Late Adolescent Violent Behavior:

The Role of Internal Control and Peer Relationships

Maria J. Whitmore

Distinguished Majors Thesis

University of Virginia

April, 2001

Advisor: Joseph P. AllenSecond Reader: N. Dickon Reppucci

1

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge some of the people who made completion of this paper possible. First, I

thank my advisor and mentor, Joseph P. Allen, for his support, input, and feedback throughout this

process. I am grateful to Christy McFarland for giving of her time, energy, and guidance to this project,

as well as to N. Dickon Reppucci for his input on this project. I would also like to express my

appreciation to the dedicated graduate and undergraduate research assistants who spent time entering,

cleaning, and coding the data presented herein. To Bruce, Lottie, and Sarah for their willingness to be

sounding boards to my ideas. Lastly, I am forever indebted to my family for their constant love and

support.

2

Abstract

Adolescence is a crucial time in the development of both peer relationships and violent and aggressive

behavior. Given the shared salience of peers and deviant behavior in adolescence, it is important to

discover how these two developmental phenomena interact and affect each other. Previous research has

suggested that one factor that may influence both peer relationships and violent behavior outcomes is

internal cognitive control on impulses and behaviors, yet no previous study has examined all three factors

simultaneously. The current study sought to address four questions: (1) Does a lack of internal control

predict peer relational difficulty? (2) Does peer relational difficulty predict adolescent violent behavior?

(3) Does a lack of internal control alone predict adolescent violent behavior?, and (4) Does peer relational

difficulty moderate and/or mediate the relationship between internal control and adolescent violent

behavior? These questions were addressed using multiple methods and multiple measures of each

construct. Individual and peer predictors of violent behavior were assessed within a socioeconomically

diverse, at-risk sample of 127 adolescents over a two –year period. Internal control was defined as

cognitive and affective resources that support regulated responses and behaviors. It was operationalized

in terms of ego development, self-restraint, and social competence expectations. Peer relational factors

examined in this study included conflict resolution skills, total attachment to friends, and broad social

problems. Four major findings emerged. First, there was equivocal evidence that internal control

predicted peer relational difficulty. Second, peer relations somewhat predicted violent behavior. The

third finding was that internal control strongly predicted violent behavior. Lastly, conflict resolution

skills were found to moderate the relationship between social competence expectations and violent

behavior. Implications of these findings for the construct of internal control, the importance of peer

relationships, and possible intervention strategies are discussed.

3

Introduction

Violent behavior by adolescents is a serious phenomenon, and one that has the potential to create

serious costs for society. For example, in 1997, juveniles were involved in 27% of all serious violent

victimizations. These violent crimes by juveniles have become increasingly lethal in recent years, as

young people have more access to guns (Blumstein, 1995). While overall homicide rates in the U. S.

have remained constant over the last three decades, youth homicide rates have risen (Garbarino, 1999). In

1997, more than 1,400 murders were determined to have involved a juvenile (U. S. Department of Justice,

1999). Even more recently, over the past two years, school shootings have left our schools as modern

killing fields for a generation of children (Garbarino, 1999). It is no wonder then that 4% of high school

students nationwide missed at least one day of school in the past month due to feeling unsafe at school

(U. S. Department of Justice, 1999). Not only is society paying the price for juvenile violence in lives

and in fear, but it is also an economic issue. The cost of allowing just one adolescent to leave high school

for a life of crime is estimated at between 1.7 and 2.3 million dollars (U. S. Department of Justice, 1999).

The stability of aggressive behavior from childhood through adulthood has been well-

documented (Olweus, 1979; Pettit, 1997; Loeber & Hay, 1997). Past aggressive behavior is considered

the best predictor of future aggressive behavior (Moffitt, 1993). In spite of this stability, however, there is

also evidence for change in aggressive behavior. Adolescence has been identified as a critical time in the

lifespan development of aggression and violence. Moffitt has identified two general patterns of the life

course development of criminal behavior, childhood-onset and adolescent-onset (1993). This dichotomy

has come to be generally recognized, and is reflected in the current edition of the American Psychiatric

Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual which specifies two types of conduct problems:

childhood-onset type and adolescent onset type (DSM-IV, 1994) The adolescent-onset pattern has been

found to be much more common, as antisocial behavior tends to rise and peak in adolescence (around age

17). These rates drop sharply as participants grow into early adulthood (Moffitt, Caspi, Dickson, Silva, &

Stanton, 1996). It seems that many adolescents, then, “outgrow” aggressive behavior (Allen, Moore, &

4

Kuperminc, 1997). A significant number of highly aggressive adolescents greatly reduce their levels of

aggression in late adolescence, and desist entirely from this behavior as they mature (Blumstein, Cohen,

& Farrington, 1988). Approximately only 5% of offenders are responsible for half of all crimes, so

clearly most adolescents are not persistent in their offending throughout their lives (Moffitt, 1993). This

instability of adolescent aggression provides us with hope that natural processes are in place which affect

change on aggression. Understanding of these processes could lead to effective interventions with violent

youth.

Children’s understanding of their social environment has been shown to be a major contributor to

the development and change in their aggressive behavior (Dodge, 1980; Rubin, Bream, & Rose-Krasnor,

1991; Egan, Monson, & Perry, 1998). There are several conceptual models which have been included in

this type of work, but all make the assumption that environmental conditions promote aggression-

inducing cognitions (Egan, Monson, & Perry, 1998). For example, some researchers believe that certain

types of coercive parenting lead children to infer that aggression is an effective way of getting needs met

(Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). Others believe that a history of abusive parenting may cause a child

to perceive hostile intent in other people (Weiss, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1992). Still others suggest that

it is a combination of low internal cognitive control (dysregulation, poorly modulated behavior,

impulsivity) which interacts with the social environment to produce aggression in children (Pope &

Bierman, 1999).

The concept of internal control will be further examined in this study. It has been variously

described and operationalized in the literature. In general, though, internal control refers to regulation of

behavior through internal schemas and resources rather than external forces such as social interaction.

One common element across descriptions of internal control is that it is considered to be a “master”

construct that encompasses other personality traits (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Weinberger, for

example, suggested that self-restraint is comprised of four subscales of self-control including impulse

control, suppression of aggression, consideration of others, and responsibility (Feldman & Weinberger,

1994). A second element that is common in descriptions of internal control is impulse suppression.

5

Those with low self-control have been described as having a “here and now” orientation that does not

account for long-term goals and consequences (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).

In 1999, Tate tested a model of internal control, parenting practices and violent behavior using a

sample of academically at-risk adolescents in a longitudinal study. He defined internal control as

“cognitive and affective resources that support regulated responses and behaviors” (p. 6), and

operationalized low internal control as a lack of self-restraint and ego development as well as social

information processing difficulties such as hostile attributional biases and beliefs about the value of

aggression. He found that low internal control in mid-adolescence significantly predicted violent

behavior in late adolescence. Tate also found effects of maternal internal controls on their children’s

internal controls and violent behavior, such that mothers’ lack of internal control at Time 1 predicted

adolescent violence two years later. Maternal parenting practices were also found to have an effect on the

development of aggression, but these effects were mediated by adolescent internal controls. Finally,

Tate’s results showed that changes over time in violent behavior were predicted by the interaction of

maternal internal controls and adolescent internal controls. (Tate, 1999)

Clearly then, a lack of internal controls is important to the prediction of adolescent violent

behavior and the continuity and change in that violent behavior over time. However, there is evidence

that low internal controls also have a negative impact on children’s peer relationships (Stormshak et al.,

1999; Pope & Bierman, 1999; Cillessen, van Ijzendoorn, van Lieshout, & Hartup, 1992). Forty-eight

percent of peer-rejected boys show a pattern of behavior which is aggressive, impulsive, disruptive, and

noncooperative (Cillessen, et al., 1992). The rejection of this type of behavior by children seems to be

stable across contexts. In one study of childhood peer sociometrics, inattention/hyperactivity had a

negative effect on peer preference across classrooms, with no effect for the amount of such behavior in

the classroom in general. Other types of problem behavior (such as aggression and withdrawal) varied in

their lack of classroom acceptance depending upon peer group norms in particular classes (Stormshak et

al., 1999). Additionally, adolescents who engage in withdrawn or aggressive behavior seem at risk for

6

peer rejection and victimization only when these behaviors are also accompanied by an irritable-

inattentive pattern (Pope & Bierman, 1999).

Human aggression and violence is by definition a social phenomenon, as it occurs within the

context of a social interaction (Baron & Richardson, 1994). No social interaction is more important to the

adolescent than that with the peers. It is within the context of those relationships that young adolescents

may begin to learn about socially-acceptable regulation of emotions and anger (Underwood, Hurley,

Johansen, & Mosley, 1999). One of the most important developmental tasks of adolescence is gradual

differentiation from parents in the attainment of autonomy. As teens begin to experiment with ways of

living which are different from those of their parents, the judgement of peers becomes increasingly

important (Allen, Moore, & Kuperminc, 1997). Peers provide the adolescent not only with new

perspective, but also support through the transition to adulthood. Therefore, problematic peer

relationships or the total lack of peer relationships can have a profound negative impact on adolescent

social and emotional development (Bagwell, Newcomb, & Bukowski, 1998). Rejection by peers as early

as grade three has been shown to be predictive of both internalizing and externalizing behavior problems

in adolescence (Coie, Terry, Lenox, Lochman, & Hyman, 1995). Later in life, preadolescent peer

rejection and the lack of friends have both been associated with poor academic adjustment and a variety

of psychopathological symptoms in adulthood (DeRosier, Kupersmidt, & Patterson, 1994; Bagwell,

Newcomb, & Bukowski, 1998).

Social relationships have been found to be especially strongly related to aggressive and

delinquent outcomes. However, the exact nature of the relationship is disputed. Some researchers argue

that preexisting aggression in the child or adolescent results in peer relational problems and rejection

(Pettit, 1997; Dishion, Andrews, & Crosby, 1995; Pope & Bierman, 1999). Studies have shown that

aggressive children, particularly those displaying a pattern of cognitive dysregulation (such as that

mentioned above), are more likely to be rejected by their peers than others (Pope & Beirman, 1999).

Dishion et al. studied the friendships of antisocial boys in early adolescence and found that these

7

relationships were dominated by bossiness and coercive behavior and were perceived by the boys as only

marginally satisfactory.

