelly. 1966; Garbarino,
1992; Rappaport, 1987).

Central to ecological theory is an emphasis on interdependence of systems (Kelly,
1966). Kelly’s principle of interdependence states that changes in one setting or level of
a system impact other settings and levels in that system. Changes in one component may
also impact relationships between components in a system. For example, the effects of a
change in state or federal policy which requires schools to provide violence prevention
programs for children may diffuse beyond the school. If school administrators contract
with community agencies to teach the programs, the policy then impacts that community
agency as well as the relationship between the school and the community agency. The
policy may impact other settings if children bring new skills and values to their homes,
peers, and communities. The policy may change the relationship between the children‘s

homes and the school if school administrators recruit parent volunteers to help run the

13

program, help with fundraising, or participate in some other way. If parents decide that
they value the new program because of their own participation or because of the changes
they see in their children, the continuation of this policy and new policies may be
impacted through their voting patterns or other policy-inﬂuencing activities. Because
components within a social system are interdependent, changes to any one component of
a system have the potential to create radiating effects. Thus, it is important to attend to
the complex interconnections across system parts when planning interventions.

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1986) application of an ecological perspective to the
study of child development is also relevant to the issue of youth violence. His model
incorporates a contextual view of behavior, focusing on how children develop
interactively with their immediate social environment, how their immediate social
environments interact with each other, and how aspects of the larger social context affect
children's immediate settings. Although the model was originally developed for the
purpose of studying risks to child development, it has been used to specify the various
settings and levels that should be considered in order to understand social problems and
plan and evaluate interventions affecting children and youth (Garbarino, 1992).

Bronfenbrenner (1979; 1986) delineates four systems in his model which
highlight the multiple settings and levels that impact children and youth: 1) the
microsystem level - the multiple settings, including places and people, in which children
and youth experience and create day to day reality (e.g., home, school, community, place
of worship, etc.); 2) the mesosystem level - the relationships between contexts or

microsystems in which children and youth receive direct experiences (e.g., the

l4

relationship between home and school); 3) exosystem level - the situations that inﬂuence
children and youths’ development in which they do not actively play a direct role (e.g.,
caregivers' workplaces, school boards, etc.); 4) macrosystem level - the cultural ideology
and social policies of a society (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; 1986).

By attending to factors at the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and
macrosystem levels, we are better able to understand the causes of social problems in a
way that captures their complexity. Understanding this complexity enables us to consider
how components of a system have a reciprocal impact on one another. When examining
any social problem, such as youth violence, it is imperative to consider the information
each level provides and to keep each level of analysis in mind both when deﬁning the
problem and when considering potential solutions (Garbarino, 1992).

Analyzing the problem of youth violence from an ecological perspective helps us
to integrate many of the factors associated with youth violence. Violent behavior is
shaped in part by youths' interactions with their immediate settings (e. g., home, school,
peers, community, etc.). For example, microsystem level factors that may lead to youths
engaging in violent behavior might include whether youths have parents or peers that
condone or engage in violent behavior. Youths' violent behaviors may also be inﬂuenced
by interactions between these microsystem level settings. Whether settings in youths'
lives, such as home and school, compliment each other and whether or not the settings
present basic consistency in values regarding the use of violence may impact youth
violence at the mesosystem level. The inﬂuences of youths' immediate settings and the

interactions between those settings on their use of violence is further impacted by

15

exosystem and macrosystem level factors. For example, at the exosystem level, the
perspective of school boards and local governments on youth violence can affect the
policies they implement concerning youth violence (e.g., expulsions for bringing
weapons to school or curfew sweeps) and programs they create to remedy the problem.
Important macrosystem level inﬂuences on youth violence may include gun laws and
whether violence is a societal norm. According to ecological theory, change in any one
component of youths' social systems impacts other components. Thus, it is important for
researchers to consider the impact of microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and
macrosystem level factors when designing interventions.

This perspective is consistent with successful interventions to reduce or prevent
youth violence (e.g., Zigler, Taussig, & Black, 1992; Tolan & Guerra, 1993; Webster,
1993). Webster (1993) stresses that a multi-setting approach to violence prevention is
necessary. He argues that the problem with many interventions to reduce youth violence
is that they do not account for the inﬂuence of the many settings in youths' lives. He
states that brief interventions that are not reinforced outside the immediate training
environment cannot be expected to alter violent behavior. The desired behavior patterns
must be reinforced over time and across settings. Programs that fail often do so because
of inadequate consideration of the ecological context in which violent behavior is learned
and reinforced (Webster, 1993).

W. The application of an ecological approach to the
problem of youth violence highlights the fact that youths operate in many interrelated

settings and that researchers must attend to the many settings in which violent behavior is

l6

learned and reinforced when planning interventions. This message is echoed in research
literature which indicates that violence has causes that span multiple settings in youths
lives as well as those outside of their immediate experiences (e.g., exosystem and
macrosystem level factors) and in the theoretical framework underlying some of our most
popular programs to prevent youth violence (i.e., social cognitive theory). According to
social cognitive theory, youths are inﬂuenced by powerful, attractive models they observe
in all domains in their lives. Studies utilizing social cognitive theory have found that
models that children observe in one setting impact their behavior in other settings (e.g.,
Report of the American Psychological Association Commission on Violence and Youth,
1993). For example, Fry (1988) found that children who observed a high level of
violence among adults in their communities were more likely to be aggressive when
playing with their peers than children who did not observe high levels of aggression.
Thus, it is apparent that although conﬂict resolution and peer mediation programs are
implemented in schools, what happens in domains outside of school has an important
impact on the effectiveness of school-based violence prevention programs.

Successful school-based programs to prevent or reduce youth violence must
consider multiple settings because conﬂict resolution skills are learned and reinforced in
multiple settings and because youths must use their conﬂict resolution skills in multiple
settings. Interventions are likely to be ineffective if they only focus on one domain in
youths' lives without considering the extent to which the goals of the intervention are
consistent with what they are experiencing in other domains. 11’ youths learn in domains

other than school (e.g., home, community, peers, etc.) that violent behavior is valued and

17

that conﬂicts will inevitably result in ﬁghts no matter how much effort they exert to
resolve them peacefully, or if youths receive other messages which indicate that the skills
and beliefs taught in school programs are not valued in the other domains, they are
unlikely to participate in school peer mediation programs. Congruence between the skills
and values that youths are taught in school conﬂict resolution and peer mediation
programs and the skills and values they learn in other settings in their lives has
implications for whether youths will use the programs.

As a ﬁrst step in understanding the impact of interplay between settings on the
utilization of school-based violence prevention programs, this study examines the
congruence of the programs’ goals and philosophies regarding violence with those of
youths’ caregivers. Home is an important domain in which to examine congruence
because youths typically spend a large portion of their time at home and learn many of
their beliefs, behaviors, and skills there. Research has demonstrated that caregivers’
attitudes and behaviors greatly impact their children’s attitudes and behaviors.
Caregivers may wield this inﬂuence through modeling or by explicitly teaching their
children speciﬁc beliefs and behaviors. For example, researchers have found that
caregivers’ attitudes toward delinquent or violent behavior inﬂuence the attitudes and
behaviors of their children (e.g., Brook et al., 1990; Kandel et al., 1978; Hansen et al.,
1987) and that caregivers’ involvement in behaviors such as drinking increases the
likelihood that their children will engage in similar behaviors (e. g., Ahmed, Bush,
Davidson, & Ianotto, 1984). Researchers who study domestic violence have found that

children who witness their caregivers using violence are more likely to be violent

l8

themselves (e.g., Lewis, 1987; Walker & Browne, I985; Loeber & Dishion, 1984).

In addition, research has also shown that caregivers’ parenting strategies inﬂuence
whether their children become involved in delinquent and/or violent behavior (e. g.,
Kumpfer, 1996). For example, researchers have found that both physical punishment and
child abuse are associated with childhood aggression ( Patterson, Capaldi, & Bank, 1991;
Report of the American Psychological Association Commission on Violence and Youth,
1993). Research has also shown relationships between childhood aggression and
caregivers supporting their children’s aggressive behaviors (Report of the American
Psychological Association Commission on Violence and Youth, 1993), failing to actively
teach their children nonviolent methods of solving social problems (Report of the
American Psychological Association Commission on Violence and Youth, 1993), and
neglecting to reinforce prosocial behaviors by their children (Patterson et al., 1991).

Because research supports caregivers’ roles in inﬂuencing their children’s beliefs
and behaviors, it is important to examine congruence between caregivers’ attitudes and
behaviors pertaining to violence and those youths learn in school violence prevention
programs. The congruence of the goals and philosophies of school violence prevention
programs with caregivers’ beliefs will impact whether youths choose to use the programs.
Youths may choose to not use the programs if they are inconsistent with the values they
learn at home. Caregivers may also be less likely to encourage their children to
participate in programs which hold goals and philosophies that are counter to their own

beliefs.

19

W

The purpose of this study is to examine congruence between the beliefs and
behaviors that youths learn in school conﬂict resolution and peer mediation programs and
the beliefs and behaviors they learn at home. In order to assess congruence, we examine
caregivers' beliefs and behaviors that are relevant to youth violence and compare them to
the goals and philosophies underlying school programs. This study also examines the
impact of congruence between these two domains on whether youths participate in their
school's violence prevention program.

Sohoouiolenogomngoglogon; To identify speciﬁc areas in which to assess
congruence, a content analysis of the peer mediation program examined in this study was
conducted. In the curriculum, youth are taught the following: 1) Violence is never an
acceptable means by which to resolve conﬂicts. 2) Violence is a learned behavior and, as
such, may be prevented by teaching individuals alternative strategies with which to
resolve conﬂicts. To reduce violence in schools, peer mediation is a better approach than
increasing punishments because students learn the necessary skills for resolving conﬂicts
nonviolently. 3) Violence in our society is a result of conﬂicts stemming from social-
environmental causes. Individual-level traits do not cause the majority of violence in our
society. 4) Students having conﬂicts with other students may be effectively helped by
their peers. 5) It is important to talk through conﬂicts rather than resort to yelling, name-
calling, ignoring the conﬂict, or hitting other people.

Won. Based on the research presented earlier

regarding the importance of the attitudes and behaviors that caregivers model for and

20

explicitly teach their children, a number of caregivers’ beliefs and behaviors are
examined in this study. These beliefs and behaviors are described below.

Caregivers’ beliefs regarding the causes and prevention of youth violence are
examined and compared to the lessons pertaining to violence causation and prevention
presented to youths in the school conﬂict resolution and peer mediation program.
Congruence between what youths learn at home and in school programs regarding
violence causation and prevention has implications for whether youths will use the school
programs. For example, if youths are taught at home that violence is caused by genetic
factors and is not preventable, they may be less apt to believe in and use a program based
on the premise that violence is a learned behavior and individuals may be taught to
resolve conﬂicts nonviolently. Caregivers also may not encourage their children to
participate in a prevention program based on social learning theory if they believe that
violence cannot be prevented.

Caregivers’ behaviors pertaining to violence are also examined. The speciﬁc
behaviors of interest are based on research literature described earlier, and include
caregivers’ discipline strategies and their responses when they learn that their children
have been ﬁghting.

Caregivers’ discipline strategies are important because they provide an
opportunity for youths to model their caregivers’ behaviors in response to conﬂict.
Caregivers’ reactions when they learn that their children have been involved in a ﬁght are
important not only because youths may model their behavior, but also because their

reactions teach youths whether or not ﬁghting is acceptable. Youths are taught in school

21

violence prevention programs that violence is never an acceptable way to resolve
conﬂicts. If caregivers send youths messages that are incongruent with this philosophy
(e.g., by doing nothing when their children get into ﬁghts), youths may be less likely to
use the school programs.

W. The study examines the following research
questions:
1) What do caregivers think about the causes of youth violence and about how youth

violence should be addressed or prevented?

2) Which parenting and/or discipline strategies do caregivers utilize to inﬂuence their

children’s behavior, and how do they respond to their children ﬁghting?

3) Is there a relationship between caregivers' beliefs about violence and youth

participation in peer mediation programs? Speciﬁc hypotheses include:

A. Caregiver belief in youth violence causes and prevention strategies that are
congruent with those taught in school violence prevention programs will be positively
related to their children using peer mediation as mediators and/or to resolve a conﬂict of
their own (i.e., as a disputant).

a) Caregiver belief in social-environmental causes of youth violence and social

change prevention strategies will be positively related to their children

participating in peer mediation.

22
b) Caregiver belief in social learning theory explanations for youth violence will

be positively related to their children participating in peer mediation.

B. Caregiver belief in youth violence causes and prevention strategies that are
incongruent with those taught in school violence prevention programs will be negatively
related to their children using peer mediation as mediators and/or disputants.
a) Caregiver belief that deterrence-oriented strategies, such as harsher
punishments and stricter laws, will prevent youth violence will be negatively
related to their children participating in peer mediation.
b) Caregiver beliefs that individual-level factors cause youth violence and that
youth violence cannot be prevented will be negatively related to their children

participating in peer mediation.

4) Is there a relationship between caregivers’ behaviors regarding violence and youth

participation in peer mediation programs? Speciﬁc hypotheses include:

A. Caregiver use of parenting strategies that are congruent with school violence
prevention programs will be positively related to their children using peer mediation as
mediators and/or disputants.
a) Caregivers responding to their children ﬁghting by talking with them about
other ways to resolve conﬂicts will be positively related to their children

participating in peer mediation.

