National Center For Policy Research (CPR) For Women & Families

Violence


News You Can Use on Kids and Violence

By Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D.

    There is a lot of research on violence and kids, and this information has important implications for parents, youth workers, and policy makers. Here are summaries of recent research findings, with information about how you can obtain copies of the original articles describing the research. All are written by Diana Zuckerman, president of CPR for Women & Families, and are based on her Research Watch column in Youth Today, unless a different citation is noted.


Child Abuse and Domestic Violence
. When Relatives Care for Kin
. Father Figures are the Answer, But What is the Question?
. Linking Spouse and Child Abuse
. Witnessing Violence at Home



Teen Suicide
. How Childhood and Youth Experiences Link to Suicide
. Research on Teen Suicide
. Smoking, Drinking, Marijuana, Family Problems, and Suicide

Other Violence:


Bullying and Violence

After news stories revealed that some of the school shootings in recent years were carried out by youths who'd been bullied and ostracized, bullying became a hot subject of research scrutiny. A new study examined whether it is the bully or the bullied victim who is most likely to be dangerously violent, by measuring four violence-related behaviors: carrying a weapon in the last 30 days, carrying a weapon in school in the last 30 days, frequent fighting during the last year, and sustaining an injury during the last year from a fight that required medical care.

The study is based on more than 15,000 students who participated in the Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC), a nationally representative survey of youth in grade 6 through 10 in public, Catholic and other private schools during the spring of 1998. The youths completed anonymous questionnaires during one class period.

Bullying was defined in the survey as "when another student, or a group of students, say or do nasty and unpleasant things to him or her. It is also bullying when a student is teased repeatedly in a way he or she doesn't like. But it is not bullying when two students of about the same strength quarrel or fight."

Besides being questioned about how often they've carried weapons for self-defense, gotten into fights and required treatment for fight-related injuries, students were asked how often they have bullied others or been bullied both in school and away from school during the current school term. The responses for the latter were "I haven't," "sometimes," "about once a week" and "several times a week," with the latter two combined in the analysis.

The results showed that violence-related behaviors were more common in boys (ranging from 13 percent to 27 percent who reported each behavior) than girls (ranging from 4 percent to 11 percent). The authors point out that these responses, if extrapolated on a national scale, indicate that 2.7 million students had carried a weapon in the past 30 days, and 1.8 million of them had carried a weapon to school. In addition, 1.7 million students had been in four or more physical fights in the past year, and 2.9 million had been injured in a physical fight in the past year.

Being bullied in school was reported more frequently than being bullied away from school. Sixteen percent of boys and 11 percent of girls reported being bullied in school either sometimes or weekly, while 23 percent of boys and 11 percent of girls reported bullying others in school either sometimes or weekly.

Bullying or being bullied, either in school or elsewhere, were related to each of the four violence-related behaviors. The youths most likely to carry a weapon reported bullying others in or away from school or being bullied away from school. For boys, frequent fighting and being injured in a fight were most likely among bullies (in school or out) or among those bullied away from school. For girls, frequent fighting and being injured in a fight was most likely among those who bullied others.

Since these violent behaviors were intertwined, the researchers used multivariate logistic analyses to find out that each of these behaviors were important independently, but they also formed a strong pattern when looked at together. For example, youths who were sometimes bullied in and away from school, and who also bullied others away from school weekly, were 15.9 times more likely to carry a weapon.

The authors note that this is the first study of its kind, so the results may be preliminary but are still important. They conclude that bullying often occurs in conjunction with more serious aggressive behavior, and therefore should not be considered a normal and accepted part of youth behavior, even though it is common.

Although violence-related behaviors are associated with being a bully or being bullied, they tend to be even more likely for those doing the bullying. Violence-related behaviors are especially strongly linked to bullying that occurs away from school. Even carrying a weapon in school is more related to bullying out of school than bullying in school.

If communities want to reduce violence, it is necessary to reduce bullying both in and out of school. And programs aimed at reducing violent behavior should also try to reduce bullying, since it is associated with carrying weapons and other behaviors that are linked to violence.

We can't tell from this study whether bullying causes other kinds of violence, or is merely a symptom. However, if those who are bullied are more likely to carry weapons, preventing bullying might prevent them from thinking they need a weapon.