Other researchers suggest that it is rejection by mainstream peers which leads adolescents into

association with a deviant peer group in which aggression is considered normative (Allen, Moore, &

Kuperminc,1997; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). Moffitt (1993) argues that deviant peer networks

may be attractive to these adolescents because of the glamour associated with delinquency, particularly at

a time when they are striving for differentiation from their parents and the status quo.

A third group of researchers argue that peer relational difficulties are the cause of aggression and

not the result (Kupersmidt, Burchinal, & Patterson, 1995). In a study of third- through seventh-grade

children, Kupersmidt et al. found that both dyadic and group peer relational problems were significant

risk factors for aggression and delinquency.

The present study will seek to add to the existing literature concerning the relationship between

low internal control and peer relational difficulty, and the relationship between such difficulty and violent

behavior. We will attempt to address the question of the nature and direction of the relationship between

peer problems and violence: Do peer problems lead to violent behavior, or does violence contribute to

peer problems? Are both effects present? Unlike past studies, which have tended to use aggression or

antisocial behavior as outcomes, the present study will focus particularly on violence. Violence is a

severe form of aggressive behavior (Baron & Richardson, 1994), and it is very costly to both the

adolescent and society at large (U. S. Department of Justice, 1999).

Many past studies of peer relationships and aggression and violence have used children or young

adolescents (e.g. ages 12-13). However, this study will focus on older adolescents. In so doing, we hope

to target a very critical developmental stage in which teens rely on peer relationships in their strivings for

autonomy from their parents.

The present study will use as a starting point Tate’s model of violent adolescent behavior (1999).

Tate found that low internal control is a significant predictor of adolescent violence, and that this

particular cognitive deficit results from interactions with parents. We are interested in what happens to

8

adolescents who have not acquired these internal controls as they attempt to form relationships with peers

and break away from their parents. We will attempt to answer the following questions using an at-risk

adolescent sample, examining outcomes when the teens are aged 16 and at age 18: Will low internal

controls result in difficulty with peers in adolescence? Will peer relational difficulty result in violent

behavior? How will peer relationships mediate the effects of low internal control on violence?

This study will examine the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Adolescent low internal controls will predict peer relational difficulties. We will attempt

to predict peer relational problems at Time 2 with low internal controls as measured at Time 1.

Hypothesis 2: Peer relational difficulties will predict adolescent violent behavior. Again, we will attempt

to use relational difficulty measured at Time 1 to predict violent behavior at Time 2.

Hypothesis 3: Low internal controls will predict adolescent violent behavior, over and above their effects

on peer relations. We will attempt to predict violent behavior at Time 2 by low internal control at Time 1.

Hypothesis 4: Peer relational difficulties serve as a mediator between low internal controls and

adolescent violent behavior. For ease of study of this hypothesis, we will measure low internal controls at

Time 1 and both peer relations and violent behavior at Time 2.

Method

Participants

Participants included 151 ninth and tenth graders, 77 male and 74 female. The mean age of

participants at Wave 1 was 15.91 years (SD=.81), with a range in age from 14 to 18.75. Follow-up

interviews were spaced for each subject so as to occur approximately two years after the initial data

collection. The self-identified racial background of the sample was 61% European American, 38%

African-American, and 1.5% self identified as “other” (e.g. Native American, multiracial). Median

family income for the participants was $25,000, ranging from less than $5,000 to greater than $60,000.

Mothers’ mean education level was a high school diploma with some training post-high school, with a

range from less than an eighth grade education to completion of an advanced degree.

9

Participants were recruited through two local, public high schools in rural and suburban

communities. Students were selected for participation based on the presence of at least one of four

possible academic risk factors, including failing a single course for a single marking period, any lifetime

history of grade retention, ten or more absences in one marking period, and any history of school

suspension. These broad criteria were used in order to select a wide range of adolescents at risk for

developing future academic and social difficulties, ranging from those performing adequately with only

occasional minor problems to those already experiencing more serious difficulties. Based on these

criteria, approximately one-half of all ninth- and tenth-grade students were eligible for the study. These

criteria target the population of adolescents described as the “forgotten half” of high school students who

are not likely to go on to college and who are at heightened risk for problem behaviors in adolescence

(William T. Grant Commission, 1988).

Procedure

Families of adolescents identified as meeting the selection criteria were contacted first by mail

and later followed up with phone calls. Approximately half of families contacted agreed to participate.

Following agreement to participate by both the adolescent and the parents, families came in for two 3-

hour visits at our offices. Families were paid a total of $105 for their participation. At each visit, families

gave active, informed consent to participate. They were insured that all responses were confidential and

that their responses would not be shared with one another. All data in the study was protected by a

Confidentiality Certificate issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, which

protected information from subpoena by federal, state, and local courts. Transportation and childcare

were provided if necessary. During the visits, face-to-face interviews and a large battery of

questionnaires were administered individually in separate rooms. Family members also participated in

videotaped dyadic interaction tasks. Measures examined a variety of adolescent behaviors (e.g. sexual

activity, delinquency and substance use, self-esteem and social competence) as well as assessed the

quality of their family and peer relationships. A list of referral agencies was given to each family at the

10

end of the sessions in case a family member wished to seek the services of qualified professionals for any

concerns that may have arisen during the course of the interviews.

Approximately two years subsequent to first wave interviews, families were re-contacted and

scheduled for two 3-hour sessions at our offices. Adolescents attended both sessions; parents attended the

first session only. Procedures at these follow-up sessions were identical to the original procedures, with

the exception of payment: adolescents and parents were paid $65 and $50, respectively.

Peer sample

At both waves of data collection, adolescents were asked to list the names of five friends whom

they felt knew them well, and whom they would feel comfortable having participate in the study.

Researchers explained that peers would fill out measures to describe themselves and the adolescent, and

that information supplied by themselves and peers would be kept confidential. It was also emphasized to

teens that they were not required to supply names of friends if they were uncomfortable doing so. Once

adolescents had given consent for their friends to be contacted, two peers of each adolescent were

selected randomly and contacted by telephone. Following explanation of the study, peers who were

interested in participating were scheduled for a 60-minute interview session at our offices, during which

they completed measures about themselves and the adolescent. Parental consent was required for

participation of peers under 18 years of age. Participants were instructed that all information was kept

completely confidential. Transportation was provided when necessary, and peers were paid for

participation.

During the first wave of data collection, 203 peers participated in the study (mean age=16.9,

SD=1.4; 52.5% female; 60% white). Peers reported that they had known the targeted teens an average of

4.9 years (SD=3.28, range=0-17 years). At the follow-up wave of data collection, 207 peers participated

(mean age=17.9, SD=1.8; 53% female; 58% white). At Time 2, peers reported that they had known

targeted teens for an average of 5.5 years (SD=4.3, range=0.8-18.8 years). Additionally, 57% of the peers

believed they knew the target adolescent “very well”; 38% described themselves as the target

adolescent’s best friend.

11

Measures

The primary strategy of measurement involved the use of multiple assessment tools from multiple

sources for each of the constructs of interest. This approach produces truly independent assessments of

the relations among critical constructs while reducing reporting bias from any single source, thus adding

to the validity of the study.

Demographic information

Mothers, adolescents, and peers were all asked to provide basic demographic information such as

gender, age, and race/ethnicity. Mothers were

asked to provide information regarding their level of education, family and marital status, annual

household income, and number of persons supported by this income. Adolescents and peers reported on

which local high school they attended, and peers reported on the number of years and/or months that they

had known they adolescent in the study.

Internal Controls.

Ego Development. Adolescents completed the Washington University Sentence Completion Test

(SCT; see Appendix A). This is a projective measure developed by Loevinger and colleagues (Loevinger

& Wessler, 1970) to assess an individual’s level of ego development. The test consists of 36 unfinished

sentence stems to be completed by the subject. Stem responses were coded by trained raters who

assigned each response one of nine levels of development by matching the response to a category

provided by the scoring manuals. An individual’s level of ego development was determined by summing

the ratings to all 36 stems. Slightly different protocols were used for males and females, and separate

manuals were used for scoring. High between-coder reliability was indicated by the Spearman-Brown

correlations (r=.98). Internal consistency among items was calculated using Cronbach’s Alpha: =.85

for males, =.90 for females. Studies of the construct validity of the SCT as a measure of ego

development have found that scores on the SCT are related to measures of impulsiveness (Kishton,

Starett, & Lucas, 1984), moral development (Liberman, Gaa, & Frankiewicz, 1983), and cognitive and

12

interpersonal styles (Lorr & Manning, 1978). Additionally, the SCT has demonstrated discriminant

validity from other constructs such as verbal fluency and intelligence (Hauser, 1976).

Impulsivity. Adolescents also completed the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory, a self-report

measure examining two dimensions of socio-emotional adjustment: self-restraint and distress (WAI;

Weinberger, 1989). For purposes of this study, only the self-restraint scale was utilized. The self-

restraint scale examines undercontrolled behavior and beliefs that support such behavior. It is comprised

of four subscales: 1) suppression of aggression, 2) consideration of others, 3) responsibility, and 4)

impulse control (“I do things without giving them enough thought”). Only the impulse control subscale

was used in this study. See Appendix B for a copy of this subscale. Adolescents respond to statements

using a 5-point Likert scale (1=almost never true, 5=almost always true). The restraint scale has

demonstrated both convergent and discriminant validity in a multimethod assessment (Weinberger,

Tublin, Ford, & Feldman, 1990). This measure demonstrated adequate internal consistency as well

(Cronbach’s = .84)

Social Cognition (Competence Expectations). The Adolescent Problem Inventory (API) for boys

(Freedman, Rosenthal, Donohoe, Schlundt, & McFall, 1978) and the Problem Inventory for Adolescent

Girls (Gaffney & McFall, 1981) were used to elicit adolescents’ expectations and values toward socially

competent behaviors, particularly behaviors avoidant of delinquency (see Appendix C). Participants

responded to nine hypothetical social dilemmas followed by a competent solution described as “another

teenager’s response”. Using an anchored 10-point scale, teens then responded to a series of probes about

their own values (i.e. how much the teen would like someone who performed such a response), the values

of an important adult (how much would the adult like someone who performed such a response), and their

own self-efficacy expectations (could the teen give such a response if he/she tried). The perceived adult

value score was subtracted from the adolescent value score on each item to yield a score for identification

with the positive values of an adult. The score indicates the extent to which the youth’s values are similar

to those of an important adult. An overall composite score for competence expectations was created by

13

combining scores obtained for self-efficacy expectations and for identification with adult values (r=.46,

p<.001) (Allen, Leadbeater, & Aber, 1990).