B. Caregiver use of parenting strategies that are incongruent with school violence
prevention programs will be negatively related to their children using peer mediation as
mediators and/or disputants.
a) Caregiver use of physical discipline strategies will be negatively related to their
children participating in peer mediation.
b) Caregivers engaging in verbally confrontative strategies will be negatively
related to their children participating in peer mediation.
c) Caregivers responding to their children ﬁghting by not interfering will be

negatively related to their children participating in peer mediation.

Chapter 2

METHOD

Wen

This study utilizes a between-subjects design and a one-time mail survey.
Caregivers of 300 students attending a middle school in a medium-sized Midwestern city
were solicited from a population of 1193 (51% female and 49% male) students to
participate in the survey. The targeted sample consisted of 50 caregivers whose children
were trained as peer mediators and 250 caregivers whose children did not receive peer
mediation training. Because only 50 children were trained as peer mediators at the time
of this study, all of their caregivers were selected for participation in the survey. The
caregivers whose children were not peer mediators were randomly selected from the
school's enrollment roster.

The middle school (grades 6 through 8) was chosen because it had recently
implemented a peer mediation program, training 50 children to be peer mediators. The
school principal and other individuals involved with the peer mediation program were
interested in receiving caregivers' feedback and perceptions of the program to make
decisions regarding continuation of the program.

The Total Design Method (Dillman, 1978) for mail surveys was used in this
research. Caregivers were mailed a copy of the survey along with a letter from the
principal explaining the study and asking for caregivers' cooperation (see Appendix A).

24

25
The issue of informed consent was addressed by the following statement which appeared
on the front of the survey: “You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by
completing and returning this survey. All responses will be kept strictly conﬁdential.”.

To identify which surveys belonged to caregivers of peer mediators, these surveys
were printed on different colored paper than the rest of the surveys. All caregivers
sampled were told that if their surveys were returned by May 27, 1995, they would be
eligible to be entered in a drawing for one of ﬁve $25 gift certiﬁcates for local
restaurants. Potential participants received a slip of bright orange paper, which was
perforated down the center, in their packet of survey materials. They were instructed to
make up an eight-digit number, write it on both halves of the paper, return one half with
their survey, and keep the other half if they wished to enter the drawing. Winners of the
gift certiﬁcates were determined by drawing the numbers out of a box. Participants were
told to call the project coordinator on June 19, 1995 from 12pm until 10pm or on June 20,
1995 from 8am until 12pm to see if they had won.

One week after the survey was mailed, all sampled caregivers were sent a
reminder card which both thanked the caregivers who had completed and returned the
survey and reminded those who did not to return the survey as soon as possible (see
Appendix B). Three weeks after the initial mailing, all sampled caregivers were sent
another copy of the survey accompanied by a letter telling them how important their input
was to this research and to the school (see Appendix C). To increase the number of
surveys returned, participants were told in the second letter that they would be eligible for

a second lottery if they returned their surveys by June 26, 1995. The surveys from the

26

ﬁrst and second mailings were kept separate by giving participants pale green slips of
paper to write their numbers on for the second lottery.

Of the 300 surveys mailed, 124 were returned after the ﬁrst mailing and 35 were
returned after the second mailing for a total of 159 (53%) surveys returned. One hundred
thirty-three of the 250 (53%) caregivers of non-mediators sampled returned the survey.
Twenty-six of the 50 (52%) caregivers of peer mediators sampled returned the survey;
caregivers of peer mediators totaled approximately 16% of all respondents.

E l . :1 . . E l S 1

Demographic characteristics regarding the sample are provided in Table 1. The
majority (87%, N=1 38) of respondents were female. Ages ranged from 28 years to 66
years, with a mean age of 39 years. Sixty-four percent (N=100) of the sample was
Caucasian, 25% (N=39) African-American, 4% (N=6) Latina\Chicana,

3% (N=4) Asian, 2% (N=3) Native American, and 3% =4) multi-racial. Eleven
percent (N=18) of respondents were single, 62% (N=98) were married, 22% (N=35) were
divorced, 3% (N=4) were separated, and 2% (N=3) were widowed.

Respondents reported having from 1 to 10 children, with a mean of 2.7 children.
Respondents had a mean of 1.2 children attending the middle school from which
caregivers were sampled. Over 47% (N=75) of the respondents answered the survey
questions about their daughters, 31% (N=50) answered the questions about their sons, 3%
(N=4) answered the questions about their grandsons, 0.6% (N =1) answered the questions
about his/her nephew, and 18% (N=29) did not give information about their relationship

to the children.

Table l 27

I! I'Cl |.|. [SIEIH I

 

Frequency (N=159) Percentage

W
African—American 39 25%
Caucasian 100 64%
Latina\Chicana 6 4%
Asian 4 3%
Native American 3 2%
Multiracial 4 3%
Did not answer 3 ---
Gender

Female 138 87%
Male 20 13%
Did not answer 1 ---
B I |° I . I I 'l 1

mm

Daughter 75 47%
Son 50 39%
Grandson 4 3%
Nephew 1 1%
Did not answer 29 «-
Numhemﬂsidut

WW

one 133 84%
two 22 14%
three 3 2%
four 1 1%

 

28

Table 1 (continued)

I! I'Cl 'l' [SIIBIH I

 

Frequency (N=159) Percentage
Mam
Single, never married 18 1 1%
Married 98 62%
Divorced 35 22%
Separated 4 3%
Widowed 3 2%
Did not answer 1 ---
Amman)

=39

29
mantras

The survey instrument is attached in Appendix D. The survey consists of
demographic information, questions pertaining to information school administrators
desired, and questions relevant to the research goals of this study. The areas relevant to
this study are: 1) caregivers’ beliefs regarding the causes of youth violence and how they
think youth violence should be prevented; 2) caregivers’ behaviors pertaining to youth
violence, including modeling violence or poor conﬂict resolution skills (i.e., during
discipline encounters) and giving youths messages regarding whether ﬁghting is
acceptable (i.e., caregivers’ reactions when they learn that their children have been
ﬁghting); 3) youths utilization of the school violence prevention program. The items
and/or scales designed to measure these constructs are described below.

W

The Attitudes Toward Youth Violence Survey, designed to measure caregivers’
beliefs pertaining to youth violence, is found on the ﬁrst page of the caregiver survey
instrument (see Appendix D). The survey contains 31 items and is intended to measure
the following beliefs or attitudes regarding youth violence causation and prevention: 1)
social-environmental explanations for the causes of youth violence, 2) social change
prevention strategies, 3) individual-level explanations for the causes of youth violence. 4)
youth violence prevention strategies that correspond to individual-level explanations (i.e.,
prevention via deterrence strategies, or a belief that youth violence cannot be prevented).

The Attitudes Toward Youth Violence Survey is very loosely based on the three-

30

part Attitudes Toward Crime Scales (ACS)(Ortet-Fabregat & Perez. 1992). The AC S is a
70-item attitudinal survey that utilizes a Likert-type scale response format. The ACS is
comprised of the following three independent scales: an attitudes towards the causes of
crime scale, an attitudes towards the prevention of crime scale, and an attitudes towards
the treatment of crime scale. The attitudes towards the causes of crime scale has two
factors, hereditary and individual causes (genetics, fate, mental illness, and lack of strict
rules of social control) and social and environmental causes (social disadvantage factors
that would cause individuals to commit crimes, such as economic, learning, or
educational factors). The attitudes toward the prevention of crime scale reﬂects two
dimensions of prevention: orientation toward coercive prevention (threat of punishment
acting to deter criminal behavior) and social intervention prevention (crime prevention
through the intervention of social agents, youth institutions, and community centers
directed at helping young people at high risk, together with the removal of poverty and
other social disadvantages attributable to lack of economic resources). The attitudes
toward the treatment of crime scale is comprised of one factor, assistance vs. punishment.
mmmmmmmﬁmmmmmam A number 0f
modiﬁcations were made to the ACS before it was used in this study. The instrument
was shortened to make it more conducive to being administered as a mail survey. The
items that loaded highest on the violence causation and prevention scales in a factor
analysis computed by Ortet-Fabregat and Perez (1992) were selected so that the ACS was
reduced from 70 to 25 items. The ACS factor loadings are listed in Appendix E. Eight

items about families and peer groups were added to the social-environmental

31

explanations of the causes of youth violence and the social change prevention strategies
sections of the survey. In addition, all of the items were reworded to refer to youth
violence speciﬁcally rather than both violent and nonviolent crimes committed by
individuals of all ages. Responses to the items were kept as a Likert-type format, with
1=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3=neutral, 4=disagree, 5=strongly disagree. This modiﬁed
version of the ACS comprised the Attitudes Toward Youth Violence Survey.

After the Attitudes Toward Youth Violence Survey was administered in this
study, principal components analysis was used to create scales. A description of the
procedures used to develop the Attitudes Toward Youth Violence Scales, as well as a
description of the scales themselves, is found below.

Soalgﬂogoloomeng Using caregivers’ responses to the Attitudes Toward Youth
Violence Survey, scales intended to measure beliefs pertaining to youth violence were
developed.

To develop these scales, exploratory factor analyses were performed in SPSS
using the items from the Attitudes Toward Youth Violence Survey. Principal
components analysis with varimax rotation and was used to identify factors with
eigenvalues greater than 1 (see Table 2, Appendix F). Listwise deletion was used for
missing data, which resulted in 28 (of 159) cases being dropped from the analysis. This
procedure yielded eleven factors, many either containing only one or two items or items
that loaded on more than one factor (i.e., the items were complex). The pattern of
correlations for the variables in the 2-item factors was examined to determine whether

these factors might be reliable. In each instance, the two items were not highly correlated

32
with each other (i.e., r<.70) and they were correlated with other variables. As a result of
this analysis, eight items which correlated with several factors were removed and a
second principal components analysis was computed. Seven factors were extracted, again
with several 1 and 2-item factors. Five items that did not appear to ﬁt with the other
items were dropped.

Examination of the scree plot of eigenvalues and factors indicated the presence of
a four or ﬁve-factor solution. Principal components analyses specifying four and ﬁve-
factor solutions were computed. The ﬁve factor solution contained one two-item factor.
The two-item factor was deemed unreliable, as the two items were not highly correlated
with each other and were correlated with other items. As such, the four-factor solution
was chosen. Based on Comrey and Lee’s (1992) guidelines, only variables with loadings
of .45 (20% overlapping variance) and above were chosen for inclusion in interpretation
of each factor.2 Each of the variables in the four-factor solution met this criteria.

The four factors are named “social-environmental explanations for the causes of
youth violence/social change prevention strategies”, “deterrence-focused prevention
strategies”, “social learning theory explanations for the causes of youth violence” and
“individual-level explanations for the causes of youth violence/youth violence cannot be
prevented”. These dimensions are identical to the crime causation and prevention scales
of the ACS (although the items within each scale differ). Tables 3,4,5, and 6 in Appendix

F present detailed information about each factor.

 

2 According to Comrey and Lee (1992), variables with loadings of .45 are considered a fair
measure of a factor.

33

A reliability analysis was conducted on these four groups of items and the alpha.
alpha if item deleted, and item-total correlation statistics were examined. Based on these
statistics, items were either retained with their original group or deleted from the scale.

Factor 1, containing six items, represents social-environmental explanations for
how youth violence is caused and how it should be prevented. As shown in Table 7 (see
Appendix F), the scale coefﬁcient alpha is .77, and the item-total correlations range from
.61 to .40. The items comprising Factor 1, their item-total correlations, their alphas if
items deleted, and the scale coefﬁcient alpha, mean, standard deviation, kurtosis, and
skewness are contained in Table 7 (see Appendix F).

Factor 2 represents the view that harsher punishments and stricter laws will deter
youth from becoming violent. After examining the item-total and alpha if item deleted
statistics, the item “A good way to prevent violent acts by youth is to bring back the death
penalty” was removed. There are three items in the ﬁnal scale, the scale coefﬁcient alpha
is .77 and the item-total correlations range from .66 to .54. The items comprising Factor
2, their item—total correlations, their alphas if items deleted, and the scale coefﬁcient
alpha, mean, standard deviation, kurtosis, and skewness are shown in Table 8 (see
Appendix F).

Factor 3 consisting of 5 items, delineates social learning theory explanations for
the causes of youth violence. The scale coefﬁcient alpha is .58 and the item-total
correlations range from .40 to .24. The items comprising Factor 3, their item-total
correlations, their alphas if items deleted, and the scale reliability, mean, standard

deviation, kurtosis, and skewness are shown in Table 9 (see Appendix F).

34

Factor 4, containing 5 items, represents the idea that youth violence is caused by
stable, individual-level factors and, thus, cannot be prevented. The scale coefﬁcient alpha
is .57, and the item-total correlations range from .38 to .30. The items comprising Factor
4, their item-total correlations, their alphas if items deleted, and the scale reliability,
mean, standard deviation, kurtosis, and skewness are shown in Table 10 (see Appendix
F).

Four scale scores were calculated for each respondent by calculating the mean for
responses to items contained in Factor 1 (“social-environmental explanations for the
causes of youth violence/social change prevention strategies” scale), Factor 2
(“deterrence-focused prevention strategies” scale), Factor 3 (“social learning theory
explanations for the causes of youth violence” scale), and Factor 4 (“individual-level
explanations for the causes of youth violence/youth violence cannot be prevented” scale).