Reference:
Relationships Between Bullying and Violence Among US Youth,
Tonja R. Nansel, Mary D. Overpeck, Denise L. Haynie, et al,
Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, April 2003, Vol. 157, pgs. 348-353,
available from nanselt@mail.nih.gov

 


Youth Violence in Rural Areas

Just under half of the U.S. population lives in urban areas of 500,000 or more, but much of what we know about youth violence is based on those communities. In fact, one in four Americans lives in a rural community with a population of 2,500 or fewer, and an additional 12 percent live in towns or cities with populations below 50,000.

A new study of rural youth violence found important similarities and one important difference in the community characteristics that predict youth violence. In the rural areas, as in urban areas, juvenile delinquency (as measured by the FBI's Uniform Crime Report data) is more common in communities with higher levels of ethnic diversity, female-headed households and residential instability (proportion of families that moved from another dwelling in the previous five years). Ethnic diversity is measured by the likelihood that two randomly selected individuals would differ in ethnicity.

The researchers point out that ethnic diversity is linked to violence, not because of the number of members of minority groups, but because cultural differences in the community interfere with adults' ability to work together in supervising their children. A 10 percent increase in ethnic diversity in this study is associated with 20-percent to 35-percent higher rates of youth violence.

The authors found that poverty was not related to youth violence in this study, although it is in studies of urban youth. The reason appears to be that poverty is related to residential stability, not instability, in rural areas. Apparently the low cost of housing and the help of families and friends enables poor rural families to stay in their homes. This inverse correlation between instability and rural poverty statistically cancels out the positive correlation between rural poverty and female-headed households and communities with ethnic diversity.

Another interesting finding is that arrest rates for youth violence were consistently lower in rural counties with the smallest populations. Per capita arrest rates increased as the size of the county increased, until the youth population reached about 4,000. Above that size, increases in the number of youth had little impact on arrest rates for violent crimes other than robbery. This may be related to the sense in smaller communities that everyone knows who you are, so youth are less emboldened to commit violent crimes.

Although the authors don't mention it, this finding has worrisome implications for the enormous public schools in many parts of the country, where a single school may have thousands of students.

The study is based on 264 counties in Florida, Georgia, Nebraska and South Carolina. Each county has a population between 560 and 98,000, and none includes a city with a population of 50,000 or more.


Reference:
Community Correlates of Rural Youth Violence,
D. Wayne Osgood and Jeff M. Chambers, Juvenile Justice Bulletin, U.S. Department of Labor, May 2003,
Available free at www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/193591/contents.html.

 



Can Schools Prevent Violence?

School-based gun-violence prevention programs don't work, but according to a new study, other kinds of school-based violence prevention programs do.

A new meta-analysis of 28 studies of programs for children at high risk of violent behavior was cautiously optimistic about programs aimed at preventing violent behavior (not necessarily gun violence). This analysis is different from other studies because it focuses on "randomized controlled trials of secondary violence prevention programs." That means that all the studies randomly assigned kids to participate in a violence prevention program or a "no treatment" comparison group, and that all the children in the study had already been identified as aggressive or at risk for aggressive behavior. Many of the studies measured the impact immediately after the program was completed, and also 12 months later.

The programs involved a wide range of programs dating from the 1970's through the 1990's, such as individual or group anger management or conflict management training, the Think Aloud (self-control) program, therapeutic mentoring, PATHS Curriculum (Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies), empathy training, peer mediation, and social skills training. By including data from many studies -- some of them quite small--into one large statistical analysis, it is possible to determine whether these types of programs in general are at least modestly or moderately successful. In contrast, most program evaluations analyze the impact of one program in one school or school system, and those results may not be generalizable to programs that do not have exactly the same teachers or curriculum.

Effectiveness for each study in the meta-analysis was measured by children becoming less aggressive (as measured by standardized tests or actual counts of fights or bullying) and by school or agency actions such as suspensions, detentions, and court contact.

Improvements were not dramatic, not all the programs worked, and those that worked didn't work for all children. Training in self-control and anger management were effective, as were those that improved relationship skills. The decrease in aggressiveness among children participating in the programs was similar for elementary schools and high schools but the impact on school or agency actions was greater in high schools. The programs were more effective for girls only or "co-ed" groups than they were for boys only. The meta-analysis did not determine whether the co-ed programs were more effective for girls than boys.