Peer Relations

Attachment to Friends. Both adolescents and their peers completed the peer version of the

Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). The IPPA is a 32-item

measure consisting of a variety of statements describing relationships (see Appendix D). The participant

is asked to rate how true each statement is of their friendship. The items are rated on a 5-point scale from

“never true” to “almost always true”. While the IPPA contains three subscales (Trust, Communication,

and Alienation), its authors recommend collapsing these scales into a single Total Attachment scale

(Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). Adolescents reported on their peer attachment at both time points, while

peers completed this measure only at Time 2, when adolescents were 18. Teens’ ratings of their Total

Attachment to peers showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s =.83 at Time 1, =.94 at Time 2).

Peers ratings of Total Attachment in their friendship with the target teen were uncorrelated (r=.04),

although the averaged Total Attachment scale showed good internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha

of .92.

Social Problems. Adolescents completed the Youth Self Report (YSR; Achenbach & Edelbrock,

1979) both Time 1 and Time 2. This measure assesses adolescents’ problem behaviors, and includes

subscales of both internalizing and externalizing behaviors, as well as an Activities scale, a Social scale,

and a School Performance scale. For purposes of this study, only the Social scale was used, including

items such as “I don’t get along with other kids” (see Appendix E). Each item was rated on a 3-point

scale (0=not true of me, 2=very true or often true of me). The YSR has been normed on a sample of

1,315 boys and girls between the ages of eleven and eighteen (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1979).

Conflict Resolution. At Time 2 only, adolescents and their peers completed the Adolescent

Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (AICQ; Buhrmester, 1990; Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, &

Reiss, 1988). This measure consists of 40 items assessing five domains of interpersonal competence,

including initiating relationships, offering emotional support, engaging in self-disclosure, asserting

14

influence, and resolving conflicts. For purposes of this study, only the Conflict Resolution subscale was

utilized. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (poor at this) to 5 (extremely good at this).

See Appendix F for a copy of the Conflict Resolution scale.

Both the self-report and peer-report versions of the Conflict Resolution scale showed good

internal consistency, with Cronbach alphas of .87 for teen report of their skills at conflict resolution

and .84 for peer report of teen’s conflict resolution skills. The correlation between peers’ reports of

adolescents conflict resolution skills was low, in all likelihood reflecting that different peers are each

sampling different and independent aspects of teens’ conflict resolution efforts (r=.18).

Adolescent Violent Behavior

Self reports. As mentioned above, adolescents completed the Youth Self-Report (YSR;

Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1979) at both Time 1 and Time 2. The violent behavior subscale of this

measure was used to assess self-reported violent behavior. For example, adolescents rated how true of

themselves was the statement “I physically attack people”. See Appendix G for all items on the violent

behavior scale.

Peer reports. Additionally, peer reports of teens’ violent behavior were garnered using an adapted

version of the Adolescent Self-Perception Profile (Harter, 1988), a measure which asked about the

occurrence of specific types of violent behavior by the adolescent in the study (see Appendix H). Peers

used a 4-point scale to describe how much assaultive and fighting behaviors were characteristic of the

target adolescent. An average score was computed using reports from both peers. Using Spearman-

Brown’s r, agreement between peers was calculated (r=.60 at Time 1, r=.31 at Time 2), and internal

consistency was shown to be adequate (Cronbach’s =.67 at Time 1, =.56 at Time 2). These measures

have been shown to correlate substantially with adolescent and parent reports, but also to show somewhat

different and stronger relations to other indices of adolescents’ functioning than do self-report measures.

Because scores on the violent behavior measures were all highly positively skewed (adolescents

overall reported low levels of violent behavior), scores were log-transformed prior to all analyses.

15

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Before beginning major analyses to address the study’s primary research questions, preliminary

analyses were conducted to screen the data for data entry errors, outliers, and non-normally distributed

variables. Correlational analyses were also performed on variables of interest.

Data Screening

The means and standard deviations of all variables were examined to rule out data entry errors.

These descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1.

Correlational Analyses

Preliminary correlational analyses were conducted to examine the relationships of variables to

one another (see Table 2). Measures of adolescent internal controls were all significantly associated with

one another. Measures of peer relational difficulty were also related, although the social problems

measure did not correlate as well with the other measures. Measures of violent behavior were highly

associated with one another.

Between measure type, associations were inconsistent. Self-report of total attachment to friends

was the peer relations measure most strongly associated with measures of internal controls. All measures

of violent behavior were also related to internal controls measures. No measures of violent behavior were

consistently correlated to measures of peer relational difficulty.

Demographic Effects.

Demographic characteristics, such as socioeconomic status, minority status, and gender have

been linked to violent behavior in previous studies. This study addressed the impact of demographic

variables in three ways. First, partial correlational analyses were conducted to determine if relationships

existed between demographic variables and the study’s variables of interest. See Table 3 for results of

these analyses. Family income was related significantly to ego development, peer report of violent

behavior at both time points, and self-report of violent behavior at Time 1. Gender was associated with

16

impulsivity, social competence, and peer report of violent behavior. Minority status was related to ego

development, peer report of violent behavior, and self-report of violent behavior at Time 2.

The second way this study examined the effects of demographics was by accounting for them in

partial correlations of major study variables. These analyses are presented in the next section. When

performing correlations of variables of interest, family income, minority status, and gender were held

constant. This controlled for main effects of demographic variables and assured that findings were above

and beyond demographic effects.

The third way demographic variables were assessed was by accounting for them in each of the

regression models of the major analyses, presented in the next section. In each of the regression models,

family income, minority status, and gender were entered in the first step of the model. This assessed for

main effects of demographic factors, and again ensured that any findings were beyond demographic

effects.

Primary Analyses

Following completion of preliminary analyses, primary analyses were performed, aimed at

addressing the central research questions of this study. The four main questions of this study were as

follows: (1) do adolescent internal controls predict peer relational difficulty?; (2) does peer relational

difficulty predict adolescent violent behavior?; (3) does lack of internal control predict adolescent violent

behavior, above and beyond its relationship with peer relations?; (4) does peer relational difficulty serve

as a mediator or a moderator in the relationship between internal control and violent behavior?

Internal Controls and Peer Relational Difficulty

The first set of major analyses attempted to discern the relationship between internal controls and

peer relational difficulty. This was done in two steps. In the first step, partial correlations were used to

assess the relation of internal controls measures to peer relational measures, while controlling for

demographic factors. Results of this analysis can be seen in Table 4. Overall, total attachment to friends

was most consistently and strongly predicted by measures of internal controls, with r’s ranging from .19

17

with ego development, to .30 with social cognition. Conflict resolution was also associated significantly

with both impulsivity and social cognition.

The second step of analyses of Question 1 was the testing of a series of regression models. In the

initial step of all models, the adolescents’ gender, family income, and minority status were entered. In the

second step, all relevant internal controls measures were entered together to predict a single measure of

peer relational difficulty. Impulsivity was not used to predict any self-reported measure of peer relational

difficulty because both measures were obtained from the same reporter and analyses were designed to

minimize possible effects of reporter bias in creating spurious results. The results of these models are

presented in Tables 5 through 10. Table 5 shows that after accounting for demographic variables, higher

levels of internal controls did significantly predict greater self-reported conflict resolution skills

(R2=.065, p<.05). In Table 6, however, higher internal control did not significantly predict better peer-

reported conflict resolution skills (R2=.08, p>.05). Table 7 shows that higher levels of internal control

do not significantly predict social problems at age 16 (R2=.01, p>.05). Likewise, in Table 8, high levels

of internal controls did not predict social problems at age 18 (R2=.01, p>.05). Table 9 shows that higher

levels of internal control did significantly predict self-reported total attachment to friends (R2=.10,

p<.01); however, in Table 10, it did not predict peer-reported total attachment to friends (R2=.06, p>.05).

Thus, it appears that internal control was most significantly related to self-reports of conflict resolution

and attachment to friends.

Peer Relations and Adolescent Violent Behavior

The second set of major analyses attempted to discern the relationship between peer relational

difficulty and adolescent violent behavior. This was done in two steps. In the first step, partial

correlations were used to assess the relation of peer relations measures with violent behavior measures,

while controlling for demographic factors. Results of this analysis can be seen in Table 11. Overall,

peer-reported conflict resolution skills were most closely related to violent behavior, as they were

significantly correlated with peer-reported violent behavior at both age 16 (r=-.22, p<.05) and age 18

(r=-.31, p<.001). In addition, self-reported conflict resolution skills were related to peer-reported violent

18

behavior at age 18 (r=.20, p<.05) Social problems at age 16 were related to self-reported violent behavior

at age 16 (r=.29, p<.001), and social problems at age 18 were related to self-reported violent behavior at

the same time point (r=.29, p<.001).

The second step of analyses of Question 2 was the testing of a series of regression models. In the

initial step of all models, the adolescents’ gender, family income, and minority status were entered. In the

second step, all relevant peer relational difficulty measures were entered together to predict a single

measure of adolescent violent behavior. Matched reporter measures were eliminated to reduce effects of

reporter. The results of these models are presented in Tables 12 through 15. Table 12 shows that after

accounting for demographic variables, self-reported violent behavior at age 16 was not significantly

predicted by peer relational difficulty (R2=.03, p>.05). Similarly, in Table 13, peer-reported violent

behavior at age 16 was not significantly predicted by peer relational difficulty (R2=.01, p>.05). In Table

14, self-reported violent behavior at age 18 was not significantly predicted by the peer relational

difficulty. However, as shown in Table 15, peer relational difficulty did significantly predict peer-

reported violent behavior at age 18 (R2=.06, p<.05). Thus, only peer-reported violent behavior was

related to peer relational difficulty

Internal Control and Violent Behavior

The third set of major analyses attempted to discern the relationship between internal control and

adolescent violent behavior, over and above the peer relational pathway. This was done in two steps. In

the first step, partial correlations were used to assess the relation of internal controls measures with

violent behavior measures, while controlling for demographic factors. Results of this analysis can be seen

in Table 16. Overall, internal controls and adolescent violent behavior were fairly closely related. Self-

reported violent behavior at age 16, in particular, was significantly related to all measures of internal

control, with r’s of -.22 for both ego development and impulsivity (p<.01), and an r of -.32 for social

cognition (p<.01).