Wm Determination of
whether caregivers’ beliefs and the lessons presented in school violence prevention
programs are congruent is based on the content analysis of the school violence prevention
curriculum presented earlier. For the purposes of this study, beliefs that are congruent
with school programs include: (1) agreement with social learning theory explanations for
youth violence, (2) agreement with social-environmental explanations for the causes of
youth violence and social change prevention strategies.(3) disagreement with deterrence-
oriented strategies to prevent youth violence, and (4) disagreement with the idea that
individual-level factors cause violence and that violence is a stable trait that cannot be

prevented.

35

To ascertain whether caregivers’ beliefs are congruent with the lessons presented
in the school violence prevention program, caregivers’ mean scores on each of the four
attitude scales were calculated and examined for level of agreement or disagreement.
Mean scores of 2.7 and below were classiﬁed as agreement with the construct, while
scores of 3.3 and above were considered to be in disagreement (1=strongly agree,
2=agree, 3=neutral, 4=disagree, 5=strongly disagree). Scores above 2.7 and below 3.3
were categorized as neither agreement not disagreement.

It should be noted that these classiﬁcations were used only for descriptive
purposes and not for analyses. Rather, caregivers’ mean scores on the four attitude scales
were used in correlational analyses with the dependent variable in this study (described
later in this section) to determine the relationship between congruence in beliefs and
utilization of school violence prevention programs.

The caregiver behaviors measured in this study include discipline (i.e.,
disciplinary or parenting strategies caregivers utilize to inﬂuence their children’s
behaviors) and reactions to ﬁghting (i.e., caregivers’ reactions when they learn that their
children have been ﬁghting). The items and scales used to measure caregivers’
disciplinary strategies and reactions to ﬁghting are described below.

Disoioﬂno. A modiﬁed version of the Conﬂict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1976),
which measures intimate partner violence, was used to measure caregivers’ disciplinary
strategies (see page 7 of Appendix D). The items were adapted to address the topic of

caregivers disciplining their children. Some of the more sensitive items, such as beating,

36

kicking, and choking were removed and items such as "complimented your child for good
behavior" and "encouraged your child to behave well" were added to measure the extent
to which caregivers used positive strategies to inﬂuence their children’s behavior.

The modiﬁed conﬂict tactics items were scored using Never=l , A Little=2,
Sometimes=3, and A Lot=4. Principal components analysis with varimax rotation was
used to identify factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. Listwise deletion was used for
missing data, which resulted in 14 (of 159) cases being dropped from the analysis. Six
factors were extracted, three of which were two-item factors. Items in the two-item
factors were not highly correlated with each other (i.e., r<.70) and were correlated with
other variables. In addition, one item did not load on any factor. This item, “Hit your
child with your ﬁst” was removed.

Based on the scree plot of eigenvalues and factors, a principal components
analysis specifying a three-factor solution was computed (see Table 11, Appendix F).
Variables with loadings of .45 and above were chosen for inclusion in interpretation of
each factor. Only one variable “complimented your child for good behavior”, which
loaded on the second factor, did not meet this criteria. The three factors are named
“physical discipline strategies”, “positive parenting strategies”, and “verbally
confrontative strategies”. The three factors are described in Tables 12, 13, and 14 of
Appendix F.

A reliability analysis was computed on the items comprising each factor, and the
coefﬁcient alpha, alpha if item deleted, and item-total correlation statistics were

examined. Based on these statistics, items were either retained with their original group

37

or deleted from the scale.

Factor 1 consists of 5 items and contains items concerning caregiver use of
physical discipline. Examples of items include “hit your child out of anger” and “pushed,
grabbed, or shoved your child”. The scale alpha is .83, and the item-total correlations
range from .71 to .56. The items contained in Factor 1, their item-total correlations, their
alphas if items deleted, and the scale coefﬁcient alpha, mean, standard deviation, kurtosis,
and skewness are shown in Table 15 of Appendix F.

Factor 2 consists of 7 items pertaining to positive parenting strategies to inﬂuence
children’s behaviors. This factor includes items such as “complimented your child for
good behavior”, “encouraged your child to behave well”, and “talked with your child
about how s/he was misbehaving”. The scale alpha is .66 and the item-total correlations
range from .51 to .29. It should be noted that this scale is not used in analyses because a
relationship between caregiver use of positive, noncoercive parenting strategies and
utilization and effectiveness of violence prevention programs for youths was not
hypothesized in this study.

Factor 3 reﬂects nonphysical yet verbally confrontative tactics. The item “argued
with your child, but did not yell” was removed from the scale for conceptual reasons.
The remaining 3 items in this factor are “yelled at your child”, “insulted your child”, and
“gotten so mad at your child that you stomped out of the room”. The scale alpha is .64,
and the item-total correlations range from .44 to .40. The items contained in Factor 3,
their item-total correlations, their alphas if items deleted, and the scale coefﬁcient alpha,

mean, standard deviation, kurtosis, and skewness are shown in Table 16 of Appendix F.

38

WW To gain insight into caregivers’ reactions when they learn

that their children have been ﬁghting, caregivers were given a list of four possible
strategies and asked if they would use each strategy at all, and if it was the strategy they
would be most likely to utilize if their child fought. In this study, caregivers’ responses
to two items are described and used in correlational analyses. The two items pertain to
whether they would be most likely to: I) talk with their child about other ways to handle
conﬂicts, or 2) not interfere in the situation. Both questions are coded as either yes or no.

WWW; Determining
congruence between caregivers’ behaviors and the lessons taught in school violence
prevention programs is guided by the content analysis of the school violence prevention
curriculum described earlier. In this study, caregivers reacting to their children ﬁghting
by talking with them about nonviolent strategies to resolve conﬂicts is considered
congruent with school programs. Behaviors that are incongruent with school programs
include: 1) using physical discipline, 2) participating in verbally confrontative strategies
such as name-calling and yelling, and 3) choosing to not interfere when children ﬁght.
The reactions to ﬁghting item “not interfere” was deemed incongruent with school
programs because caregiver inaction may be viewed by youths as an tacit message that
ﬁghting is acceptable.

To ascertain whether caregivers’ behaviors are congruent with the lessons
presented in the school violence prevention program, caregiver use of each of the two
types of discipline strategies is described using percentages. Caregivers’ reactions to

ﬁghting are also described by reporting the percentage of the sample who responded that

39

they would be most likely to “choose to talk about other ways to handle conﬂicts” or
“choose to not interfere”.

Again, these categories are used solely for descriptive purposes and not for
analyses. Caregivers’ mean scores on the discipline scales and responses to the reactions
to ﬁghting items are used in correlational analyses with the dependent measure (described
below) to determine the relationship between behavioral congruence and utilization of
school violence prevention programs.

Menu/enable
Il'l' . [SI 11?] E . E

Utilization of the school violence prevention program includes youths becoming
trained as peer mediators and/or youths using peer mediation to resolve a conﬂict with
another student. Information regarding whether or not the youth is a peer mediatior was
provided by the school. Caregivers were asked whether their children had participated in
peer mediation as a disputant (see item D6 in Appendix D).

For the purposes of analyses, a peer mediation participation variable was
computed that included both being trained as a peer mediator and being a peer mediation
disputant. The peer mediation participation variable was scaled as 0=no participation,
l=peer mediation disputant, 2=trained peer mediator, and 3=trained peer mediator and

peer mediation disputant.

Chapter 3

RESULTS

This chapter reports the ﬁndings of the current study. First, youths’ participation
in the peer mediation program, the dependent variable, is described. The next sections
describe procedures for data analysis and present the ﬁndings of the study in order of the
four research questions.

The sample consisted of 34 caregivers whose children participated in the school
violence prevention program in some capacity. Twenty-six caregivers (16% of the total
sample) of peer mediators participated in the study. Sixteen caregivers (10% of the total
sample) reported that their children had used the services of peer mediators to resolve a
conﬂict that they were having with another student. Eight youths (5%) were both peer
mediators and peer mediation disputants.

mm

Data were analyzed using SPSS for Windows. Correlational analyses were
computed with pairwise deletion to account for missing data. Directional hypotheses
allowed one-tailed tests of signiﬁcance.

Inference probabilities and odds ratios were calculated for all sample correlations
in this study. When a sample correlation is small in magnitude and is not statistically
signiﬁcant, inference probabilities and odds ratios may contribute further information
regarding the sign of the population correlation. The inference probability index (IP) is a

40

41

tool for assessing the probability that rho (the population value) is in the predicted
direction (Levine, 1997). When a positive relationship is predicted. the odds ratio is the
probability that rho is positive divided by the probability that rho is negative. When a
negative relationship is predicted, the odds ratio is the probability that rho is negative
divided by the probability that rho is positive (Levine, 1997). Guidelines for interpreting
inference probabilities and odds ratios are given in Table 17.

E. 1'

The results of the study are presented in order of the four research questions.

:2 h z'w'cc 111$JI- u' 2.4% L; I'o 'znot. 1.!
WM

Means, standard deviations, ranges, and sample sizes for each of the caregiver
attitude variables may be found in Table 18.

Sixty percent (N =95) of caregivers reported that they agree with social learning
theory explanations for youth violence (M=2.6, SD=.66, range=1.0-4.6, N=158). Many
caregivers (50%, N=79) also reported that they agree with social-environmental causes of
youth violence and social change prevention strategies (M=2.7, SD=.81, range=1.0-5.0,
N=158).

Seventy-nine percent (N=125) of caregivers agreed with use of deterrence-
oriented prevention strategies (M=2.1, SD=.91, range=1.0-5.0, N=157), but most (92%,
N=147) disagreed that youth violence is caused by individual-level factors and cannot be

prevented (M=4.2, SD=.53, range=2.4-5.0, N=158).

42

 

 

 

 

Table 17
o u no c O . tn. u o o l
Inference Reverse Odds Sign of
Probability Probability Ratio Population
(IP) (l-IP) Value
.98 .02 49 to 1 positive
.96 .04 24 to 1 positive
.93 .07 13 to 1 positive
.90 .10 9 to 1 positive
.75 .25 3 to 1 positive
.68 .34 2 to 1 positive
.67 .33 1.99 to l inconclusive
.50 .50 1 to 1 inconclusive
.33 .67 1.99 to l inconclusive
.34 .68 2 to 1 negative
.25 .75 3 to 1 negative
.10 .90 9 to 1 negative
.07 .93 13 to 1 negative
.04 .96 24 to 1 negative
.02 .98 49 to 1 negative

43

Table 18

0‘ con 0 -. '°V‘ at -0.‘ 0m-.. 1‘ ue o ut V0 1’ -40 new

Caregiver Attitudes Mean SD Range N

Social learning 2.6 .66 1.0 - 4.6 158
theory causes

 

Social-environmental 2.7 .81 1.0 - 5.0 158
causes and social
change strategies

Deterrence-oriented 2.1 .91 1.0 - 5.0 157
prevention strategies

Individual 4.2 .53 2.4 - 5.0 158
causes/youth

violence cannot be

prevented

 

' Attitude scale scores range from 1=strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree

44
W..I" Hﬂlzl' ’l-utr- In . nix;-
u' 11‘! I'qlvn :H_olw|u 1' {cunt t‘ 14'; '11'

Forty-four percent of the caregivers reported that they used some form of physical
discipline with their children. Many caregivers also reported engaging in verbally
confrontative strategies, such as insulting or calling their children names (37%, N=59),
stomping out of the room (54%, N=86), and yelling at their children (92%, N=146), when
trying to inﬂuence their behavior.

When asked how they would react if they learned that their children had been
ﬁghting, 87% (N =139) of caregivers of peer mediation participants responded that they
would be most likely to talk with their children about other strategies for resolving
conﬂicts, while 6% (N=11) reported that they would be most likely to not interfere.

Caregivers’ responses to each of the discipline items, their discipline scale scores,

and their responses to the reactions to ﬁghting items may be found in Table 19

To answer this question, Speannan correlations were computed between youths’
level of participation in peer mediation and each of the 4 Attitudes Toward Youth
Violence Scales. A summary of the relationships between caregivers’ beliefs about youth
violence and youth participation in peer mediation is found in Table 20. Each individual

hypothesis will be addressed below.

Table 19

 

 

 

U' can. a" ’3' 2-00. {‘1 H 0 'Il'
Physical Discipline Never A little Sometimes A lot
Spanking 56% 3 1% 12% 1%
N=89 N=50 N=19 N=1
Threaten to hit 59% 24% 15% 1%
N=94 N=38 N=24 N=2
Hit out of anger 79% 18% 3% _
N=126 N=28 N=5
Pushed, grabbed, or 71% 23% 6% _
shoved N=113 N=36 N=9
Physical
Discipline Standard
Scale Mean Deviation Range N
1.4 .51 1.0-4.0 159

 

' Discipline scale scores range from l=never to 4=often
Reactions to ﬁghting are single items scored 0=no, l=yes

46

Table 19 (continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l‘ [000' -.."V' ’9' oil. «.t‘t‘.au {‘eco t 3 l.‘
Verbally
Confrontative
Strategies Never A little Sometimes A lot
Yelled 7% 46% 40% 6%
N=l 1 N=73 N=63 N=10
Insulted, 63% 30% 6% 2%
called names N=100 N=47 N=9 N=3
Stomped out 45% 37% 16% 1%
of room N=72 N=59 =26 =1
Verbally
Confrontative Standard
Scale Mean Deviation Rang: N
1.9 .55 1.0-4.0 159
Most Likely to Choose
Reaction to ﬁghting This Strategy
Talk about other 87%
strategies for N=139
resolving conﬂicts
Not interfere 6%

N=ll

47
Table 20

.I'29I! no. ' o LUV: attJr 1-!QI'OeV9.