The implication of the study is that school-based programs targeted to the most aggressive kids may be worthwhile, especially those that involve girls, either in all-girls groups or with boys in the same program. It may be that school-based programs aimed at all students are not effective, and programs may be more effective for girls than boys. The researchers were British but almost all the studies were conducted in the U.S. or Canada. More research is needed to determine which programs work best for which students, and it would be more helpful to have studies based on currently used programs, rather than programs that were evaluated more than 20 years ago.

Reference:
School-Based Violence Prevention Programs
Julie Mytton, MS, Carolyn DiGuiseppi, MD, David Gough, PhD and others
Archives in Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Vol 156, August 2002, 752-762
Available from jmytton@doctors.org.uk.


 


When Silence Means Violence

Some kids seem like obvious troublemakers, but many youth workers have found out the hard way to also pay attention to quiet kids. A new study by researchers at the Harvard School of Education and Brandeis University indicates that inhibited kids can become very violent.

The study followed 440 children, ages 7 to 13, for seven years. All were from Springfield, Mass., a small city that is similar to many other parts of the country in terms of social class and ethnic diversity.

Previous research has shown that harsh physical punishment in the home will predict children’s aggressive behavior, and this study supported that finding. What was new was the finding that that children who were more inhibited were more likely to be violent. Inhibited children were defined as socially withdrawn, uncomfortable or unhappy in new situations, and anxious about making new friends or trying new activities. They were not just quiet or shy.

Twenty-five of the children were classified as aggressive based on the Child Behavior Checklist, which was part of a series of four, two-hour interviews with each of the children and their mothers. These aggressive kids physically and verbally lashed out at other kids insulting them, hitting and pushing them or attacking them with weapons.

Children who were victimized by peers were more likely to have violent fantasies, which in turn predicted aggressive behavior. Kids with low self-esteem also tended to be more violent, but that predictor was not as strong as these other factors. Race, ethnicity, social class, gender and other family characteristics did not have much impact on child aggressiveness. Inhibition was the only personality characteristic that predicted aggression.

The researchers were startled by the results, and they advise adults not to assume kids are fine just because they are quiet. They recommend that while teachers and other youth workers are oiling the "squeaky wheels,” they should also help withdrawn children make friends through clubs, study groups and other activities. “Pay close attention to withdrawn youth and try to connect with them, both to help the youth to make connections with other people and to check out what is happening,” Dr. Fischer said in an interview. “There can be lots of turmoil behind the withdrawal, and it can lead to violence.”

Reference:
Pathways to Aggression Through Inhibited Temperament and Parental Violence
Malcolm Watson, Ph.D. and Kurt Fischer, Ph.D.
Presented at conference of the Society for Research in Child Development
For free summary: www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/fischersummary.html






Does Counseling After Tragedy Really Help?

In the wake of school shootings, the Sept. 11th attacks and other traumatic events, the use of brief counseling to prevent later mental health problems has become an accepted standard practice. Stress debriefing, which typically consists of a single one- to three-hour session within a week of the traumatic event, has become especially popular. In early September, many newspapers across the country reported new research showing that these efforts were a waste of money. Isn’t counseling a good idea? A close look at the research shows that the results are complicated.

The main focus of recent news reports was an article in the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet. Researchers from University of Amsterdam concluded that single-session stress debriefing sessions did more harm than good. This report was based on a meta-analysis of all the studies conducted on individual “Critical Incident Stress Debriefing” that took place within one month of traumatic events, and where appropriate measures were used to compare participants before and after the counseling.

The results were clear: Individuals who were debriefed were slightly more likely to have symptoms of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) than those who had no treatment or other types of counseling.

To understand these results, you need to know how this study was done. Meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines several independent studies in one analysis. The studies must be similar in terms of what they study and how they study it. Meta-analysis is often used to combine information from several small studies, and is only as good as the studies it is based on and the judgment of the researchers who decide which studies to include or exclude.

This meta-analysis included only seven of the 29 studies on this subject that had been conducted around the world. It did not include the 22 studies that were based on more than one session, took place more than one month after the traumatic event, did not evaluate the participants before the debriefing, or were considered inadequate for other reasons. None of the seven studies in the meta-analysis included children.