The second step of analyses of Question 3 was the testing of a series of regression models. In the

initial step of all models, the adolescents’ gender, family income, and minority status were entered. In the

19

second step, all relevant internal controls measures were entered together to predict a single measure of

adolescent violent behavior. Impulsivity was not used to predict any self-reported measure of violent

behavior because both measures were obtained from the same reporter and analyses were designed to

minimize possible effects of reporter bias in creating spurious results. The results of these models are

presented in Tables 17 through 20. Table 17 shows that after accounting for demographic factors, higher

levels of internal control did significantly predict self-reported violent behavior at age 16 (R2=.12,

p<.001). Similarly, in Table 18, peer-reported violent behavior at age 16 was significantly predicted by

higher levels of internal control (R2=.09, p<.05). Table 19 shows that increased internal control

significantly predicted self-reported violent behavior at age 18 (R2=.07, p<01). Likewise, in Table 20,

peer-reported violent behavior at age 18 was significantly predicted by higher levels of internal control

(R2=.01, p<.01). Thus, internal control was a significant predictor of all measures of violent behavior

outcomes.

Mediation and Moderation

The final set of major analyses attempted to discern whether peer relational difficulty serves as a

mediator or a moderator between internal controls and adolescent violent behavior.

Mediation. To test whether the link from internal controls to violence was mediated by peer

relations factors, we used Baron & Kenny’s (1986) suggested set of criteria, which is that : (1) the

relation is significant from internal controls to adolescent violent behavior, (2) there is significant

relationship from internal controls to peer relational difficulty , (3) the relation is significant from peer

relational difficulty to violent behavior and (4) that in a regression equation where internal control

predicts violence, when you add in peer relational difficulty to the equation the effect of internal control

decreases. Three variable sets met criteria one through three of these criteria and were entered into

regression equations to test their fitness for criteria four: (1) ego development, social problems at age 16,

and self-reported violent behavior at age 16, (2) social cognition, peer reported conflict resolution at age

18, and peer reported violent behavior at age 16, and (3) social cognition, peer reported violent behavior

at age 18, and peer reported violent behavior at age 18. In the initial step of all models, the adolescent’s

20

gender, minority status, and family income were entered. In step two, the internal controls measure was

entered, and in step three, the peer relational measure was added. No peer relational measure was found

to be a mediator of the relationship between low internal controls and adolescent violent behavior.

Moderation. To test for moderating mechanisms, regression models were constructed which

entered adolescent’s gender, family income, and minority status in the initial step. In the second step, an

internal controls measure and a peer relational difficulty measure was entered to assess for main effects.

Then, in the final step, the interaction term (the product) of the internal controls and peer relational

difficulty measures were entered to assess interaction or moderating effects. Moderating effects were

found in only one model. The interaction of social cognition and self-reported conflict resolution skills at

age 18 was significant in predicting peer-reported violent behavior at age 18 (R2=0.12, p<.003).

Adolescents’ social competence predicted violent behavior only when conflict resolution skills were

highly developed. This effect is depicted in Figure 1.

Discussion

The objective of the current study was to answer four questions: (1) Does a low level of internal

control result in peer relational difficulty? (2) Does peer relational difficulty result in adolescent violent

behavior?, (3) Does low internal control predict adolescent violent behavior above and beyond the peer

relations pathway?, and (4) Does peer relational difficulty mediate and/or moderate the relationship

between low internal control and adolescent violent behavior? There is equivocal evidence to support all

four hypotheses. Increased internal control predicted better self-reported conflict resolution skills and

attachment to friends, but not social problems. Difficulty with friends predicted peer reports of

adolescent violent behavior at age 18 only. Conflict resolution skills were found to moderate the

relationship between social cognition and violent behavior. Finally, low internal control strongly

predicted adolescent violent behavior.

Low levels of internal control predicted some types of peer relational difficulty. This is similar to

past research, which has shown that patterns of impulsivity and dysregulation contribute to childhood and

adolescent peer rejection and other relational difficulty (Stormshak et al., 1999; Pope & Bierman, 1999;

21

Cillessen, van Ijzendoorn, van Lieshout, & Hartup, 1992). Adolescents who were well-attached to their

friends and who were skilled at resolving conflict were also adolescents who: (1) displayed higher levels

of ego development, (2) reported higher levels of self-restraint, (3) believed that they could perform

competently in situations of interpersonal conflict, and (4) shared the values of an important adult. This is

not surprising, given evidence that low internal control may be reflected in a variety of aversive social

behavior including emotional outbursts, whining, inattentiveness, and low frustration tolerance, which

signify difficulties with core skills necessary for effective interpersonal interaction (Eisenberg & Fabes,

1992; Beirman, Smoot, & Aumiller, 1993; Coie & Lenox, 1994).

It is of note that increased internal control improved conflict resolution skills and attachment to

friends, but did not improve self-reported social problems. The relationship of internal control and

conflict resolution may be explained in part by the nature of the measures used to assess both constructs.

Adolescents who displayed increased internal controls had high levels of self-efficacy expectations given

hypothetical interpersonal conflict situations. These expectations may be reflective of actual

demonstrated ability to solve conflict. In addition, adolescents with good internal control reported better

self-restraint and identification with adult values. Both of these attributes would be helpful when

deciding the most effective way to handle conflict, and thus may have resulted in better reports of conflict

resolution skills.

There are several reasons why low levels of internal control may not have predicted self-reports

of social problems. With the exception of self-restraint, all measures of internal control were not self-

report, but were coded by trained coders. This resulted in a fairly objective outside measurement of the

level of internal control possessed by the adolescent. However, social problems were self-reported.

Adolescents who possessed a low level of internal control might be expected to underestimate their own

level of social problems, given their displayed level of misunderstanding of social values and cues, as

well as their impulsivity. Thus, it is possible that if social problems had been reported by an outside

observer (e.g., peer or parent), it too would have been found to be related to internal control.

22

The second major finding was that there is some evidence that peer relational difficulty

contributes to violent behavior. Again, this is consistent with previous literature. Kupersmidt, Burchinal,

& Patterson (1995) found that peer relational difficulty put third- through seventh-grade children at risk

for aggressive behavior. This study extends their result to adolescence, where peer relationships are

particularly influential (Allen, Moore, & Kuperminc,1997). We found that peer relational difficulty only

predicted violent behavior that was reported by peers at Time 2. This may be a result of the fact that

peers may be the best reporter of both peer relational difficulty and violent behavior. Peers are likely a

more accurate observer of how a person interacts socially than the individual himself. This may be

particularly true, as mentioned above, if the adolescent also has a low level of internal control and thus is

less aware of his/her social surroundings. Peers also are likely better reporters of violent behavior given

the externalizing nature of the behavior. Outside observers are better able to see the severity and

implications of such behavior, rather than the perpetrator.

In particular, we found that adolescents’ conflict resolution skills and social problems were most

strongly related to their violent behavior outcomes. It is not surprising that adolescents with better skills at

conflict resolution would also have less violent behavior. If an adolescent is able to effectively resolve

conflict in a constructive way, they need not resort to violent means, reducing the likelihood that such

behavior would occur. The fact that social problems are associated with violent behavior may be more an

effect of measurement than of true relationship, since both measures were subscales of the same

instrument. However, at the same time, the social problems measure may reflect more global, severe

interpersonal problems than the measure of friendship attachment, which may explain why it better

predicts violent behavior outcomes. It can be assumed that adolescents who are low on total attachment

to friends may still have friendships that provide some level of support. This measure taps into trust and

communication with friends as well as alienation from friends. Thus, an adolescent could not score well

on this measure because of either a lack of friends or because they have friendships but the friendships are

not particularly adaptive. However, an adolescent who has high levels of social problems is likely to

endorse such items as “I don’t get along with other kids”, and may have no friends at all. Therefore, it is

23

possible that social problems predict violent behavior better than total attachment because the relational

difficulty is more severe.

Another reason that would explain why total attachment was not related to violent behavior

outcomes could be explained by a common theory of antisocial behavior. It is believed that aggressive

behaviors originate in coercive family environments (Patterson, 1982) and then are generalized to school,

where they lead to rejection by mainstream peers (Bierman & Smoot, 1991; Dodge, Bates, & Pettit,

1990). This rejection forces the aggressive student into affiliation with a deviant peer group who

encourage continued aggressive behavior (Cairns, Neckerman, & Cairns, 1989; Dishion, Patterson,

Stoolmiller, & Skinner, 1991). Thus, it is possible that the violent adolescents in our study (particularly

given their older age) could have already gone through a period of rejection by mainstream peers, and

may have found a group affiliation with other violent teens. In fact, it has been shown that aggressive

boys (at least in childhood) can be quite popular if they find a peer group that supports their aggressive

value system (Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000). Therefore, these adolescents may have good

attachment to their friends, but their peer groups themselves are maladaptive and provide “deviancy

training” (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999), leading to more generalized social problems outside of the

peer group.

The third major finding of the study is that there is strong evidence that a lack of internal control

predicts violence above and beyond the peer relations pathway. This supports past research that has

shown that poor impulse control and emotional dysregulation are risk factors for violent behavior (Pope

& Bierman, 1999; Tate, 1999). It is also consistent with theories of crime which state that a lack of self-

control can be displayed in many ways, including a stronger tendency to engage in violent, criminal, or

antisocial activities (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). This is not to say that a lack of self-control

necessitates violent, aggressive, or antisocial behavior, but that it increases the likelihood that such

behavior will occur.

The fourth major finding of the study was that conflict resolution skills serve as a moderator

between social competence and adolescent violent behavior. The violent behavior of adolescents with

24

poor social cognition was relatively unaffected by their ability to solve conflicts. However, adolescents

whose social competence was good had significantly less violent behavior if they also had good conflict

resolution skills. If these same adolescents had poor conflict resolution skills, their violent behavior was

at approximately the same level as those teens with low social cognition scores. Thus, it seems that a lack

of either social cognition or skills in conflict resolution are not alone important to violent behavior, but

may compensate for each other where one is lacking. However, if a teen does not believe they can react

competently in the interpersonal arena, and lacks the actual skills to solve conflict, violent behavior is

more likely to result. Additionally, knowing how to handle and avoid interpersonal conflict may not

always translate into competent action when faced with conflict in the real world. It makes intuitive sense

that a low sense of interpersonal competence is a risk factor for violent behavior, but it seems that that

alone is not enough. In order to most successfully avoid violent outcomes, adolescents must have both a

sense of their own interpersonal competence and the behavioral skills necessary to adaptively deal with

conflict when it arises.