 

Congruent Probability Odds Sig
Attitudes and r Value is Ratio N (p<.05)
Behaviors Positive

Social learning .02 .60 1.50 158 ns
theory causes

Social- .05 .73 2.70* 158 ns
environ.

causes/ social

change

prevention

strategies

Choose to talk

with children

about ways to -.03 .36 .56 152 ns
resolve

conﬂicts other

than ﬁghting

Incongruent Probability Odds Sig
Attitudes and r Value is Ratio N (p<.05)
Behaviors Negative

Deterrence- -. 16 .98 49* 1 57 sig
oriented

prevention

strategies

Individual -.04 .69 2.23* 15 8 ns
causes/

violence

cannot be

prevented

Physical -.O3 .65 1.86 159 ns
Punishment

Verbally .01 .45 .82 159 ns
Confrontative

Choose to not
interfere if -.09 .86 6.14* 143 ns
children ﬁght

‘These values afﬁrm that rho is in the predicted direction.

48

A. Caregiver belief in youth violence causes and prevention strategies that are
congruent with those taught in school violence prevention programs will be
positively related to their children using peer mediation as mediators and/or
disputants.

a) Caregiver belief in social learning theory explanations for youth violence

will be positively related to their children participating in peer mediation.

Support was not found for a relationship between youth participation in peer
mediation and caregiver belief in social learning theory explanations for youth violence.
The correlation between caregiver belief in social learning theory explanations for youth
violence and youth participation in peer mediation is not statistically signiﬁcant, and the
odds ratio is inconclusive as to whether the population correlation is greater than 0.

b) Caregiver belief in social-environmental causes of youth violence and

social change prevention strategies will be positively related to their children

participating in peer mediation.

Although a statistically signiﬁcant relationship was not found between youth
participation in peer mediation and caregivers’ belief in social-environmental causes of
youth violence and social change prevention strategies, the odds ratio supports the
hypothesis that the population correlation is greater than 0. These results provide
tentative support for a positive association between caregiver belief in social-
environmental causes of youth violence and social change prevention strategies and youth

participation in peer mediation as a mediator and/or disputant.

49

B. Caregiver belief in youth violence causes and prevention strategies that are
incongruent with those taught in school violence prevention programs will be
negatively related to their children participating in peer mediation as mediators
and/or disputants.

a) Caregiver belief that deterrence-oriented strategies, such as harsher

punishments and stricter laws, will prevent youth violence will be negatively

related to their children participating in peer mediation.

A signiﬁcant relationship was found between caregivers’ beliefs about deterrence
strategies and youth participation in peer mediation (r=.18, p<.05, N=157). Youths
whose caregivers believed that tougher punishments will deter youths from using

violence were less likely to participate in peer mediation as a mediator and/or disputant.

b) Caregiver beliefs that individual-level factors cause youth violence and
that youth violence cannot be prevented will be negatively related to their
children participating in peer mediation.

The odds ratio shows a negative relationship between caregiver beliefs in stable,
individual-level causes of youth violence and the idea that youth violence cannot be
prevented and youth participation in peer mediation as a mediator and/or disputant.
Youths whose caregivers espoused these beliefs were less likely to participate in peer
mediation. The correlation coefﬁcient is negatively signed, but not statistically

signiﬁcant.

50

To address this question, Spearman correlations were computed between level of
youth participation in peer mediation and a) each of the caregiver discipline scales, and b)

the 2 reactions to ﬁghting items.

A. Caregiver use of parenting strategies that are congruent with school violence
prevention programs will be positively related to their children using peer
mediation as mediators and/or disputants.
a) Caregivers responding to their children ﬁghting by talking with them
about other ways to resolve conflicts will be positively related to their
children participating in peer mediation.
A signiﬁcant relationship was not found between youth participation in peer
mediation and caregivers’ reports that they would talk about other ways to handle
conﬂicts if their children fought. As shown in Table 20, the odds ratio is inconclusive as

to whether the population value is greater than 0.

B. Caregiver use of parenting strategies that are incongruent with school violence
prevention programs will be negatively related to their children using peer
mediation as mediators and/or disputants.

a) Caregiver use of physical discipline strategies will be negatively related to

their children participating in peer mediation.

51

A signiﬁcant relationship was not found between youth participation in peer
mediation and caregivers utilizing physical discipline. The odds ratio is also inconclusive

as to whether the population value is less than 0 (see Table 20).

b) Caregivers engaging in verbally confrontative strategies will be negatively

related to their children participating in peer mediation.

A signiﬁcant relationship was not found between youth participation in peer
mediation and caregivers utilizing verbally confrontative strategies. The odds ratio is

also inconclusive as to whether the population value is less than 0 (see Table 20).

c) Caregivers responding to their children ﬁghting by not interfering will be

negatively related to their children participating in peer mediation.

Support was found for a negative relationship between caregivers choosing to not
interfere when their children ﬁght and youth participation in peer mediation. The odds
ratio supports the hypothesis that the population correlation is less than 0, although this

ﬁnding is not statistically signiﬁcant.

Chapter 4

DISCUSSION

This study provides information about the congruence of the goals and
philosophies underlying school peer mediation programs with caregivers’ beliefs and
behaviors related to violence, and the relationship of congruence between these two
domains (i.e., school and family) and youths’ participation in peer mediation. The results
support an ecological framework (e.g., Kelly, 1966; Bronfenbrenner, 1979) for
understanding factors which inﬂuence children’s participation in interventions, as well as
previous research which supports caregivers’ importance in inﬂuencing their children’s
attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Brook et al., 1990; Hansen et al., 1987; Ahmed et al., 1984;
Kandel et al., 1978). This study found that congruence of caregivers’ beliefs regarding
how youth violence is caused and how it should be prevented with the goals and
philosophies of peer mediation programs is related to youths’ level of participation in the
programs. The speciﬁc results, as well as the implications of the ﬁndings for how school
violence prevention programs are designed and implemented, are discussed below.

nun. -. .__ -.. ’ :- ' .u... :-.,v. w“. .n u-g‘t'... ' .9 ,.

The results of this study indicate that caregivers’ beliefs regarding the causes of
youth violence and how it should be prevented are, for the most part, consistent with the
lessons taught in and assumptions underlying school peer mediation programs. Most

(60%) caregivers believe that youth violence is caused by youths learning from other

52

53

people that violence is an acceptable solution to problems, and many caregivers (50%)
believe that youth violence stems from problems in youths’ environments (e.g., high
unemployment and poverty). Few caregivers (1%) believe that violence is caused by
factors inherent in the youths themselves (e.g., genetics).

While caregivers’ beliefs regarding the causes of youth violence are mostly
congruent with those underlying peer mediation programs, the congruence of their views
regarding the strategies that should be used to prevent youth violence is less clear. Few
caregivers (3%) believe that youth violence is not preventable. Interestingly however,
although they tend to view social learning and social-environmental factors as causing
youth violence, they espouse both social change strategies (e.g., alternative schools and
working to eradicate poverty) and deterrence strategies (e. g., imposing harsh
punishments) to prevent youth violence.

Given our current focus as a nation on using deterrence-oriented strategies, the
ﬁnding that caregivers support deterrence is expected. The number of dollars we spend
on deterrence (i.e., prisons) far outnumbers the dollars we spend on social change
prevention strategies (Gottfredson, 1997). As such, it seems surprising that the caregivers
in this sample were so supportive of social change prevention strategies. Researchers
have examined the general public’s attitudes toward juvenile offenders and found them to
be quite punitive (e.g., Baron, 1996). It is possible that respondents felt it was socially
desirable to support social change prevention strategies because they knew that the survey
was connected to the school and the peer mediation program. Alternatively, the beliefs

reported in this sample may not reﬂect the beliefs of the population of all caregivers

54

because of a bias in sampling.

However, it is also conceivable that caregivers do agree with both types of
strategies. Previous research has not yet examined caregivers’ beliefs toward youth
violence. Research with other populations, though, has yielded results similar to those
found in this study. For example, a study with correctional ofﬁcers found their reported
beliefs to be similar to those of the caregivers in this study. The correctional ofﬁcers
stated that they believed that longer and harsher sentences were necessary, yet they also
cited lack of role models as a main cause of crime and reported believing that social and
educational institutions were important in crime prevention (Arthur, 1994).

As with attitudes, the consistency of caregivers’ behaviors with school peer
mediation programs appears to be mixed. Most caregivers (87%) report talking with their
children about other strategies to resolve conﬂicts when they ﬁght, and very few
caregivers (6%) report choosing to not interfere in the situation.

However, many caregivers report engaging in verbally confrontative strategies
such as insulting or calling their children names (3 7%) and yelling at their children
(92%). In addition, many (44%) caregivers report using some sort of physical discipline.
These ﬁndings are consistent with other research on physical punishment. Studies which
examine attitudes toward using physical punishment ﬁnd that most Americans believe
that physical punishment is necessary under some circmnstances (Straus, 1991). Studies
focusing on adolescents’ experiences of physical punishment have reported a 46-50%

prevalence rate (e.g., Bachman, 1967; Straus, 1971; Straus & Donnelly, 1993)..

55

10 3‘1-VII an. 1‘ 'c-rn’

r
. .
u
2.
'1
<
-1
.I

The results provide support for the hypothesis that congruence between
caregivers’ beliefs and behaviors and the goals and philosophies of peer mediation
programs is related to youths’ involvement in the programs. This study found that youths
whose caregivers believe more strongly that deterrence-oriented strategies are effective
means of preventing youth violence are less likely to participate in school peer mediation
programs than youths whose caregivers believe less strongly in the value of deterrence.
This suggests that caregivers who afﬁrm the value of punishment as a deterrent may not
encourage their children to be involved in a program designed to offer an alternative to
punishment.

The ﬁnding that caregivers’ beliefs in the importance of deterrence is related to
their children’s lack of participation in peer mediation is not surprising. This ﬁnding is
consistent with the tenor of the national debate on violence prevention. In our current
discourse about violence, social change and deterrence-oriented prevention strategies are
often presented as dichotomous: either ‘soft’ or ‘tough’ solutions to the problem of
violence. This dichotomy has been perpetuated as a tactic by some legislators to
inﬂuence voters’ perceptions of their opponents. Politicians who pursue prevention
strategies that focus on the social-environmental and social learning aspects of the causes
of violence are labeled ‘soft’ on crime and violence (e. g., US. Congress Representative
Riggs), while those who advocate for deterrence-oriented strategies such as requiring

longer sentences and building more prisons are viewed as ‘tough’ on violence (e.g.,

56
Representative McCollum and Senator Hatch). To the extent that peer mediation
programs are viewed as the opposite of punishment, and thus ‘soft’ on violence, it is not
surprising that many caregivers might not endorse them.

Other trends in the data also lend support for the hypothesis that congruence of
caregivers’ beliefs with peer mediation programs is related to their children’s
involvement in the programs. These trends suggest that youths whose caregivers believe
in the philosophy and goals of peer mediation are more likely to participate in the
programs. Caregiver belief that violence is caused by problems in youths’ environments
and that social change strategies should be used to prevent youth violence is related to
their children’s level of participation in peer mediation. Conversely, trends in the data
suggest that youths whose caregivers’ beliefs contradict the assumptions underlying peer
mediation are less likely to be involved in the programs. Caregiver belief that youth
violence is due to causes inherent to youths and that youth violence is not preventable is
related to their children being less likely to participate in peer mediation. These ﬁndings
also suggest that caregivers may encourage their children to participate in peer mediation
if they believe in its philosophy and goals.

In terms of behavior, tentative support was found for a relationship between
caregivers’ reports that they believe that they should take action when their children ﬁght
and youth participation in peer mediation. Youths whose caregivers report that they
would not interfere if their children fought are less likely to be involved in peer
mediation. One possible explanation for this ﬁnding is that when they choose to not

respond to their children ﬁghting, caregivers send their children a tacit message that

57
ﬁghting is an acceptable method of solving problems, thus peer mediation is unnecessary.
Another possibility is that caregivers who report that they would be most likely to not
interfere when their children ﬁght do not explicitly discuss both the importance of not
ﬁghting and the need to learn nonviolent conﬂict resolution strategies with their children.

These results support an ecological framework (e. g., Kelly, 1966; Bronfenbrenner,
1986) for understanding how the interrelatedness of settings may affect children’s
participation in interventions. It appears that mesosystem-level factors may inﬂuence
whether interventions reach their intended target populations. The ﬁndings of this study
are consistent with research which has demonstrated the need for violence prevention
programs to attend to multiple domains in children’s lives (see Webster, 1993), as well as
research supporting caregivers’ roles in impacting their children’s attitudes and behaviors
(e.g., Brook et al., 1990).

The inﬂuence of the beliefs and behaviors examined in this study on youth
participation in peer mediation may be due to caregivers explicitly encouraging their
children to participate if the program coincides with their beliefs, or discouraging their
children’s participation if it does not. Alternatively, youths’ participation may be subtly
impacted either by messages from their caregivers that ﬁghting is acceptable, thus the
program is unnecessary, or vice versa. Of course, it should be noted that this study’s
cross-sectional design makes it impossible to discern whether caregivers’ beliefs and
behaviors impact their children’s involvement in peer mediation, or whether youths’
involvement inﬂuences their caregivers’ beliefs and behaviors. In other words, we can

conclude only that congruence between caregivers’ beliefs and behaviors and peer

58

mediation goals and philosophies is related to youth participation in the programs, not
whether congruence leads to participation. It is equally possible that caregivers’ beliefs
and behaviors regarding youth violence change as a result of their children’s participation
in peer mediation. Only longitudinal exploration of these relationships can answer that
question.