Around the same time that The Lancet article was published, a report by the National Institute of Mental Health concluded that psychotherapy was effective after traumatic events. However, the report also concluded that more short-term counseling and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) were not effective. The NIMH report was based on a workshop that brought together experts from across the country, and was aimed at reaching a consensus. Conclusions were based on experiences and opinions as well as research.

The NIMH report concluded that there is some well-designed research that supports the effectiveness of “early, brief and focused psychotherapeutic intervention” for reducing distress in bereaved spouses, parents and children, whether the therapy was for individuals or groups. The report also concludes that there is some well-designed research evidence that certain kinds of cognitive-behavioral therapy (which is aimed at changing how people think about problems and how they behave) may help reduce post-traumatic stress symptoms, stress, and depression in victims of accidents, rape, and crime.

In contrast, they reported some evidence that early intervention in the form of reciting events and expressing emotions does not help prevent later problems and may even harm some individuals.

How could one report conclude that stress counseling is useless and the other that counseling is helpful? The NIMH report concluded that brief and focused therapy can be helpful, but its definition of brief did not include a one-time session. In contrast, the Dutch meta-analysis specifically excluded studies that included more than one “debriefing” session. And, the NIMH report concluded that there was some good evidence that a “single one-on-one recital of events and expression of emotions” typical of debriefing does not reduce later symptoms of PTSD or other adjustment problems. So, the two reports were consistent in their conclusions that debriefing has not been shown to be effective.

The bottom line: The type of one-session debriefing that has become popular may not work and may be worse than nothing. Many people are better able to help themselves by talking to friends and relatives or even by trying not to think about what happened. However, there is evidence that children who still have symptoms months or years after a traumatic event can benefit from counseling and that kids who are exposed to chronic stresses need help. Below is a new study on that topic.

References:
Single Session Debriefing after Psychological Trauma: A Meta-Analysis
Arnold van Emmerik, Jan Kamphuis, Alexander Hulsbosch and Paul Emmelkamp
The Lancet, Sept. 7, 2002, Vol. 360, pp. 766-771.
Free online after registration: www.thelancet.com/journal/vol360/iss9335/full/llan.360.9335.original_research.22353.1.

Mental Health and Mass Violence: Evidence-Based Early Psychological Intervention for Victims/Survivors of Mass Violence
National Institute of Mental Health, 2002. NIH publication No. 02-5138.
Single copies free from NIMH, Office of Communications, 6001 Executive Blvd, Room 8184, Bethesda, MD 20892-9663,
or at www.nimh.hih.gov/research/massviolence.pdf.


 

Can the Calendar Predict School Violence?

There is a seasonal pattern to school violence, according to a new study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Department of Education, and the U.S. Department of Justice. Student homicides are more likely at the beginning of the fall and spring semesters, and suicides are more likely in the spring.

The study, conducted from Sept 1992-June 30, 1999, identified 209 school-related homicides and suicides through news accounts and follow-up interviews. On average, one homicide occurred every seven school days, usually during the transition near the start of the fall and spring semesters. Suicides occurred an average of every 31 school days, and were more likely in the spring semester rather than the fall.

The homicides and suicides included deaths that occurred on the campus of a public or private elementary or secondary school, or while the student was going to or from school for classes or a school-sponsored event.

The researchers speculate that the start of the semester could be a stressful time, or that conflicts that started during holiday breaks could carry over to violence when the school semester begins. Since there is no way to evaluate the accuracy of that speculation, the researchers recommend that schools introduce policies and programs that are especially focused on the start of each semester - including violence prevention curricula and increased security.

Reference:
Temporal variations in school-associated student homicide and suicide events - United States, 1992 to 1999
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2001; Vol. 50(31); 657-660.
Available free online at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5031a1.htm

 

 

State Gun Control Laws Work, Sort Of

Gun control has virtually disappeared from policy debates at the national level, but a new study from Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research concludes that gun laws do keep guns away from criminals.

This study was conducted in 25 cities in five states that had mandatory registration and licensing, seven cities with mandatory registration or licensing but not both, and 13 states that had neither mandatory registration nor licensing. Police recovered more than 100,000 guns used in crimes during the study period, which included approximately 18 months during 1996, 1997, and 1998.

State gun control laws made a dramatic difference in whether these guns had been purchased in the state where the crime was committed.