The results of this study raise several questions, and have implications for our understanding of

adolescent peer relationships and violent behavior. Clearly, internal control is closely related to the way

that adolescents function socially, and it also contributes to their violent behavior. But what is the true

nature of internal control? Is it the reflection of a biological reality, such as the suppression of inhibition

in the brain? (Barkley, 1997) Does it exist at the subconscious level as a cognitive set through which

internal and external stimuli are understood? (Weiner, 1996) Or is internal control at a more conscious

level, in the same way as beliefs and values (Guerra & Slaby, 1990)?

There is some evidence to support the assertion that internal control may be linked to

psychophysiology. The Virginia Twin Study of Adolescent Behavioral Development interviewed 1,412

Caucasian twin pairs ages eight to sixteen, and found considerable genetic influence on the externalizing

spectrum of behaviors (Eaves et. al, 1997; Hewitt et al., 1997). More specifically, Quay (1997) proposes

a theory of how neurobiology affects self-regulation. This model proposes that there are two brain

systems that work in opposition. The first is the Behavioral Inhibition System. This system is related to

25

anxiety, and is activated to inhibit behavior in novel situations. The second system is the Behavioral

Activation System, which is sensitive to rewards and responds to reinforcement. Quay proposes that the

Behavioral Inhibition System is deficient in children and adolescents with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity

Disorder, resulting in their inability to self-regulate behavior.

Another possibility is that internal control is a subconscious cognitive set through which

adolescents perceive and act upon their environment. This may originate in the family and parental

discipline. Inconsistent discipline can involve frequent changes in the way one parent disciplines, or

inconsistencies in the expectations of two parents. In these circumstances, parents may undermine each

other’s discipline (Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989; Shaw & Emery, 1988). This may lead to

confusion for the child in understanding appropriate social behavior.

Another theory about the cognition of internal control suggests that aggressive children and

adolescents may falsely attribute hostile intent to their environment, and thus act out accordingly.

Research has shown that given an ambiguous condition, aggressive children respond as if the condition

was hostile (Dodge, 1980). They then respond in kind with anger expressions and temper tantrums

(Dodge, Lochman, Harnish, Bates, and Pettit, 1997). This behavior seems to mimic a lack of internal

control. Thus, it is possible that lack of internal control consists of faulty cognitive sets with which

adolescents interact with their environment.

The third possibility is that internal control largely reflects, or is at least influenced by conscious

behavior, in the same way as attitudes and beliefs. There is some evidence that this, too, may be the case.

Egan, Monson, & Perry (1998) found that aggression-encouraging cognitions affect behavioral

development mainly when the child’s transactions with the social environment support the use of the

cognitions as guides for behavior. This suggests that children may have control over their own cognitions

regarding behavior, particularly externalized, unregulated behavior. In addition, Dodge and colleagues

(1997) found that some children use “proactive aggression” rather than “reactive aggression”. Reactive

aggression refers to aggression that is in response to frustration and is manifest through emotional

outburst. Conversely, proactive aggression is calculated and is the result of a processing pattern of

26

anticipating positive outcomes for aggressing. In this case, it appears that “dysregulated” behavior may

actually be the result of careful calculation under the surface. The measures used to approximate internal

control in this study likely tap each possible nature of internal control, but further study is warranted to

discover the true nature of the concept.

A second important implication of the current study is the importance of adolescents’ interactions

with their peers in affecting violent behavior outcomes. This particular finding has implications for

intervention and prevention. Given that peer relationships can buffer teens from becoming violent, it is

important that interventions for at-risk adolescents include a positive social environment. This could

make a difference in outcomes, particularly if the target adolescent lacks internal control. One caveat to

this, however, is that care must be taken not to group potentially violent adolescents in peer groups with

other deviant adolescents. As Dishion, McCord, & Poulin (1999) have cautioned, high-risk youth are

particularly vulnerable to peer groupings, and may find reinforcement for their deviant behavior under

some circumstances.

Conflict resolution skills appear to be particularly important to the way that adolescents’ peer

relationships aid them in avoiding violent behavior. Underwood and colleagues (1999) have suggested

that adolescents rely more on peers than parents to learn about emotions and anger. This may also apply

to such behavioral skills as conflict resolution. New interventions should capitalize on this phenomenon,

perhaps with peer mentoring programs to teach adaptive ways of solving conflict.

The current study has several limitations. First, the sample size was relatively small, and

included only a small number of violent participants. Future research should attempt to address this

through the use of a larger sample that includes more teens engaged in violent behavior.

Secondly, a better test of the model may have been achieved through use of measures at three

time points, rather than two. In this way, it would have been possible to more directly test for the

possibility of a pathway from low internal control to poor peer relationships that in turn result in

adolescent violent behavior. However, we can still draw valid conclusions using only two time points,

since each step of the model was broken down and tested separately for links across time.

27

Thirdly, this study included no direct measure of peer rejection, but rather of problems within

existing relationships, or more broad social problems. Past research has shown a strong relationship

between a lack of internal control and peer rejection (Cillessen, van Izendoorn, van Lieshout, & Hartup,

1992; Stormshak et al, 1999), and also between peer rejection and aggression (Coie et al., 1995). Given

this strong evidence, it would be useful to examine more directly the relationship of internal control and

violent behavior to peer rejection, rather than broad social problems.

Finally, because the data are correlational, we cannot assume any causality between constructs.

While our conceptual model suggests a certain direction of relationships between variables, it is possible

that these relationships are bidirectional or can be explained by confounding variables (i.e. self-reported

lack of internal control may be based on the knowledge that one has social difficulty or becomes violent

at times).

The current study adds to the existing literature by combining three areas of research: (1)

research linking a lack of internal control to peer relational difficulty, (2) research linking a lack of

internal control to violent behavior, and (3) research linking peer relational difficulty to violent behavior

outcomes. As mentioned above, future research should continue to attempt to discover the true nature of

the concept of internal control. Additionally, further research should explore what particular aspects of

the peer interaction are most prone to be affected by lack of internal control, and which are most

conducive to violent behavior outcomes. Interventions should then be designed to target these particular

aspects of peer relations to prevent at-risk youth from becoming violent in the future.

28

References

Achenbach, T. M., and Edelbrock, C. S. (1979). The Child Behavior Profile: II, boys aged 12-16

and girls aged 6-11 and 12-16. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47 (2), 223-233.

Allen, J. P., Leadbeater, B. J., and Aber, J. L. (1990). The relationship of adolescents’

expectations and values to delinquency, hard drug use and unprotected sexual intercourse. Development

and Psychopathology, 2, 85-98.

Allen, J. P., Moore, C. M., & Kuperminc, G. P. (1997). Developmental approaches to

understanding adolescent deviance. S. S. Luthar & J. A. Burack (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology:

Perspectives on adjustment, risk, and disorder. (pp. 548-567). New York: Cambridge University Press.

American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV. Washington,

D. C.: American Psychiatric Press.

Armsden, G.C. & Greenberg, M.T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer

attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in

adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-454.

Bagwell, C. L., Newcomb, A. F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1998). Preadolescent friendship and peer

rejection as predictors of adult adjustment. Child Development, 69 (1), 140-153.

Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions:

Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 69-94.

Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human Aggression (2 ed) New York:

Plenum Press.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182.

Bierman, K. L., & Smoot, D. L. (1991). Linking family characteristics with poor peer relations:

The mediating role of conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 341-356.

29

Bierman, K. L., Smoot, D. L., & Aumiller, K. (1993). Characteristics of aggressive-rejected,

aggressive (non-rejected) and rejected (non-aggressive) status. Development and Psychopathology, 7,

765-785.

Blumstein, A. (1995). Violence by young people: Why the deadly nexus? National Institute of

Justice Journal, 229, 2-8.

Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Farrington, D. P. (1988). Criminal career research: Its value for

criminology. Criminology, 26, 1-35.

Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and

adjustment during preadolescence and adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1101-1111.

Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M., & Reis, H. (1988). Five domains of

interpersonal competence in peer relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

55, 991-1008.

Cairns, R. B., Neckerman, H. J., & Cairns, B. D. (1989). Social networks and the shadows of

synchrony. In G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Advances in adolescent

development (pp. 275-305). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Cillessen, A. H. N., van Ijzendoorn, H. W., van Lieshout, C. F. M., & Hartup, W. W. (1992).

Heterogeneity among peer-rejected boys: Subtypes and stabilities. Child Development, 63, 839-905.

Coie, J. D., & Lenox, K. F. (1994). The development of antisocial individuals. In D. Fowles, P.

Sutker, & S. Goodman (Eds.),

Psychopathology and antisocial personality: A developmental perspective (pp. 45-72). New

York: Springer.

Coie, J. D., Terry, R., Lenox, K., Lochman, J., & Hyman, C. (1995). Childhood peer rejection

and aggression as predictors of stable patterns of adolescent disorder. Development and

Psychopathology, 7, 697-713.

30

DeRosier, M. E., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1994). Children’s academic and

behavioral adjustment as a function of the chronicity and proximity of peer rejection. Child

Development, 65, 1799-1813.

Dishion, T. J., Andrews, D. W., & Crosby, L. (1995). Antisocial boys and their friends in early

adolescence: Relationship characteristics, quality, and interactional process. Child Development, 66,

139-151.

Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and

problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54(9), 755-764.

Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., Stoolmiller, M., & Skinner, M. L. (1991). Family, school, and

behavioral antecedents to early adolescent involvement with antisocial peers. Developmental

Psychopathology, 27, 172-180.

Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and children’s aggressive behavior. Child Development,

51, 162-170.

Eaves, L. J., Silberg, J. L., Meyer, J. M., Maes, H. H., Simonoff, E., Pickles, A., Rutter, M.,

Neale, M. C., Reynolds, C. A., Erickson, M. T., Heath, A. C., Loeber, R., Truett, K. R., & Hewitt, J. K.