I . . . E l S I

In addition to the limitations imposed by this study’s cross-sectional design, there
are other limitations concerning the representativeness of the sample as well as
methodological problems which may have hindered accurate measurement of the
independent variables.

Although this study represents an important ﬁrst step in understanding caregivers’
beliefs and behaviors regarding youth violence and their relationship with youth
participation in school violence prevention programs, there are several problems which
direct us to be cautious in generalizing the study’s ﬁndings to the population of all
caregivers. One potential problem for generalizability concerns the use of a convenience
sample of caregivers at one middle school, and the fact that the sample does not
accurately represent the proportion of caregivers whose children participate in peer
mediation. Caregivers of peer mediation participants were purposely oversampled in this
study because participants were a small percentage of the school population at the time
the survey was administered. This oversampling may have led to the beliefs and
behaviors of the overall sample of caregivers in this study appearing more congruent with

the goals and philosophies of school programs than would the beliefs and behaviors of

59

the population of all caregivers.

The mail survey methodology may also limit generalizability of ﬁndings from this
sample to the population of all caregivers. It is possible that caregivers who responded to
the survey differ from those who did not in terms of reading ability. beliefs about the
importance of violence prevention programs, belief in the utility of research, involvement
in their children’s educational experience, or in their inclination toward “volunteerism”.
However, the steps outlined for administering mail surveys in the Dillman Total Design
Method (Dillman, 1978) were followed as closely as possible to address this potential
threat to generalizability. The response rate for this study was 53%, which is comparable
to response rates achieved in other studies using empirically tested methods to increase
response rates (e.g., Dillman, 1978; F aria, 1990) and substantially higher than the typical
rates achieved in studies in which no attempts are made to improve response rates (e. g.,
Robertson and Bellenger, 1978; Hinkle and King, 1978; Kalafatis, 1996).

The fact that the majority of respondents (87%) were mothers may pose another
problem for generalizing the beliefs and behaviors of this sample to the population of all
caregivers. While the information gathered by this research does not represent all of the
beliefs and behaviors that are modeled for and taught to youths in their homes (e. g., by
their male caregivers), this problem is consistent with the majority of research conducted
on children’s developmental processes which focuses on their relationships with their
mothers (Phares, 1992).

In addition, although the beliefs that social-environmental rather than individual-

level factors cause youth violence, that violence is preventable, and that social change

60

strategies may be employed to prevent violence are key concepts of the philosophy
underlying peer mediation, these beliefs were not strongly related to youth participation
in the programs. As noted earlier, with the exception of their beliefs about deterrence. the
beliefs that caregivers reported about youth violence were unexpectedly positive. Given
previous research on the general public’s beliefs about juvenile justice as well as our
nation’s current political climate, we would not expect caregivers to endorse social
change prevention strategies as strongly as they did. The extent to which these ﬁndings
are due to social desirability, a positive response bias, or a sampling bias may have
obscured any relationships between these beliefs and youth participation that might exist.

Finally, there were also problems concerning the reliability and validity of the
behavior measures. The low level of reliability for the discipline scales and the single-
item measurement of caregivers’ reactions to ﬁghting may have resulted in attenuation of
the relationships between caregivers’ behaviors and youth participation in peer mediation.
It is also possible that the aspects of caregiver behavioral congruence that are related to
youth participation in peer mediation were not captured in this study. For example, the
strategies caregivers use to resolve conﬂicts with other adults may be more salient to
youth participation in school violence prevention programs than their use of discipline
strategies and their reactions to their children ﬁghting.

The results of this study suggest that school administrators can increase youth
participation in school violence prevention programs by considering youths’ experiences

in domains outside of school. However, most school-based violence prevention programs

61

are implemented without any complementary effort to include other settings in youths’
lives (Webster, 1993). Although peer mediation programs are becoming increasingly
popular because they are relatively inexpensive to implement, the ﬁndings from this
study suggest that unless caregivers’ beliefs about the programs are taken into
consideration, the programs may not reach a large number of youths who may need them
(Webster, 1993).

It appears that increased congruence between caregivers’ beliefs regarding
violence and the goals and philosophies of school peer mediation programs will enhance
youths’ participation in the programs. This study found that one area in which
caregivers’ beliefs and school programs’ goals and philosophies are inconsistent concerns
whether deterrence-oriented strategies should be used to prevent youth violence. This
ﬁnding raises the issue of how to address the inconsistency. School administrators could
try to either change the programs or change caregivers’ beliefs to make the two more
congruent. However, there are problems associated with both of these approaches.

School administrators could change the program so that it is more consistent with
caregivers’ attitudes. For example, the program could be implemented in conjunction
with punishment for all violent offenses, so that peer mediation is always implemented
within an overall strategy of deterring youth from using violence. This strategy would
have the beneﬁt of addressing the broader context in which youths function, making
school violence prevention programs more consistent with caregivers’ beliefs as well as
the beliefs promoted in other settings which impact youths, such as the media. There are

potential problems associated with this approach, however. It is not known how

62

changing the philosophy and goals of the program would change its effectiveness. The
current focus of the program is to teach youths nonviolent conﬂicts resolution strategies,
thereby increasing their perceptions of self-efﬁcacy for resolving conﬂicts without
ﬁghting. According to social cognitive theory, if youths feel more competent in resolving
conﬂicts nonviolently, they are more likely to do so. Incorporating peer mediation into
an approach designed to frighten youths into not using violence may inﬂuence whether
they develop feelings of competence.

In addition, peer mediation is currently offered as an alternative to punishment for
less serious violent offenses. Implementing the program in conjunction with punishment
would most likely impact youths’ motivations for participating. It is likely that the
number of students using peer mediation would decrease because students would know
that they would be punished whether or not they expended the effort to resolve the
conﬂict peacefully. If school administrators made participation in peer mediation
mandatory, students might resent being forced to participate and, as a result, may be less
cooperative during the mediation and less likely to comply with the terms of the
agreement drafted during the mediation session.

School administrators could also try to change caregivers’ beliefs to make them
more consistent with the goals and philosophies of peer mediation programs. However,
changing caregivers’ beliefs seems unlikely to be successful. As stated earlier,
caregivers’ beliefs in deterrence are supported by our larger society, thus a change in this
belief would not be supported or reinforced in other settings. Successfully changing

caregivers’ beliefs would require changing beliefs within caregivers’ circles of friends,

63

workplaces, places of worship, communities, and other settings in which they participate.
In addition, any intervention to change caregivers’ beliefs would also have to change how
violence prevention is presented in the media, especially during elections.

Alternatively, school administrators could try to alter caregivers’ perceptions of
peer mediation. Although caregivers’ beliefs in using both social change and deterrence
strategies to prevent violence are not completely congruent with peer mediation
programs, they are consistent with most overall school district policies for responding to
violence. While school violence prevention programs, such as peer mediation, are
becoming increasingly popular, school administrators are simultaneously taking steps to
‘get tough’ on violence. In the school in which this study was conducted, peer mediation
is offered as an alternative to punishment for less serious violent offenses, such as yelling
and pushing, in the hope that students will learn nonviolent conﬂict resolution strategies
and avoid future and more serious violence. For more serious violent offenses, such as a
ﬁst ﬁght or possession of a weapon, however, suspension or expulsion from school is
mandatory. The combination of using peer mediation to respond to less serious violent
offenses while simultaneously deterring more serious offenses by threatening harsh
punishment seems more consistent with caregivers’ beliefs regarding how youth violence
should be prevented. Thus, one possible strategy for increasing youth participation in
peer mediation is to change caregivers’ perceptions of the congruence of peer mediation
programs with their beliefs by informing them of the role peer mediation plays in overall
district policy concerning violent offenses. This could easily be accomplished by

including a statement in the school policy handbook, sending a letter home to caregivers,

64
and by addressing the issue during parent open-house nights.
Eutunedirestions

Future research should follow up on understanding the potential role of
congruence in impacting the effectiveness of peer mediation and whether youths
participate in the programs. In particular, researchers should explore the mechanisms by
which congruence might inﬂuence whether youths participate in school violence
prevention programs (i.e., whether caregivers actively encourage or discourage their
children’s participation or whether program use is impacted by youths modeling their
caregivers’ attitudes and behaviors).

Future research should also build on this study by addressing its weaknesses.
Information should be obtained from multiple sources, such as all caregivers in the
family, the school, and the youths themselves. In addition, improvements could be made
on this study by using more reliable measures and asking additional questions. For
example, researchers could further explore caregivers’ beliefs about deterrence and social
change prevention strategies by asking respondents to choose which strategies they
support the most and including open-ended questions concerning why they believe those
strategies would be the most effective.

Another important question to be explored is whether caregivers’ beliefs and
behaviors affect youth participation in school violence prevention programs or youth
participation in the programs impacts their caregivers’ beliefs and behaviors. Future
research should address this question by utilizing longitudinal research designs to further

examine the relationship between congruence of caregivers’ beliefs and behaviors with

65

those taught in school violence prevention programs and youth participation in the
programs.

Finally, it is crucial that future studies focus on examining the effectiveness of
peer mediation programs in preventing youth violence. If peer mediation is found to be a
useful approach, researchers should then explore which aspects of the programs are
necessary for effectively preventing violence. The ﬁndings would direct school
administrators as to how they can increase congruence between caregiver and program
values without undermining program effectiveness. This line of research should also
explore the relationship between congruence of caregiver and program values and the
effectiveness of peer mediation for youths who choose to participate.
Cmelusism

This study represents a ﬁrst step in examining the relationship of congruence
between the philosophies and goals of school violence prevention programs and
caregivers’ beliefs and behaviors and youths’ participation in the programs. The results
of this study suggest that increased congruence between these two domains may augment
youths’ participation in the programs. One area in which caregivers’ beliefs were found
to differ from peer mediation programs’ philosophies and goals concerns whether
deterrence—oriented strategies should be used to prevent youth violence. The ﬁndings of
this study support an ecological framework for understanding how interrelatedness of
settings inﬂuences youths’ participation in interventions. The results also have practical
implications for how school violence prevention programs are designed and

implemented.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

First Letter to Caregivers

May 23, 1995
Dear XXX Parent,

Violence has become a critical problem in the United States. More and more we are hearing
about violence touching the schools and its harmful effects on our children. In response to this
alarming problem, there has been an increase in the efforts of schools, such as XXX, to start
violence prevention programs. However, no one really knows what parents think about how
violence is caused, how to prevent violence, and how useful these school programs are in
preventing violence. XXX is working with Michigan State University to get parents' ideas and to
ﬁnd out what parents think.

You are one of a small number of parents whose opinion is being asked. Your name was drawn
from a lottery of all XXX parents. Your opinion is important. It is vital to this project that each
survey be completed and returned. You may be assured of complete privacy in your answers.
Your name will never be linked to the survey.

Parents whose surveys are received by June 19, 1995 will be eligible to win one of ﬁve $25
gift certiﬁcates for local restaurants. Enclosed in this packet is an orange piece of paper. If
you would like to be entered in the restaurant lottery, please make up an 8-digit number and
write it on both halves of the paper. Cut the paper in half, send one half back in the postage paid
envelope with your survey and keep the other half in a safe place. The restaurant lottery will
be held on June 19, 1995. Please call Jennifer Juras at xxx-xxxx from noon until 10pm on June
19 or from 8am until noon on June 20 to see if your number has won. You will be asked to
present your number when you come to the XXX ofﬁce to claim your prize.

The results of this project will be made available to all XXX faculty and parents. You may
receive a copy of the results by sending a written request to the address printed on your survey.
Please do not put this information on the survey itself.

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Please write or call. The telephone
number is (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Ibakm for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Juras
Project Coordinator

66

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

Reminder Postcard to Caregivers

Dear XXX Parent,

Last week a survey was sent to your home in which you were asked about your opinions
about school programs to prevent violence. Your name was randomly picked from a
lottery of all XXX parents.

If you have already completed and returned the survey, thankxoummuoh. If not,
please do so as soon as possible. Because only a small number of XXX parents’ opinions
were asked in this project, it is very important that your opinion be included. Also, if the
orange slip of paper that was in your survey packet is received by June 19, you will be
entered in a lottery for a chance for a $25 gift certiﬁcate for local restaurants. If you have
any questions or if you did not receive your survey, please call me at m-m-xm.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Juras
Project Coordinator

67

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

Second Letter to Caregivers

June 9, 1995

Dear XXX Parent,

About two weeks ago a survey about youth violence was sent to you. XXX Middle School is
working with Michigan State University on this survey because we believe that parents'
opinions about violence prevention are very important.

While the response has been encouraging, we still have not received a number of surveys.
Because this is an anonymous survey, we do not know which parents have or have not completed
and sent in their surveys. If you have sent in your survey, thaklog very much. If you have not,
please know that your input is important. Because only a small number of parents were randomly
selected for the survey, we need to hear from as many parents as possible in order to make the
project a success. Another copy of the survey has been enclosed in case your survey did not reach
you or has been misplaced.

If you have not yet entered the restaurant lottery you may still do so. The drawing for the
original mailing is June 19, 1995. The drawing for this second mailing is June 26, 1995.
Parents whose surveys are received by June 26, 1995 will be eligible to win a $25 gift
certiﬁcate for their favorite restaurant. Enclosed in this packet is a small slip of paper. If you
would like to be entered in the restaurant lottery and have not already done so, please make up an
8-digit number and write it on both halves of the paper. Cut the paper in half, send one half back
in the postage paid envelope with your survey and keep the other half in a safe place. To see if
you have won the lottery for this second mailing, please call Jennifer Juras at xxx-xxxx from noon
until 10pm on June 26 or from 8am until noon on June 27.