In the five cities with mandatory registration and licensing, only one-third of guns from crimes were first sold by gun dealers in the same state. In places where the state had either mandatory registration or licensing, but not both, more than twice as many guns (73 percent) were first sold by gun dealers in the same state. If the state had neither gun control measure, 84 percent of guns used in crimes were first sold in the same state.

Although the only gun control measures in the study were gun registration and licensing, states that have both tend to have other gun control measures as well, such as longer waiting periods before a gun can be purchased.

Living near a state without these gun control laws also influenced gun purchases. If the city was located near an urban area in a different state with no such laws, that increased the proportion of guns coming from out-of-state.

This research shows the benefits and shortcomings of gun control laws. The good news is that guns sold by dealers in states with gun control laws are less likely to be used in crimes. The bad news is that youth and other criminals can find guns in nearby states with less restrictive laws. As long as some states make gun purchases easy, it will be more difficult to keep guns away from those who are willing to use them in crimes.

What are the implications for youth? The authors point out that youth tend to obtain guns in private transactions with acquaintances or from thefts, and that state gun-control laws make it more difficult for youth to obtain guns because they have to find out-of-state sources. Although this study did not examine the link between gun control laws and gun deaths, the researchers reported that a higher proportion of guns sold by in-state dealers is statistically linked to a higher proportion of gun-related homicides of males ages 15 and older.


Reference:
Relationship between licensing, registration, and other gun sales laws and the source state of crime guns
Daniel W. Webster, J.S. Vernick and L.M. Hepburn.
Injury Prevention 2001; Vol 7; pgs 184-189
Available from Daniel Webster, Center for Injury Research and Policy, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Rm 593,
Baltimore, MD 21205 or dwebster@jhsph.edu


Guns at Home

Two new developments emphasize the dangers of guns in the home, and have implications for public policy and the policy positions of presidential candidates.

The study listed above is based on the 1994 National Health Interview Survey, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found that nearly half (43 percent) of U.S. households with children and guns store their firearms unlocked -- not in a locked place and not locked with a trigger lock or other locking mechanism. Nine percent keep them loaded and unlocked.

The researchers, from RAND and U.C.L.A., found that 35 percent of homes with children have at least one gun; that translates to 22 million children in more than 11 million homes. In households with children, those with an adult man in the home were three times more likely than those with only an adult woman to have a firearm (41 percent vs. 12 percent).

These findings support current policy efforts to pass laws requiring trigger locks and smart guns. The carelessness of gun owners and children’s apparent access to guns in millions of homes across America also have implications for the greatly divergent gun control positions of George W. Bush and Al Gore.

Meanwhile, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has announced new recommendations aimed at preventing teen suicides by removing guns from the home.

The new policy, announced in early April, recommends that pediatricians routinely ask their patients about guns in the home, because firearms are the leading cause of death by suicide. Suicide among 15-18 year olds has increased about 300 percent since the 1950’s, and the chair of the AAP’s committee on adolescents believes it is related to increased availability of guns.

Trigger locks and hiding guns are unlikely to work with adolescents, so AAP recommends that "parents get guns and ammunition out of the house" if there are any concerns about depression or possible suicide. Even though these teens may try other methods to kill themselves, most other methods are less lethal than guns. For example, if they take a drug overdose, their lives can probably be saved.

The group also advises that there are warning signs of possible suicide, such as a history of depression, a previous suicide attempt, a family history of psychiatric disorders, or family disruption. In addition, alcohol is involved in half of suicides. Suicides are six times more likely among males than females. Native American males have the highest rates, and homosexual and bisexual students also are more likely to commit suicide.

Although the group’s recommendations are focused on pediatricians, they are equally relevant to parents, other relatives, and adults who work with youth.


Reference:
Firearm Storage Patterns in U.S. Homes with Children.
Mark Schuster, Todd Franke, Amy Bastian, et al
American Journal of Public Health
April 2000, Vol. 90, No. 4, pgs 588-593.
Available free from Dr. Schuster at RAND, 1700 Main St, Santa Monica, CA 90407 or schuster@rand.org




Girls and Crime

Even though crime statistics have gone down across America in the last few years, the statistics have been going in the opposite direction for adolescent girls. Looking at the last two decades, the Violent Crime Index arrest rate for girls rose 103 percent from 1981 to 1997, compared to only 27 percent for boys.