(1997). Genetics and developmental psychopathology: 2. The main effects of genes and environment on

behavioral problems in the Virginia Twin Study of Adolescent Behavioral Development. Journal of

Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 965-980.

Egan, S. K., Monson, T. C., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Social-cognitive influences on change in

aggression over time. Developmental Psychology, 34 (5), 996-1006.

Eisenberg, N. & Fabes, R. A. (1992). Emotion, regulation, and the development of social

competence. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 14. Emotion and

social behavior (pp.119-150). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Feldman, S. S. & Weinberger, D. A. (1994). Self-restraint as a mediator of family influences on

boys’ delinquent behavior: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 65, 195-211.

31

Freedman, B. J., Rosenthal, L., Donahoe, C. P., Schlundt, D. G., & McFall, R. M. (1978). A

social-behavioral analysis of skill deficits in delinquent and non-delinquent boys. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 48, 1448-1462.

Gaffney, L. R., & McFall, R. M. (1981). A comparison of social skills in delinquent and

nondelinquent adolescent girls using a behavioral role-playing inventory. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 49, 959-967.

Garbarino, J. (1999). Lost boys: Why our sons turn violent and how we can save them . New

York: The Free Press.

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford: Stanford

University Press.

Guerra, N., & Slaby, R. (1990). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders:

Intervention. Developmental Psychopathology, 26, 269-277.

Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the self-perception profile for adolescents. Unpublished

manuscript. University of Denver.

Hauser, S. T. (1976). Loevinger’s model and measure of ego development: A critical review.

Psychological Bulletin, 33, 928-988.

Hewitt, J. K., Silberg, J. L., Rutter, M., Simonoff, E., Meyer, J. M., Maes, H., Pickles, A., Neale,

M. C., Loeber, R., Erickson, M. T., Kendler, K. S., Heath, A. C., Truett, K. R., Reynolds, C. A., Eaves, L.

J. (1997). Genetics and developmental psychopathology: 1. Phenotypic assessment in the Virginia Twin

Study of Adolescent Behavioral Development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 943-963.

Kishton, J., Starrett, R. H., & Lucas, J. L. (1984). Polar versus milestone variables in adolescent

ego development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 4, 53-64.

Kupersmidt, J. B., Burchinal, M., & Patterson, C. J. (1995). Developmental patterns of childhood

peer relations as predictors of externalizing behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 7,

825-843.

32

Liberman, D., Gaa, J. P., & Frankiewicz, R. G. (1983). Ego and moral development in an

adolescent population. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 142, 61-65.

Loeber, R. & Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the development of aggression and violence from

childhood to early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 371-410.

Loevinger, J. & Wessler, R. (1970). Measuring ego development: Vol. 1. Construction and use

of a sentence completion test. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lorr, M. & Manning, T. (1978). Measurement of ego development by a sentence completion test

and personality test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34, 354-360.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescent-limited and life-course persistant antisocial behavior: A

developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100 (4), 674-701.

Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Dickson, N., Silva, P., & Stanton, W. (1996) Childhood-onset versus

adolescent-onset antisocial conduct problems in males: Natural history from ages 3 to 18 years.

Development and Psychopathology, 8, 399-424.

Olweus, D. (1979). Stability of aggressive reaction patterns in males: A review. Psychological

Bulletin, 86, 852-872.

Patterson, G. R. (1982) Coercive family processes. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

Pettit, G. S. (1997). The developmental course of violence and aggression: Mechanisms of

family and peer influence. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 20 (2), 283-299.

Pope, A. W., & Bierman, K. L. (1999). Predicting adolescent peer problems and antisocial

activities: The relative roles of aggression and dysregulation. Developmental Psychology, 35 (2), 335-

346.

Quay, H. C. (1997). Inhibition and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Abnormal

Child Psychology, 25, 7-13.

Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys:

Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36 (1), 14-24.

33

Rubin, K. H., Bream, L. A., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1991). Social problem solving and aggression

in childhood. In Pepler, D. J. & Rubin, K. H. (eds.) The development and treatment of childhood

aggression, pp. 219-284. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Shaw, D. S., & Emery, R. E. (1988).Chronic family adversity and school-age children’s

adjustment. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 200-206.

Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., Bruschi, C., Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D. and the Conduct

Problems Prevention Research Group (1999). The relation between behavior problems and peer

preference in different classroom contexts. Child Development, 70 (1), 169-182.

Tate, D. C. (1999). A longitudinal study of violent behavior in mid to late adolescence: Familial

factors and the development of internal controls. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Virginia.

Underwood, M. K., Hurley, J. C., Johanson, C. A., & Mosley, J. E. (1999). An experimental,

observational investigation of children’s responses to peer provocation: Developmental and gender

differences in middle childhood. Child Development, 70 (6), 1428-1446.

U. S. Department of Justice (1999). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report.

[Online] Available: www.usdoj.gov.

Weinberger, D. A. (1989). Social-emotional adjustment in older children and adults:

Psychometric properties of the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory. Unpublished manuscript.

Weinberger, D. A., Tublin, S. K., Ford, M. E., & Feldman, S. S. (1990). Preadolescents’ social-

emotional adjustment and selective attrition in family research. Child Development, 61, 1374-1386.

Weiner, I. B. (1996). Measuring ego development (Second Edition). New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Weiss, B., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1992). Some consequences of early harsh

discipline: Child aggression and a maladaptive social information processing style. Child Development,

63, 1321-1355.

34

William T. Grant Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship. (1988). The forgotten half:

Pathways to success for America’s youth and young families. Washington, DC: Youth and America’s

Future: The William T. Grant Commission on Work, Family, and Citizenship.

35

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations of Internal Controls, Peer Relations, and Violent Behavior Variables

Mean S.D.

Social Cognition -0.03 0.98

Ego Development 4.12 0.56

Impulsivity 9.96 2.38

Conflict Resolution 27.03 5.87(Self-Report)

Conflict Resolution 23.65 5.48(Peer-Report)

Total Attachment to Friends 102.28 14.10(Self-Report)

Total Attachment to Friends 99.53 11.43(Peer-Report)

Alienation from Friends 15.11 4.34(Self Report)

Alienation from Friends 16.01 2.85(Peer Report)

Social Problems 2.90 2.27(Age 16)

Social Problems 2.20 2.19(Age 18)

Violent Behavior 0.47 0.82(Self Report at Age 16)

Violent Behavior 1.61 0.73(Peer Report at Age 16)

Violent Behavior 0.25 0.59(Self Report at Age 18)Violent Behavior 1.57 0.59(Peer Report at Age 18)

36

Table 2

Correlation of Internal Controls, Peer Relations, and Violent Behavior Variables.

Variable ego impulsivity competence resolution resolution attach. attach. soc. probs soc. probs vio. beh. vio beh. vio beh. vio beh.______________________ __ ___ (self)_____ (peer)___ (self)___ (peer)____ (Age 16)___ (Age 18)_ (S-Age 16) (P-Age 16) (S-Age 18) (Age18)______ 1. ego -- .17* .30*** .12 .20* .21** .06 -.07 -.01 -.19* -.39*** -.21* -.34*** development

2. impulsivity -- .24** .34*** .01 .26** .03 -.21** -.12 -.21** -.15+ -.07 -.15

3. social competence -- .22** .01 .29*** .17+ -.01 -.08 -.31*** -.16+ -.27*** -.16+

4. self-report of -- .30*** .31*** .08 -.13 -.17* -.12 .01 .00 .05 resolution

5. peer report of -- .21* .54*** -.01 -.12 -.04 -.24** -.08 -.36*** conflict resolution

6. self-report of -- .24** -.23** -.18* -.06 -.07 -.02 .01 total attachment

7. peer report of -- -.05 -.24** -.15+ -.01 -.18* -.17+ total attachment

8. self-report of -- .31*** .30*** .11 -.00 .02 social problems (Age 16)

9. self-report of -- .15+ -.03 .30*** .02 social problems (Age 18)

10. self-report of -- .29*** .32*** .05 violent behavior (Age 16)

11. peer report of -- .32*** .45*** violent behavior (Age 18)

12. self-report of -- .18* violent behavior (Age 18) 13. peer report of violent behavior (Age 18) --

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Note. + p<.10, * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

37

Table 3

Correlation of Demographics and Major Variables of Interest

__________________________________________________________________________

Variable Gender Minority Status Family Income__________________________________________________________________________

Social cognition -.02 .02 .03

Ego development .00 -.39*** .35***

Impulsivity .21* .08 -.14

Conflict resolution .00 -.06 .05(self-report)

Conflict resolution (peer-report) .04 -.08 .11

Total attachment(self-report) .09 -.06 -.02

Total attachment(peer-report) .09 -.04 .02

Social problems(Age 16) -.07 -.24** -.09

Social problems(Age 18) -.04 -.08 -.08

Violent behavior(self-report, age 16) -.13 .00 -.09

Violent behavior(peer-report, age 16) -.24** -.27** -.29**

Violent behavior(self-report, age 18) -.10 .24** -.27**

Violent behavior (peer-report, age 18) -.18+ .23* -.25**

________________________________________________________________________Note. +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

38

Table 4

Partial Correlation of Internal Controls and Peer Relations (Controlling for Gender, Minority Status, and Family Income)_____________________________________________________________________Variable Ego development Impulsivity Social cognition_____________________________________________________________________

Conflict resolution .07 .34*** .25**(self-report)

Conflict resolution (peer-report) .15 .06 .25**

Total attachment(self-report) .19* .28** .30***

Total attachment(peer-report) .04 .04 .16+

Social problems(Age 16) -.11 -.23** -.00

Social problems(Age 18) .02 -.14 -.07

________________________________________________________________________Note. +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p.001

39

Table 5

Predicting Conflict Resolution at Time 2 (Teen Report)

Adolescent Violent Behavior R2 Total R2

Step I. Gender (1=M; 2=F) 0.01 Minority 0.02 Family Income 0.05 0.01 0.01

Step II. Ego Development -0.02 Social Cognition 0.25** 0.07* 0.08______________________________________________________________________________Note. ***p<.001. **p.01. *p<.05. +p<.10. weights are from variable’s entry into model. n=127.