The results of this project will be made available to all XXX faculty and parents. You may receive
a copy of the results by sending a written request to the address printed on your survey. Please do
not put this information on the survey itself.

If you have any questions, please write or call. The address is printed on your survey. The
telephone number is (517) xxx-xxxx. Ihaklou for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Jennifer J uras
Project Coordinator

68

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D

Caregiver Survey

XXX Middle School Parent Survey

 

 

 

 

 

 

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and
returning this survey. All responses will be kept strictly conﬁdential.

If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Jennifer Juras
at xxx-xxx-xxxx.

69

70

An important part ol this proiect is 'o ‘ino out what people think about youth violence l ages lO-lel in

American soc:ety The first set of questions are ab0ut what you thinlt are the causes of fighting
and Other sets of violence by reung people For each of the following statements. please indicate

by Circling the letters whether mu Strongly Agree (SA). Agree lAl. Disagree (D). or Strongly

Disagree (SD) with the statement

 

SA a Strongly Agree
A a Agree

D = Disagree

SD = Strongly Disagree

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Toogher punishment meaSures are necessary for making youth think before SA A 0 SD
behavrng Violently

To prevent youth violence. we must focus on families SA SD
A good way to prevent violent acrs by youth is to bring back the death penalty SA A D SD
Strict and hard law enforcement is a good way of preventing youth violence SA A D SD
Youth behave violently because they hang out with the wrong crowd SA A D SD
It is sometimes necessary for youth to use violence to get what they want SA A D SD
Youth violence is due to living in bad neighborhoods SA A D SD
Youth violence is caused by Our violent culture SA A D SD
Alternative schools will help prevent youth violence SA A D SD
Violence is an effective way of resolving conflicts for youth SA A D so
An effective way of preventing youth violence would be for everyone to have SA A D SD
an opportunity to get a good education

Mental illness is an important cause of youth violence SA D SD
The inﬂuence of other youth can cause violent behavior SA A D SD
It is necessary to harden methods of punishment in order to prevent youth SA A D SD
violence

The inﬂuence of other youth can prevent violent behavior SA A D SD
Unemployment is an important cause of youth violence SA A D SD
It is not possible to prevent youth violence SA A D SD
In order to prevent youth violence it is necessary to put more money into SA A D SD
economically deprived areas

Hard work is the best rehabilitation measure for youths who behave violently SA A 0 SD
A good way to prevent violent behavior is to locus on gangs SA A D 50
Efforts directed at the prevention of youth violence are a waste of time SA A 0 50
Youth violence is more often a flaw in our somety than a flaw in the offender SA A D SD ’
Youth violence is caused by growing up in a single-parent home SA A D SD
YOuth learn to be violent because of the violence on teleVision SA A D 50
Yooth Violence is due to a shortage of economic and labor resources SA 1 A 0 SD

 

 

 

 

 

71

 

Youth learn to be Violent because they have violent role models SA A D SD

SA a Strongly Agree
A a Agra.

D a Disagree

SD = Strongly Disagree

 

Drugs are an important cause of youth violence SA A D SD

 

Working to eliminate poverty in poor areas of big cities would be a good way SA A D so
to decrease youth Violence

 

 

 

 

YOuth violence is caused by poor parenting SA A D SD
Youth violence is caused by genetic factors or carried in the family blood SA A D SD
Youth Violence can be prevented by teaching youth nonviolent ways of SA A D SD

responding to conflict

 

 

 

 

 

 

The next set of questions are about crime and violence in your neighborhood. Please circle the number for
the answer that best describes how you feel.

81.

82.

How much of a problem is fighting or other violence in your neighborhood (2-3 blocks around where
YOU live)?

1 Not a problem at all

2 A little bit of a problem
3 Somewhat of a problem
4 Very much a problem

How safe is your neighborhood at night?

1 Very safe

2 Safe

3 Somewhat unsafe
4 Very unsafe

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the folowing two statements?

83.

Crime is serious enough in my neighborhood that I would move if I could

1 Strongly agree

2 Agree

3 Disagree

4 Strongly disagree

The chances of being the viCtim of a violent crime (rape. mugging) are great in my neighborhood

1 Strongly agree

2 Agree

3 Disagree

4 Strongly disagree

The next set of questions are about school programs designed to prevent fighting and other violent acts by

72

youth Parent input and suggestions are important to our school programs, Please answer the following
weapons 08 completely and as honestly as possible. There are no right or wrong 003*"!-

C1

C2.

C3.

C4.

C5.

C6.

C7.

Do rOu think that schools stipuld teach vauth ways of dealing with conflict other than fighting’
I Yes
2 No

Do ypu think that it is important for schools to have violence prevention progrer‘M’

1 Yes
2 No

30 IOU {hint {hit I! IS "1. SCDOOI'S 'OSDOﬂSlbllitY IO WOfK to DVOVODt WOMDCI‘

lYes
2N0

Do you think that your taxes for schools should be used for violence prevention programs?
1 Yes
2 No

Whatdoyouthinkshouldbeincludedinaschoolprogramtopreventfighting endotherviolentacts
”students?

 

 

 

lnwhatwaysdoyouthiikpuenucoddbeuaediievidenceprevenﬁonprogramat xxx
MiddeSchool?

 

 

 

How wilihg world you be to become involved in a program to prevent student violence at xxx
Middle School?

Very willing
Somewhat willing
Undecided
Somewhat unwilling
Very unwilling

M‘UN-O

73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:3 in anicn or :he 'oilowing activities would rou be willing to participate’ iPreese enece err mar
room
I Receive written ‘f‘ldtefldls to learn about violence prevention programs.
p. lleceive written materials to learn new to help My children learn conflict resolution
Ski"!
e Attend a training session to learn mediationiconflict resolution skills.
6 Attend training so that l opuld volunteer my time to help train the students.
e. Volunteer My time to help supervise or coordinate the program.
01 Are mu aware of the violence prevention program at xxx Middle School called Peace Meaers’
1 Yes
2 No -> strip to 010
02. What is your understanding of what that program does?
DJ. layoursonordaumterawareofthel’eaoeMaltersprograma xxx ?
1 Yes
2 No -> skip to 010
3 Don't Know -> skip to 010
04. Doeeheorsheuehuapoeidvewformsdvbghtupusonalconﬂcunsehool?

1 Yes ->goto05a
ZNo ->gotoDSb’
3 Don't Know -> gotpDG

DSe. Whydoesheorsheseeitasapositiveoptionforreaolvingconﬂicts?

 

 

Please go ro question 06

055- Why doesn't he or she see it as a positive option for resolving conflicts’

 

 

 

 

06

D7.

D8.

09.

010.

74

Has your child used the services of Peace Makers to help resolve a confliCt at school?

1 Yes
2 No
3 Don't Know

Has your son or daughter completed the to to 12 hours of Peace Maker training and earned the title of
'apprentice‘ or 'onginal' Peace Maker (This would have involved attending 6 after school sessions a 1

Saturday session)?

1 Yes
2 No --> skip to 09
3 Don't Know --> strip to D10

Has the Peace Maker training helped your child to successfully manage conflicts with his or her
family members or friends?

1 Yes
2 No -> go to 09
3 Don't Know -> go to 09

08a. What has your child Ieamed?

 

 

Have you been involved with Peace Makers in any way, for example attending PTSA meetings,
helping with fundraising, or helping your child to participate?

1Yes ->gotoDSa
ZNo ->gotoDSb

09a. What did you do?

 

 

 

09!). Why haven't you been involved?

 

 

 

Are yOu involved in any other school programs or voluntary activities?

1 Yes
2 No «> go to next set of questions

010a. Which programs or activities are you involved in?

 

75

The next questions are about the reasons why children fight and your response to conflicts between
children. These questions focus on fighting among children that you know.

El , How often do fights happen in your child’s group of friends’

1 Several Times A Week
2 Once A Week

3 Several Times A Month
4 Once A Month

5 Every Couple Of Months
6 Very Rarely

7 Never

There are many reasons why children fight. Do friends of your child fight for any of the following reasons?
Please rank your answers. First. please place a 1 by the most important reason why friends of your child
fight. Next. select the least important reason why friends of your child fight and put a 4 next to it. Then.
select the second most important reason why friends of your child fight and put a 2 by it. Finally. put a 3
next to the remaining answer.

 

62. Friends of my child fight because . . . Ranking

 

a They are bad kids
b. They watch violent television programs

c. There are no consequences for fighting

 

 

 

d. That is how their parents have raised them

 

 

 

 

There are many ways parents can resolve fights between children. For each of the folowlng. please
indicate whether or not you would take that action and which action you would be MOST Italy to use.

 

 

 

 

 

 

53. If you heard your child fighting, what Would take this action Is this the action you

would you do? at all? would be MOST likely
to take?

Physically discipline him or her? YES NO YES NO

Talk with him or her about other ways to handle YES NO YES NO

conflicts?

Ground him or her or take away privileges (such YES NO YES NO

as his or her allowance. or television?

Not interfere? YES NO YES NO

 

 

 

 

76

The neiit questions are about how you deal with situations in which you are either happy or unhappy with
your child’s behavior There are many ways to deal with these situations. Please Circle the answer that
best describes how often you have done the following in the past a; mgnma:

 

i
" How often have you A Some-
' Never Little times A Lot

 

N
U

Complimented your child for good benawor

 

Encomaged yOur child to Denave well

 

Swen reur child increased responsibilities or freedoms for behawng well

 

Rewarded vaur child for good behavior

 

Set or enforced clear rules or guidelines for behairior

 

Talked with yOur child about how she was misbehaving
Had your child take a time-out ‘
Took away priVileges or grounded him/her l

Argued with your child, but did not yell

 

 

 

 

Yelled at your child

Insulted yOur child. called him/her bad names or said things to make him/her 1
feel bad

 

NNNNNNNNNN
“uwuuuuuuu
a- b #45 A a a & i. ;. a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gotten so mad at your child that you stomped out of the room 1 2 3 4
Threatened to hit your child 1 2 3 4
Pushed. grabbed or shoved your child 1 2 3 4
Hit your child with your hand. like a spanking l 2 3 4
Hit your child with your fist l 2 3 4
Hﬂyourchildwithsomethingodiermanyourhand 1 2 3 4
H! your child out of anger l 2 3 4

 

 

The following questions are for statistical purposes only.
Fl. Are you

1 Male
2 Female

F2. What is yOur marital status?

Single, never married
Married

Divorced

Separated

Widowed

takeou—

 

77

F3. What is yOur race or ethnicity?

t Alncan American

2 Caucasian (non Hispanic)
3 Hispanic

4 Asian or PaCific Islander
5 Native American

6 Multiraaal

7 Other (please indicate)

F4. How many children do y0u have in each age group? (if you do net have any children in a particular
age grOup. please write '0')

Under 5 Years

5 to 13 Years
14 to 18 Years
19 to 24 Years
25 and Over

 

F5. What is your age? YEARS
F6. How many of your children attend xxx Middle School?

F7. Please list the first names (no last names) of the people that live with you. their ages. and their
relationship to you.

 

b.

 

 

 

 

m very much for completlng this survey. Please return it in the postage paid envelope. if you have
enyaddltlonalcommentspleasewrltethemonthebeckcover. Remembertousetheorsngepapertowrlte
down your e-dlglt number for the restaurant lottery and send It with your survey. Be sure to keep your half
of the orange paper In a safe place until the drawing on June 19. If by chance the envelope is missing.
please return it to:

Jennifer Juras

Department of Psychology
135 Snyder l-lall
East Lansing. Ml 48824-1117

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

Attitudes Toward Crime Scales - Factor Analysis (Ortet-Fabregat & Perez. 1992)

 

Attitudes Toward Crime (ACSc)

W Com 1 H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A person becomes a criminal because it is carried in .66 .79 -.19
the blood

Criminals are born criminals .48 .67 -. 18
Crime is determined mainly by one's genetic make- .41 .65 -. 19
up

Many gypsies commit crimes because they carry it .41 .61 -.19
in the blood

Crime is due only to hereditary factors .37 .59 -.16
Crime is caused by an excess of freedom in society .30 .55 -.01
If there were not so much permissiveness, there .29 .53 -.06

would not be so much crime

 

 

 

 

Crime is caused by mental illness .25 .49 .05
Most criminals are mentally ill .27 .49 .18
Criminals cannot change their destiny .22 .45 -.1 l
Criminality is predestined .19 .40 .15

 

 

 

 

 

 

78

79

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SnmLandsnnmnmentalmm Com 1 ll
Crime is fundamentally due to a shortage of .37 -.O3 .60
economic and labor resources

Crime is due only to social and physical .35 -.O6 .59
environment

Unemployment is the most important cause of crime .31 .02 .56
Crime is more often a ﬂaw in our society than a ﬂaw .35 -.24 .54
in the offender

Most criminals have poor cultural and educational .20 -.08 .52
levels

Most criminals received a poor quality of education .26 .05 .51
at school

Many criminals do not have the opportunity to .28 -.20 .49
behave socially

Drugs are the main cause of crime .21 .18 .42
If a person commits a crime it is because he/she .18 .19 -.38
wants to

Eigenvalue 4.2 2.2
Percent of Variance 21.2 11.4

 

 