40

Table 6

Predicting Conflict Resolution at Time 2 (Peer Report)

Adolescent Violent Behavior R2 Total R2

Step I. Gender (1=M; 2=F) 0.06 Minority 0.01 Family Income 0.14 0.02 0.02

Step II. Ego Development 0.05 Impulsivity 0.01 Social Cognition 0.24* 0.08 0.10______________________________________________________________________________Note. ***p<.001. **p.01. *p<.05. +p<.10. weights are from variable’s entry into model. n=127.

41

Table 7

Predicting Social Problems at Time 1 (Teen Report)

Adolescent Violent Behavior R2 Total R2

Step I. Gender (1=M; 2=F) -0.08 Minority -0.21* Family Income -0.12 0.04 0.04

Step II. Ego Development -0.14 Social Cognition 0.05 0.01 0.05______________________________________________________________________________Note. ***p<.001. **p.01. *p<.05. +p<.10. weights are from variable’s entry into model. n=127.

42

Table 8

Predicting Social Problems at Time 2 (Teen Report)

Adolescent Violent Behavior R2 Total R2

Step I. Gender (1=M; 2=F) -0.07 Minority 0.01 Family Income -0.06 0.01 0.01

Step II. Ego Development 0.06 Social Cognition -0.10 0.01 0.02______________________________________________________________________________Note. ***p<.001. **p.01. *p<.05. +p<.10. weights are from variable’s entry into model. n=127.

43

Table 9

Predicting Total Attachment to Friends at Time 2 (Teen Report)

Adolescent Violent Behavior R2 Total R2

Step I. Gender (1=M; 2=F) 0.05 Minority -0.07 Family Income -0.01 0.01 0.01

Step II. Ego Development 0.10 Social Cognition 0.27** 0.10** 0.11*______________________________________________________________________________Note. ***p<.001. **p.01. *p<.05. +p<.10. weights are from variable’s entry into model. n=127.

44

Table 10

Predicting Total Attachment to Friends at Time 2 (Peer Report)

Adolescent Violent Behavior R2 Total R2

Step I. Gender (1=M; 2=F) 0.03 Minority -0.03 Family Income 0.01 0.00 0.00

Step II. Ego Development -0.07 Impulsivity 0.02 Social Competence 0.26* 0.06 0.06______________________________________________________________________________Note. ***p<.001. **p.01. *p<.05. +p<.10. weights are from variable’s entry into model. n=127.

45

Table 11

Partial Correlation of Peer Relations and Violent Behavior (Controlling for Gender, Minority Status, and Family Income)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Variable Conflict Resolution Conflict Resolution Attachment Attachment Social Problems Social Problems_____________________(self-report)___________(peer-report)_______(self-report)___(peer-report)____(Age 16)___________(Age 18)____

Violent Behavior(self-report, age 16) -.12 -.04 -.04 -.14 .29*** .14

Violent Behavior(peer-report, age 16) -.02 -.22* -.05 -.01 .13 -.02

Violent Behavior(self-report, age 18) .02 -.03 -.01 -.15 -.01 .29***

Violent Behavior(peer-report, age 18) -.20* -.31*** .09 -.14 .03 .01

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Note. +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p.001

46

Table 12

Predicting Violent Behavior at Time 1 (Teen Report)

Adolescent Violent Behavior R2 Total R2

Step I. Gender (1=M; 2=F) -0.14 Minority 0.05 Family Income -0.10 0.02 0.02

Step II. Conflict Resolution 0.06 Total Attachment -0.16+ 0.03 0.05______________________________________________________________________________Note. ***p<.001. **p.01. *p<.05. +p<.10. weights are from variable’s entry into model. n=127.

47

Table 13

Predicting Violent Behavior at Time 1 (Peer Report)

Adolescent Violent Behavior R2 Total R2

Step I. Gender (1=M; 2=F) -0.17* Minority 0.22* Family Income -0.21* 0.19** 0.19**

Step II. Conflict Resolution 0.01 Social Problems (Time 1) 0.06 Social Problems (Time 2) -0.09 Total Attachment -0.03 0.01 0.20**______________________________________________________________________________Note. ***p<.001. **p.01. *p<.05. +p<.10. weights are from variable’s entry into model. n=127.

48

Table 14

Predicting Violent Behavior at Time 2 (Teen Report)

Adolescent Violent Behavior R2 Total R2

Step I. Gender (1=M; 2=F) -0.10 Minority 0.14 Family Income -0.21* 0.12** 0.12**

Step II. Conflict Resolution 0.07 Total Attachment -0.16 0.02 0.14**______________________________________________________________________________Note. ***p<.001. **p.01. *p<.05. +p<.10. weights are from variable’s entry into model. n=127.

49

Table 15

Predicting Violent Behavior at Time 2 (Peer Report)

Adolescent Violent Behavior R2 Total R2

Step I. Gender (1=M; 2=F) -0.15 Minority 0.19+ Family Income -0.23** 0.15** 0.15**

Step II. Conflict Resolution -0.24** Social Problems (Time 1) -0.02 Social Problems (Time 2) -0.03 Total Attachment 0.18+ 0.06* 0.21***______________________________________________________________________________Note. ***p<.001. **p.01. *p<.05. +p<.10. weights are from variable’s entry into model. n=127.

50

Table 16

Partial Correlation of Internal Controls and Violent Behavior (Controlling for Gender, Minority Status, and Family Income)______________________________________________________________________________Variable Ego development Impulsivity Social competence

Violent behavior(self-report, age 16) -.22** -.22** -.32**

Violent behavior(peer-report, age 16) -.29** -.15 -.20*

Violent behavior(self-report, age 18) -.09 -.08 -.28**

Violent behavior(peer-report, age 18) -.22* -.15 -.20*

______________________________________________________________________________Note. + p<.10, * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

51

Table 17

Predicting Violent Behavior at Time 1 (Teen Report)

Adolescent Violent Behavior R2 Total R2

Step I. Gender (1=M; 2=F) -0.13 Minority -0.10 Family Income -0.10 0.02 0.02

Step II. Ego Development -0.13 Social Cognition -0.29*** 0.12*** 0.14***___________________________________________________________________________Note. ***p<.001. **p.01. *p<.05. +p<.10. weights are from variable’s entry into model. n=127.

52

Table 18

Predicting Violent Behavior at Time 1 (Peer Report)

Adolescent Violent Behavior R2 Total R2

Step I. Gender (1=M; 2=F) -0.21* Minority 0.22* Family Income -0.14 0.17*** 0.17***

Step II. Ego Development -0.27** Social Competence -0.02 Impulsivity -0.07 0.09* 0.25***___________________________________________________________________________Note. ***p<.001. **p.01. *p<.05. +p<.10. weights are from variable’s entry into model. n=127.

53

Table 19

Predicting Violent Behavior at Time 2 (Teen Report)

Adolescent Violent Behavior R2 Total R2

Step I. Gender (1=M; 2=F) -0.13 Minority 0.16 Family Income -0.19+ 0.11** 0.11**

Step II. Ego Development -0.29** Social Cognition 0.02 0.07** 0.18***___________________________________________________________________________Note. ***p<.001. **p.01. *p<.05. +p<.10. weights are from variable’s entry into model. n=127.

54

Table 20

Predicting Violent Behavior at Time 2 (Peer Report)

Adolescent Violent Behavior R2 Total R2

Step I. Gender (1=M; 2=F) -0.15 Minority 0.17 Family Income -0.18+ 0.12** 0.12**

Step II. Ego Development -0.19+ Social Cognition -0.08 Impulsivity -0.11 0.08* 0.20**___________________________________________________________________________Note. ***p<.001. **p.01. *p<.05. +p<.10. weights are from variable’s entry into model. n=127.

55

56

Appendix A.

57

The Washington University Sentence Completion Test

Male Sentence Stems

1. Raising a family 2. When a child will not join in group activities3. When they avoided me4. A man's job5. Being with other people6. The thing I like about myself is7. If my mother 8. Crime and delinquency could be halted if9. When I am with a woman10. Education 11. When people are helpless12. Women are lucky because13. What gets me into trouble is14. A good father 15. A man feels good when16. A wife should17. I feel sorry 18. A man should always19. Rules are 20. When they talked about sex, I21. Men are lucky because 22. My father and I 23. When his wife asked him to help with the housework24. Usually he felt that sex25. At times he worried about26. If I can't get what I want27. My main problem is 28. When I am criticized29. Sometimes he wished that30. A husband has a right to31. When he thought of his mother, he32. The worst thing about being a man is33. If I had more money 34. I just can't stand people who35. My conscience bothers me if36. He felt proud that he

58

Female Sentence Stems

1. Raising a family 2. A girl has a right to3. When they avoided me 4. If my mother5. Being with other people6. The thing I like about myself is7. My mother and I8. What gets me into trouble is 9. Education10. When people are helpless11. Women are lucky because12. My father 13. A pregnant woman 14. When my mother spanked me 15. A wife should16. I feel sorry17. Rules are 18. When I get mad19. When a child will not join in group activities20. Men are lucky because21. When they talked about sex, I 22. At times she worried about23. I am24. A woman feels good when25. My main problem is26. My husband and I will 27. The worst thing about being a woman28. A good mother29. Sometimes she wished that30. When I am with a man 31. When she thought of her mother, she32. If I can't get what I want33. Usually she felt that sex34. For a woman a career is35. My conscience bothers me if36. A woman should always

59

Appendix B.

60

The Weinberger Adjustment Inventory(Items from the Impulse Control Scale)

Directions: The purpose of these questions is to understand how often you think, feel, or act a certain way. Again, we want to know what is usual for you, even if it hasn’t happened in the past couple of days or last few weeks. After you read each sentence, decide whether it is almost never or never true, not often true, sometimes true, often true, or almost always true for you and then circle the number which corresponds to your answer.

Impulse Control

1. I do things without giving them enough thought.2. I become “wild and crazy” and do things that other people might not like.3. When I am doing something for fun (for example partying, acting silly), I tend to get carried away and go too far.

61

Appendix C.

62

Items for Adolescent Problem Inventory and Problem Inventory for Adolescent Girls

Directions: Now we are going to listen to several stories that have been recorded on this tape. The stories describe problem situations that many young people have had to deal with. Some will be like experiences that you’ve had and others won’t be. Even if the story describes something that you don’t think would happen to you, I would like you to try to imagine that it did happen. After each story, you will be asked, “What would you say or do if it did happen?” There’s no right answer here; I’m just interested in your ideas. Remember to say what you think you would actually do, not what you think I want to hear. Let’s try an example.