8O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attitudes toward the Prevention 1 [1 Com
of Crime Scale (ACSp):
When:
Tougher punishment measures are necessary for making .82 -. 12 .70
offenders think before committing a crime
It is necessary to harden methods ofpunishment in order to .81 -.10 .68
prevent crime
Strict and hard law enforcement is the best way of preventing .76 -.ll .59
crime
Boys caught for their ﬁrst crime must be harshly punished .71 -.18 .54
The best way of preventing crime is by bringing back the .70 -.09 .50
death penalty
The police must have more autonomy with regard to law .66 -. 12 .46
enforcement
The criminal justice system usually obstructs the work of the .57 -.O9 .34
police
Crime would disappear with a greater police presence .57 .03 .32
When a boy is caught for his ﬁrst crime, the best .55 -.24 .36
preventative measure is to put him in jail
The best way of preventing crime is to put drug addicts in .48 -. 17 .26
jail
[t is necessary to create and improve institutions where -.08 .69 .48
children at high risk of becoming delinquents could attend
Professionals in the criminal justice system have to know -.08 .63 .40
about recent scientiﬁc knowledge in relation to crime

-.16 .58 .37

in order to prevent crime it is necessary to put more money
into deprived areas

 

 

 

 

 

81

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An effective way of preventing crime would be by detecting .l~l .57 .35
and assisting adolescents who are at high risk of becoming

delinquents

In the ﬁeld of crime it is not possible to talk about .17 -.56 .35
preventative measures

Efforts directed at the prevention of crime are a waste of .25 -.56 .38
time

To prevent crime, more community workers are not .25 -.52 .33
necessary

To prevent crime, professionals with educative functions are -. 1 7 .50 .28
necessary

An effective way of preventing crime would be for .01 .48 .23
everybody to have the opportunity of attaining a good

educational and cultural level

Progressive elimination of poor areas of big cities would .01 .41 .17
decrease crime signiﬁcantly

If the powers that be had more knowledge about factors -.18 .39 .19
related to crime, it would be easier to prevent crime

Crime is exclusively a police problem .25 -.35 .19
Eigenvalue 5.9 2.5

Percent of Variance 27.1 11.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attitudes toward the Treatment of Crime Scale (ACSt): I Com
! . . I

Home leaves for inmates should not be allowed -.74 .54

Criminals need strong treatment in prison -.73 .54
Hard work is the best rehabilitation measure for criminals -.73 .53
Every prisoner should have the opportunity to do paid work .69 .48

while serving his/her sentence

Physical punishment is necessary, from time to time, so that -.67 .44

criminals get what they deserve

Application of treatments aimed at social rehabilitation of .64 .42

criminals must be favored

The criminal justice system should be harder with criminals -.64 .42

When the conditions of imprisonment are improved .64 .41

(spaciousness, cleanliness, intimacy, etc.), rehabilitation will be

easier

State powers should designate a lot more money to build more .54 .30

humane prisons

Loss of freedom, without any kind of rehabilitation measure, is a .50 .25

poor penal method

A ﬁrst offense should not be punished with prison .48 .23

An increase in the cultural level of criminals can be an important .47 .22

factor in achieving their rehabilitation

It is an injustice that society pays for prisoners to eat without -.46 .21

working

It is necessary to assess the effectiveness of treatment programs .45 .20

for criminals

The most dangerous criminals should be segregated -.32 .17
Reform of the current penitentiary system is fundamental for .42 .17

achieving the rehabilitation aim

For the elimination ofcrime. penalties other than imprisonment .41 .17

are necessary

 

 

 

 

83

 

 

 

 

 

Drug addicts must be treated like patients .35 .12
Current prisons are 'schools of crime' because of lack of .30 .08
economic and human resources

Eigenvalue 6.0

Percent of Variance 31.6

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX F

Scale Information

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2
. t =
Factor Eigenvalue Pet. of variance Cum. pet.
I - Social-environ. 3.50 17.5 17.5
2 - Deterrence 2.63 13.2 30.6
3 - Social learning 1.97 9.9 40.5
theory
4 - Individual 1.59 7.9 48.4
5 (not included) 1.21 6.0 54.5

 

 

 

 

 

84

 

Table 3

P .

85

A 1 ' - il- nvir nmentalF orl

In order to prevent youth violence it is necessary to put more money into
economically deprived areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Youth violence is due to a shortage of economic and labor resources.
3. Unemployment is an important cause of youth violence.
4. Working to eliminate poverty in poor areas of big cities would be a good way to
decrease youth violence.
5. An effective way of preventing youth violence would be for everyone to have an
opportunity to get a good education.
6. Alternative schools will help prevent youth violence.
Item Communality Factor loadings Factor Factor Factor
number Social-Environ. loadings loadings loadings
Deterrence SLT Individual
1 .61 .77 -.03 .06 .07
2 .59 .75 -.08 .06 .16
3 .60 .74 -.03 .19 .15
4 .52 .65 -.19 .25 -.07
5 .45 .63 -.02 -.22 -.08
6 .37 .53 .07 .28 -.08

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

86

Table 4
' - e r 7
1. It is necessary to harden methods of punishment in order to prevent youth
violence.
2. Tougher punishment measures are necessary for making youth think before

behaving violently.
Strict and hard law enforcement is a good way of preventing youth violence.

be

 

 

 

 

 

4. A good way to prevent violent acts by youth is to bring back the death penalty.
Item Communality Factor loadings Factor Factor Factor

number Social-Environ. loadings loadings loadings
Deterrence SLT Individual

1 .67 -.02 .82 .00 -.00

2 .65 -. 12 .80 .03 -.06

3 .62 .10 .78 .03 .01

4 .38 -.21 .57 .05 .11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

87

Table 5

E"l: l'-S'|I '11 E 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Youth learn to be violent because they have violent role models.
2. Youth violence is caused by our violent culture.
3. Youth learn to be violent because of the violence on television.
4. Youth violence is due to living in bad neighborhoods.
5. The influence of other youth can cause violent behavior.
Item Communality Factor Factor Factor Factor
number loadings loadings loadings loadings
Social- Deterrence SLT Individual
Environ.
l .51 .01 -.07 .71 .04
2 .45 .20 .25 .58 .09
3 .40 .05 -.20 .57 -. 1 7
4 .46 .21 .20 .54 .30
5 .27 .05 .07 .50 -. 13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6

'—
I

responding to conflict.

88

'v'd a t 4

Youth violence can be prevented by teaching youth nonviolent ways of

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Youth violence is caused by genetic factors or carried in the family blood.
3. Mental illness is an important cause of youth violence.
4. Efforts directed at the prevention of youth violence are a waste of time.
5. It is not possible to prevent youth violence.
Item Communality Factor Factor Factor Factor
number loadings loadings loadings loadings
Social- Deterrence SLT Individual
Environ.

l .48 .18 .20 .11 -.63

2 .47 .06 -.01 .27 .63

3 .48 .21 .20 .09 .62

4 .35 -.08 -.01 -.15 .57

5 .34 .1 1 .07 -.09 .56

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

89

Table 7
. - . _ v' t

1. In order to prevent youth violence it is necessary to put more money into
economically deprived areas.

2. Youth violence is due to a shortage of economic and labor resources.

3. Unemployment is an important cause of youth violence.

4. Working to eliminate poverty in poor areas of big cities would be a good way to
decrease youth violence.

5. An effective way of preventing youth violence would be for everyone to have an

opportunity to get a good education.
6. Alternative schools will help prevent youth violence.

 

Item number Corr. item-total correlation Alpha if item deleted
1 .56 .72
2 .59 .71
3 .61 .71
4 .52 .73
5 .41 .76
6 .40 .76

 

Statistics for scale: Mean Std. dev. Kurtosis Skewness Alpha

(N=158) 2.7 .81 -.37 .10 .77

violence.

behaving violently.

It is necessary to harden methods of punishment in order to prevent youth

Tougher punishment measures are necessary for making youth think before

 

3. Strict and hard law enforcement is a good way of preventing youth violence.
Item number Corr. item-total Alpha if item deleted
correlation
1 .66 .63
2 .63 .67
3 .54 .78

 

Statistics for scale: Mean Std. dev.

(N=157) 2.1 .91

Kurtosis Skewness Alpha
-.01 .84 .77

91

Table 9
. _ . . t ,
1. Youth learn to be violent because they have violent role models.
2. Youth violence is caused by our violent culture.
3. Youth learn to be violent because of the violence on television.
4. Youth violence is due to living in bad neighborhoods.
5. The inﬂuence of other youth can cause violent behavior.

Item number Corr. item-total correlation Alpha if item deleted

1 .40 .49
2 .39 .49
3 .31 .54
4 .37 .51
5 .24 .58

 

Statistics for scale: Mean Std. dev. Kurtosis Skewness Alpha
(N=158) 2.6 .66 .42 .36 .58

92

Table10
Bill 5 1.4 I'V'l IE I

1. Youth violence can be prevented by teaching youth nonviolent ways of
responding to conﬂict. (-)

2 Youth violence is caused by genetic factors or carried in the family blood.

3. Mental illness is an important cause of youth violence.

4. Efforts directed at the prevention of youth violence are a waste of time.

5 It is not possible to prevent youth violence.

Item number Corr. item-total correlation Alpha if item deleted

1 .37 .52
2 .38 .48
3 .35 .50
4 .30 .53
5 .31 .53

Statistics for scale: Mean Std. dev. Kurtosis Skewness Alpha
(N=158) 4.2 .53 .87 -.85 .57

93

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 11
’eiii iiioti‘i are 0|" i' ii - i .to e =4-
Factor Eigenvalue Pct. of variance Cum. pct.
1 - Physical 4.1 24.4 24.4
discipline

2 - Positive 2.5 14.9 39.2
parenting strategies
3 - Verbally 1.6 9.3 48.6
confrontative
strategies
4 (not included) 1.2 7.2 55.8
5 (not included 1.1 6.3 62.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 12

94

Hit your child with your hand, like a spanking
Threatened to hit your child

Hit your child out of anger

Pushed, grabbed. or shoved your child
Hit your child with something other than your hand

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Communality Factor loadings Factor loadings Factor loadings
number Physical Positive Verbally
Confrontative
1 .69 .81 -.06 . 1 7
2 .64 .77 -.02 .23
3 .54 .72 .05 . 15
4 .58 .68 -.09 .32
5 .47 .67 . 15 -.03

 

 

95

Table 13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Set or enforced clear rules or guidelines for behavior
2. Rewarded your child for good behavior
3. Given your child increased responsibilities or freedoms for behaving well
4. Talked with your child about how s/he was misbehaving
5. Had your child take a time-out
6. Encouraged your child to behave well
7. Complimented your child for good behavior
Item Communality Factor loadings Factor loadings Factor loadings
number Physical Positive Verbally
Confrontative
1 .58 .23 .68 -.25
2 .46 -. 18 .65 .07
3 .41 -.02 .64 .01
4 .49 .33 .54 .29
5 .36 -.03 .54 .27
6 .42 .36 .47 -.28
7 .38 -.23 .43 -.37

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 14

N:—

La)

- A
.00.... nit.

Yelled at your child

96

. ‘VOO. 9'

eg,V‘ a'

-te

Insulted your child, called him/her bad names. or said things to make him/her feel

bad

Gotten so mad at your child that you stomped out of the room

 

Factor loadings

 

 

 

 

 

Item Communality Factor loadings Factor loadings
number Physical Positive Verbally
Confrontative
l .46 .2 1 -.09 .64
2 .41 .28 -. 1 8 .55
3 .38 .37 -.04 .49

 

 

 

 

 

Table 15

97

El'l'l' l'-El 'll:"l' E l

 

1. Hit your child with your hand, like a spanking
2. Threatened to hit your child
3. Hit your child out of anger
4. Pushed, grabbed, or shoved your child
5. Hit your child with something other than your hand
Item number Corr. item-total correlation Alpha if item deleted
1 .70 .78
2 .71 .78
3 .59 .81
4 .64 .79
5 .56 .82
Statistics for scale: Mean Std. dev. Kurtosis Skewness Alpha

(N=159)

1.41 .51

.92 1.27 .83

98

Table 16

'-V 'v tat ' t

1. Yelled at your child

2. Insulted your child, called him/her bad names, or said things to make him/her feel
bad

Gotten so mad at your child that you stomped out of the room

DJ

 

Item number Corr. item-total Alpha if item deleted
correlation
1 .41 .48
2 .44 .47
3 .40 .49

 

Statistics for scale: Mean Std. dev. Kurtosis Skewness Alpha
=159) 1.9 .55 1.1 .88 .64

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and

delinquency. Qﬁminglggy, 312, 47-88.

Ahmed, S.W., Bush, P.J., Davidson, F .R., & Ianotti, R.J. (1984). Predicting
children's use and intention to use abusable substances. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Public Health Association, Anaheim, CA, November.

Alexander, G..,R Massey, R..,M Gibbs, T., & Altekruse, J. M. (1985). Firearm-
related fatalities: An epidemiologic assessment of violent death. W

Ruhlieﬂealth 15 165- 168

American Psychological Association (1993). WWW;
response. Washington, DC.

Arthur, J .A. (1994). Correctional ideology of black correctional ofﬁcers. Ee_d_e_r_al
Erehatien. 25(1). 57-66.

Bachman, J. (1967). W. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,
Institute for Social Research.

Bandura, A.(1969). W. New York: Holt,

Rinehart, and Winston.

Bandura, A.(1973). WWW. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A.(1977). W. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura. A.(1986). mmmmmmammmm
mm. Englewood Clifs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A.D., & Ross, S.(1963). Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning.

IcemaLQLAhnennaIMSQeialimhelegx. 63. 601-607-

Barnes, G. M., & Welte, J. W. (1986). Patterns and predictors of alcohol use among
7- 12th grade students in New York State. W, 41, 53- 62.

Baron, S. W. (1996). “Lock’em up”: Attitudes toward punishing juvenile

offenders Canadiaalcumalefﬂnminelegx 3.8.9.1 191 -212

99

100

Bastian, L. D. &Taylor, B. M. (1991). ' ation
W. (Report No. NCJ- 131645). washington DC. U. S.

Department of Justice.

Bennett, W. J. & DiIulio, J. J. (1996). Bod y ggugt, mgral poverty” .and how 19 win
WW Simon & Schuster Trade.

Benson, A.J. & Benson, J.M. (1993). Peer mediation: Conflict resolution in

schools. leumalefSelmolﬁsyehelegx, 3.1, 427-430.

Booth, A., & Osgood, D.W. (1993). The inﬂuence of testosterone on deviance in
adulthood: Assessing and explaining the relationship. mm, 31, 93-117.

Brook, J. S, Brook, D. W., Gordon, A. S, Whiteman, M., & Cohen, P. (1990). The
psychosocial etiology of adolescent drug use: A family interactional approach. m

Wm, 116.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). WWW
Wu. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human

development: Research perspectives. ﬂexelgpmemal Bsyghglggy, 22(6), 727-742.

Cairns, R.B., Cairns, B.D., Neckerman, H.J., Gest, S.D., & Gairepy, J. (1988).
Social networks and aggressive behavior: Peer support or peer rejection? W141

35391121922, 24, 815-823.

Centers for Disease Control. (1990). Homicide among young black males - United

States, 1978-1987. MethidmcandMertahtxﬂeeklx Recent. 32(48). 869-873.

Centers for Disease Control. (1992). Physical ﬁghting among high school
students- United States, 1990. MorﬂdﬁmdMgﬁaﬁtyﬂeekﬂem, 41, 91.

Comrey, A.L. & Lee, H.B. (1992). W (2nd. Ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dillman. DA. (1973). WWW
John Wiley & Sons: New York.

Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information-processing model of social competence

in children. InM. Perlmutter (Ed) WWW(VOL 18,
pp. 77- 125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

101

Elam, 3., Rose, L., & Gallup, A. (1994). The 26th annual Gallup poll of the
public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Wen, 16, 41-56.

Elliott, DS (1994). Serious violent offenders: Onset, developmental course and
termination - The American Society of Criminology 1993 Address. Qixninelegy, 12, 1-
21.

Elliott, D.S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, SS. (1985). Explaining delinquency and
gimme. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1989). Mnlnnlembjemmh;

Delinquenmeuhstansmeandnientalhealttmmhlems New York NY Springer-
Verlag.

Eron, L. & Huesman, R. (1984). Television violence and aggressive behavior. In

B Lahey &A Kazd1n(EdS) W612 35 55) New

York: Plenum.

Eron, L. & Huesman, R. (1987). Television as a source of maltreatment of

children. SehooLBsxcholouReL/jew, 1.6. 195-202.
Eysenck, H.J., & Gudjonsson, OH. (1989). W.

New York: Plenum.

Faria, A.J. (1990). The effect of telephone versus letter'prenotiﬁcation on survey

response rate. speed. quality, and cost. MaleftheMarkeLReseaLchﬁeeietx, 32(4).
55 1-568.

Farrington, D. P. (1987). Early precursers of frequent offending. In J. Q. Wilson &

G--C LourHEdS-L WWW
12126161111211 (pp. 27- 50). New York: Springer-Verlag.

F arrington D. P. (1991). Childhood aggression and adult violence: Early
precursors and later-life outcomes. In Pepler, D. J. & Rubin, K. H. (Eds. ) Ihe_de_e_lepment

audtteatmenmfehildhoedaggressien Hillsdale, N 1.: Erlbaum.

Farrington, D..,P Loeber, R., Elliott, D. S., Hawkins, J. D., Kandel, D. B., Klein,
M. W., McCord, J., Rower, D. C., & Tremblay, R. E. (1990). Advancing knowledge about
the onset of delinquency and crime. In B. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds. ), Amneeejn

ClinieaLthldisxeheleex, 13, 283- 342.

Flanagan, T..,S Van Alstyne, D..,J &Gottefredson, M..J (1982). Seuneebnekef
W Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice

102

Friedlander. K. (1947). Ihemxeheanalxueannmaehtemeemlﬂelumumex

London: Kegan Paul.

Fry, DP. (1988). Intercommunity differences in aggression among Zapotec

children. Wm, 59(4), 1008-1019.

F urnham, A. & Henderson, M. (1983). Lay theories of delinquency. linemen
Whom. 13. 107-120.

Garbarino, J. & Abramowitz, R.H. (Eds.) (1992). Chﬂdxenandjamjﬁeeimhe
seeialenurnnment. Aldine de Gruyter: New York.

Gottfredson, M. & Hirschi, T. (1990). Agenetalﬂeemﬂeﬁme. Palo Alto, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Hansen, W.B., Graham, J.W., Shelton, D.R., Flay, B.R., & Johnson, CA. (1987).
The consistency of peer and parent inﬂuences on tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use

among young adolescents. WM, 11, 135-154.

Hausman, A.J., Spivak, H., Prothrow-Stith, D., & Roeber, J. (1992). Patterns of
teen exposure to a community-based violence prevention project. LomaLQLAdnleseent
Health, 13, 668-675.

Hawkins, J. D. ,& Lam, T. (1987). Teacher practices, social development, and

delinquency. In J. D. Burchard & S ..N Burchard (Eds) Wham
behayjet. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hinkle, A. L. & King, G. D. (1978). A comparison of three survey methods to

obtain data for community mental health planning. Ameneanlenmelefﬁemmnmty
ESXQhQIQEX 619.1 389- 397

Hirschi, T. (1969). W- Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.

Hunter, J. & Schmidt, F. (1990). MW
WW. Newbury Park: Sage.

Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, RT. (1996). Conﬂict resolution and peer mediation
programs in elementary and secondary schools: A review of the research.

Juvenile Predator Act (1996). State of Michigan.

103

Kalafatis, SP. (1996). An investigation into the effect of questionnaire
identiﬁcation numbers in consumer mail surveys. Jeutnal ef the Market Reseateh
Seeietx, 33.1.3.1. 277-284.

Kandel, D.B., Kessler, R.C., & Maguiles, R.S. ( 1978). Antecedents of adolescent
initiation into stages of drug use: A developmental analysis. MW

Adolescence. 2. 13-40.

Kandel, D. B., & Andrews, K. (1987). Processes of adolescent socialization by
parents and peers IntematienalleumaleftheAddietiens 22 319- 342

Kaplan, H.B. (1975). Wm. Paciﬁc Palisades, CA:
Goodyear.

Kelly, J. (1966). Ecological constraints on mental health services. Ametiean
Ruchelegist. 21. 535-539.

Krohn, MD. (1986). The web of conformity: A network approach to the
explanation of delinquent behavior. Wm, 33, S81-S93.

Kumvfer. KL. (1994). EamﬂLsttenetheninginhmnmmdeﬁnmm Ofﬁce of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Report, United States Department of
Justice.

Levine R (1997) WWW
themsteneusjnfereneeptohahilihundex Unpublished lecture notes

Liebert, R., Neale, J, & Davidson, B. (1973). Iheeadywindew; Effeetef
teleximnenehildtenandlauth. New York: Pergarnon

Loeber, R..(1991) Antisocial behavior: More enduring than changeable? lenntal
WWW, 30, 393- 397.

Loeber, R. & Dishion, T. J. (1984). Boys who ﬁght at home and school. Family

conditions inﬂuencing cross-setting consistency. WW
12515211111921: 521.51 759- 768

Loeber, R. & Southamer-Loeber, M. (1987). The prediction of delinquency In
H C Quay (Ed) Hammokeﬁhxenﬂedelingueneﬂpp- 325-382) New York Wiley

Mednick. S.A., & Christiansen, K.O. (Eds) (1977). 31mm] 12mg 95 criminal
hehaxim. New York: Gardner.

104

Murray, C .A. (1983). The physical environment and community control of crime.

In J.Q. Wilson (Ed.), WEEK! (pp. 107-122). San Francisco, CA:

Institute for Contemporary Studies.

National Institute of Justice. (1994). Preventing interpersonal violence among
youth: An introduction to school, community, and mass media strategies. Cnnfeneneeen

WWW. United States department of Justice.

National Research Council (19931- LennggeneratiensAdelessemunhtglLuslt
settings. Panel on the High Risk Youth, Committee on Behavioral and Social Sciences

and Education, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Novello, AC. (1991). Violence is a greater killer of children than disease. £1,112le
Healthlteperts. 1%(3), 231-233.

Nuttal, E. V. & Kalesnik, J. (1987). Personal violence in the schools: The role of
the counselor mm 6.5. 372- 375

Ortet-Fabregat, G. & Perez, J. (1992). An assessment of the attitudes towards
crime among professionals 1n the criminal justice system. Bntuhjeumalnfﬂnmmelegy,
32(2), 193- 207.

Pallone. NJ. & Hennessy, JJ. (1992). Criminalhehaxieu A Wilhelm
analysis. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Patterson, G.R. & Southamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family
management practices and delinquency. W, 55, 1299-1307.

Patterson, G.R. & Dishion, T.J. (1985). Contributions of families and peers to

delinquency. Qﬁminglegy, 23, 63-77.

Patterson, G..,R Capaldi, D, & Bank, L. (1991). Anearly starter model for

predicting delinquency. In D. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds. ), Ihedemtnentnnd
treatmentetehildhoodaggression Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum

Phares, V. (1992). Where’s poppa? The relative lack of attention to the role of
fathers in child and adolescent psychopathology. Amedemﬂeyehﬂogiet, 41, 656-664.

ProthrOW-Stith. D- (1987).X1e1enee_nr_eyentien._9umeulum_£ot adeleseents.

Newton, MA: Education Development Center.

Prothrow-Stith, D., MD. (1991). W. New York: Harper
Collins.

105

Prothrow-Stith, D. & Spivak, H. (1992). Homicide and violence: Contemporary
health problems for America's black community. In R.L. Braithwaite & S.E. Taylor

(Eds), HEW (pp. 132-143). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a

theory for community psychology. W 15.
121-143.

Ritzer, G. (1992). Sgejgjegieauneeg (Third Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Robertson, D.H. & Bellenger, D.N. (1978). A new method of increasing mail

survey responses: Contributions to charity. LentnajeﬂMntketingRgeateh, 15(4), 632-
633.

Romig. D.A. Cleland. C., & Romig, J. (1989). luxenﬂedelineuemdﬂsiem
annmaehest Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Rutter. M. & Giller, H. (1983)-Jt11emle_delmguencLIrmdt_andnerspectn/es
New York, NY: Penguin.

Schorr. LB- (1988). WWW; New
York: Anchor Press.

Slaby, R.G. & Guerra, N.G. (1988). Cognitive mediators of aggression in
adolescent offenders: 1. Assessment. Dewenmentalﬂsyehelggy, 24, 580-588.

Spivak, H., Hausman, A.J., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (1989). Practitioners' forum:
Public health and the primary prevention of adolescent violence- The violence prevention

Prejeet. Mioleneeandlietims 413.1. 203-212.

Steinmetz, S. K. (1990). Confronting violence in the 19803: In the streets, schools,
and home. In L. J. Hertzberg, G. F. Ostrum, & J. R. Field (Eds. ), Vielent bennvietz

me 125- 183). Great Neck NY: PMA Publishing.

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafarnily conﬂict and violence: The conﬂict

tactics scale loumalefMarriageandtheEamilx February. 75- 88

Strauss, M. (1985). Family training in crime and violence. In A. Lincoln & M.
Strauss (Eds), WW (pp. 164-185). Springﬁeld, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Straus, M. (1991). Discipline and deviance: Physical punishment of children and
violence and other crime in adulthood. MW, 38, 133-154.

106

Straus, M.A. & Donnelly, DA. (1993). Corporal punishment of adolescents by
American parents. W, 24(4), 419-442.

Sutherland, E.H., Cressey, D.R., & Luckenbill, D.F. (1992). mm
criminology (Eleventh Edition). Dix Hills, NY: General Hall.

Thomberry, T.P. (1987). Towards an interactional theory of delinquency.
Criminology. 25. 863-891.

Thomberry, T.P. (1994). Violent families and youth violence. Eaet sheet #21.
Washington, DC: US. Department of Justice, Ofﬁce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.

Tolan. P & Guerra. N (1994) WWW
empidealleyiemftheﬁeld. Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence Report.

Webster, D. W. (1993). The unconvincing case for school- based conﬂict

resolution programs for adolescents HealtlLAffairs; Iheﬂuarterlxlotmaleftheﬂealth
WWW. 12(4), 126- 141.

Wilson, J .Q., & Hemstein, R.J. (1985). W. New York, NY:

Simon and Schuster.

Wilson-Brewer, R., Cohen, S, O',Donnel L, & Goodman, LR (1991). )ﬂelenee
WWW Newton. Mass:

Education Development Center.

Zigler, E., Taussig, C., & Black, K. (1992). Early childhood intervention: A

promising preventative for juvenile delinquency. Ameﬁmﬂsyehelegist, 41(8), 997-
1006.

Zuckerman, D. & Zuckerman, B. (1985). Television's impact on children.

mm, 159 233-240.

     

MICHIGAN STRTE

11111111111111 Ill
31293 1

11
ED

     

UNIV. LIBRARIES
1111111111111111111111111111
5755733