Example: Imagine you are supposed to work all day at a store putting things on the shelves and you know you have to finish by six o’ clock so that the store can open the next day. You get carried away talking with friends and forget the job until just before closing time at six when you see the manager coming back into the store.One teenager said: I would apologize for what happened and offer to stay and work late.

1. You’ve been hassling a young substitute teacher all week, and all week she’s been sending you up to the principal’s office. It’s sort of fun, because it’s so easy to make her lose her cool. You’re up at the principal’s office again, and he meets you at the door, and says, “This is the third time this week you’ve been sent up here. I’m suspending you this time! What do you have to say about that?”One teenager said: I’d apologize for hassling the teacher and ask if we could talk about the suspension.

2. Your father has been hassling you for months about getting home by midnight. Sometimes that’s a drag, because none of your friends have to be home before 1 a.m., and you feel like an idiot always leaving places early. One night you walk into the house at 1:30 a.m., and your father is sitting in the living room. He yells at you, “Where have you been?”One teenager said: I’d be respectful and explain why I was late, AND ask if we could compromise about the curfew.

3. A friend of yours has just found out that she’s pregnant. She’s afraid to tell her parents about it because she thinks they will throw her out of the house if they find out. She comes to you for advice.One teenager said: I’d tell her that she needs to talk to somebody, if not her parents then a counselor or another adult, and that I would help her anyway that I could.

4. You’re about an hour late getting to your part-time job in a grocery store because you missed your bus. You feel pretty dumb about that and you know your boss will be mad, because this is the busiest time of day in the store. You punch in at the time clock and your boss comes storming over to you and says, “You’re fired! I’ve put up with you kids being late and not showing up one time too many. Starting with you, anyone who comes in late is finished!”One teenager said: I’d explain politely why I was late, and that I wasn’t usually late, and ask if we could talk about it.

5. It’s Thursday night, and you’re home studying for a math final exam you’ll have the next day, on Friday. The phone rings, and it’s your friend Marie. She tells you that her cousin just gave her two tickets to a sell-out concert that very night. She’s really excited about going, and asks you to come with her, for free. Now, this is a problem. You’re sick of studying and you’d love to go, but if you go you won’t have enough time to study math. It’s your worst course, and if you don’t do well on the exam, there’s a good chance that you’ll flunk. She says, “I’ll be over in a half an hour to pick you up.One teenager said: I’d thank her for asking me and tell her I couldn’t go because I had to study.

63

6. You’re watching TV in your living room one Saturday afternoon, with a friend, and your mother comes in, looking very angry. She says, “Your room has been looking like a mess this whole week, and I’m getting sick and tired of it! I want you to get right in there this minute and clean that room. And do it right!One teenager said: I’d go clean it up.

Items 7-9 for Boys

7. One of your friends does some dealing on the street. Once in a while, he even gives you some pills or herb for free. Now he says to you, “Listen man, I’ve got to deliver some stuff downtown, but I can’t do it myself. How about it? Will you take this stuff down there for me? I’ll give you some new stuff to try plus $25 besides, for half an hour’s work. Will you help me out?”One teenager said: I’d REFUSE to do it in a CONFIDENT way so that my friend knew I wouldn’t take that risk even for a friend.

8. Someone in school has recently been defacing the walls of the boy’s room by writing obscene words all over them in black paint. Mr. Redford, a teacher in school, has always been on your back. Today he calls you out of your class, and says to you in the hall, “OK, young man, we know you’re the one who wrote all over the walls in the john. I recognize your writing. Didn’t you even have the brains to disguise your writing?” You know you didn’t do it and you’re furious because he’s accusing you.One teenager said: I’d politely tell him I didn’t do it and try to convince him that that’s the truth.

9. Your gym teacher is a mean guy, and you think he must have it in for you, because he’s always picking on you. Today he’s been on your back all period, and you’ve already had to do an extra 50 pushups. You’re so tired you don’t think you can do another one, but all the guys are standing around, watching what will happen. Now he says to you, “OK, sissy, let’s see 30 more, and get some energy into them!”One teenager said: Right then, I’d try to do the pushups; and then afterwards I’d try to forget about it or if I couldn’t forget about it, I’d go and talk to my counselor about it.

Items 7-9 for Girls

7. One of the boys in the group that you hang around with at school is a big dealer. He’s gotten the word around that the police might come to school today to have a look around. He comes to you all excited and says, “Listen, the police may be coming. It’s a sure thing they’ll search my locker, but they’d never look in yours. Let me stash my stuff in there, it’s just a couple of ounces of hash.”One young person said: I’d just say, “No, I won’t.”

8. You thought you had written a very good English paper but when you got it back from your teacher you had a “C”. You ask a few of your friends if you could see their papers and their papers seem worse than yours, but they got better grades than you did. You’ve been thinking that your teacher has something against you.One young person said: I’d ask nicely why I received the grade AND ask how I could have done better.

9. You really dislike gym class and use every chance to get out of it. Today, you’re really feeling bad, you have very uncomfortable menstrual cramps and you tell your gym teacher that you’re too sick to take gym. She says, “I’m sick and tired of all your excuses. You’re always having periods! You have five minutes to get into your gym clothes and start gym class.”One young person said: I’d be respectful and ask if I could make up the class when I was feeling better.

64

Interview Probes

a. WOULD YOU LIKE A PERSON MORE OR LESS for doing that in this situation?Definitely would Would not like Definitely would like him/her him/her like him/her LESS MORE or LESS MORE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

b. WOULD (NAME OF CLOSE ADULT) LIKE A PERSON MORE OR LESS for doing that in this situation?Definitely would Would not like Definitely would like him/her him/her like him/her LESS MORE or LESS MORE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

c. If you were in the situation: DO YOU THINK YOU COULD DO WHAT HE/SHE DID if you tried to? Definitely DefinitelyCOULD NOT COULD do it do it

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

65

Appendix D.

66

Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (Peer Version)

Directions: This section asks about your feelings about your relationship with your friend . Please read each of the following statements and put a circle around the response that best describes how you feel about this friend.

NEVERTRUE

SELDOMTRUE

SOMETIMESTRUE

OFTENTRUE

ALMOSTALWAYSTRUE

1. I like to get my friend's point of view on things I'm concerned about.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

2. My friend can tell when I'm upset about something.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

3. When we discuss things, my friend cares about my point of view.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

4. Talking over my problems with my friend makes me feel ashamed or foolish.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

5. I wish I had a different friend. never seldom sometimes often almost always

6. My friend understands me. never seldom sometimes often almost always

7. My friend helps me to talk about my difficulties.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

8. My friend accepts me as I am. never seldom sometimes often almost always

9. I feel the need to be in touch with my friend more often.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

67

10. My friend doesn't understand what I'm going through these days.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

11. I feel alone or apart when I'm with my friend.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

12. My friend listens to what I have to say.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

13. I feel my friend is a good friend.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

14. My friend is fairly easy to talk to.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

15. When I am angry about something, my friend tries to be understanding.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

16. My friend helps me to understand myself better.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

17. My friend cares about how I am.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

18. I feel angry with my friend. never seldom sometimes often almost always

19. I can count on my friend when I need to get something off my chest.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

20. I trust my friend. never seldom sometimes often almost always

21. My friend respects my feelings.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

22. I get upset a lot more than my friend knows about.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

23. It seems as if my friend is irritated with me for no reason.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

68

24. I can tell my friend about my problems and troubles.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

25. If my friend knows something is bothering me, he/she asks me about it.

never seldom sometimes often almost always

69

Appendix E.

70

Youth Self-Report (Social Problems Items)

Below is a list of items that describe young people. For each item that describes you now or within the past 6 months, please circle the 2 if the item is very true or often true of you. Circle the 1 if the item is somewhat or sometimes true of you. If the item is not true of you, circle the 0.

0 = Not True 1 = Somewhat or Sometimes True 2 = Very True or Often True

0 1 2 1. I feel lonely0 1 2 2. I don't get along with other kids0 1 2 3. I get teased a lot0 1 2 4. I am not liked by other kids

71

Appendix F.

72

Adolescent Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (Conflict Resolution Items)

Instructions: Please read each of the following items and decide how good you would be at each of them according to the choices listed below, then circle the number that corresponds to your choice.

1 = Poor at this; would be so uncomfortable and unable to handle this situation that it would be avoided if possible2 = Fair at this; would feel uncomfortable and would have some difficulty handling this situation.3 = O.K. at this; would feel somewhat uncomfortable and have a little difficulty handling this situation.4 = Good at this; would feel quite comfortable and able to handle this situation.5 = Extremely good at this; would feel very comfortable and could handle this situation well.

1. Resolving disagreements in ways that make things better instead of worse? 1 2 32. Dealing with disagreements in ways that make both people happy in the long run? 1 2 33. Resolving disagreements in ways so neither person feels hurt or resentful? 1 2 34. Dealing with disagreements in ways so that one person does not always come out the loser? 1 2 35. Dealing with disagreements in ways that don't lead to big arguments? 1 2 36. Getting over disagreements quickly? 1 2 37. Controlling your temper when having a conflict with someone? 1 2 38. Backing down in a disagreement once it becomes clear that you are wrong? 1 2 3

73

Appendix G.

74

Youth Self-Report (Violence Items)

Directions. Below is a list of items that describe young people. For each item that describes you now or within the past 6 months, please circle the 2 if the item is very true or often true of you. Circle the 1 if the item is somewhat or sometimes true of you. If the item is not true of you, circle the 0.

0 1 2 I get in many fights

0 1 2 I physically attack people

75

Appendix H.

76

Adolescent Self-Perception Profile(adapted for use as a peer-report measure)

Directions: For each question, read the two statements. Think about what you know about your friend, and decide which statement you think is most like him/her. Then decide whether you think the statement is really true or sort of true for him/her, and put an “X” on the line for that choice. You should only mark one “X” for each item. If you have any questions, please ask the interviewer.

Violent Behavior Scale Items:

ReallyTrue

Sort ofTrue

Sort ofTrue

ReallyTrue

Some people get into a lot of physical fights.

BUT Other people hardly ever get into physical fights

Some people never assault others (like jumping or mugging people)

BUT Other people often assault others

77