The Department of Justice’s Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) held a meeting in March focusing on "Identifying and Meeting the Needs of This Nation’s Girls" and "Investing in Girls"was the "cover story" of a recent issue of the JJDP journal.

The overall message is that there is a great deal of concern about the increase of girls and women in the criminal justice system, and a growing realization that many girls start down that path as victims. The article focused on a 1998 study of girls in the California juvenile justice system, where almost all (92%) reported that they had been victims of emotional, physical, or sexual abuse.

These very high numbers always raise eyebrows, and when the category is so vague, it is difficult to know what it means. Adolescents are notoriously sensitive to criticism and demands from adults – is it inevitable that most report that they are victims of emotional abuse? Other statistics from the study, however, are more compelling; for example, 25 percent report that they had been shot or stabbed one or more times, and most of their reports of rape or being beaten, stabbed, or shot were at the age of 13 and 14.

The picture that emerges from the research is that many girls first enter the juvenile justice system as runaways, often to escape abuse at home. Although three out of four reported that they regularly used drugs, including alcohol, typically starting around age 14, the researchers believe that drugs are a symptom more than a cause of problems -- used in an effort to dull the pain of being physically and sexually violated.

The jargon describing the girls’ families as "fragmented" doesn’t really convey what is going on in these girls’ homes. The girls reported that more than half the mothers have been arrested or incarcerated, and that slightly less than half the fathers had been incarcerated. In fact, so many of the girls had so little contact with their fathers that they may not have been able to answer that question.

School problems were also rampant. Eighty-five percent of the girls had been suspended or expelled, and many had also been in a "special classroom" or repeated at least one grade.

Almost all (88%) of the girls reported that they had experienced a serious health problem, more than half (53%) stated that they needed psychological services, and 21% had been hospitalized in a psychiatric facility.

Given their family backgrounds and other problems, it is somewhat surprising that most of the girls in the study were not charged with violent offenses; in fact, the most common (36%) was probation violation. The author believes that victimization and substance abuse often results in girls’ risky behaviors such as truancy, unsafe sex, and gang involvement, and the next step is the juvenile justice system. Once they get there, few effective programs are available.

The article ends with a focus on the need for services for 8-11 year old girls, such as community-based all-girls schools settings that provide family counseling, substance abuse prevention, special education services, and mentoring. If these girls get help from youth programs before the real problems begin, it may turn their lives around.


Reference:
Investing in Girls: A 21st Century Strategy
Leslie Acoca
Journal of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Vol VI, Number 1, October 1999
Available free from Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, 1-800-638-8736




When Little Kids Become Violent Teens

In the continuing effort to prevent more Littletons, researchers are examining the kinds of behaviors that could help them predict and prevent violence in schools. A new study has found that there are behaviors and experiences in elementary school and middle school that predict violent behavior five years later.

The study was based on self-reports in a survey of more than 4300 high school seniors and dropouts in California and Oregon. By statistically controlling for different factors, the researchers were able to determine how best to predict which children would become violent as teenagers. Children who stole or got in trouble when they were younger, or had poor grades in elementary school were more likely to be violent as high school seniors. In addition to the children’s own behavior, and being male, school characteristics were also important. For example, kids who attended a middle school where there were high levels of cigarette and marijuana use were more likely to be violent five years later. Kids who themselves used drugs when they were younger, or whose friends used drugs, were more likely to be frequent violent predators, including mugging, robbery and assault.

There were substantial differences between boys and girls. Girls with low self-esteem were more likely to be violent against family and friends, and girls living in a low socio-economic neighborhood were more violent towards family, friends, and strangers. Boys who attended many elementary schools were more likely to be violent with family and friends.

There were not many racial differences. Whites were less likely to be violent toward strangers, but there were no racial differences in violence towards friends and relatives.

These research findings are useful for adults who work with young adolescents, to help them focus in on the problems that apparently predict bigger problems later. However, the researchers acknowledge that it is very difficult to predict which kids will become violent, and these findings just provide a small clue.


Reference:
Early Predictors of Adolescent Violence
Phyllis Ellickson, PhD, and Kimberly McGuigan, Ph.D.
American Journal of Public Health, April 2000, Vol 90, No. 4, pgs. 566-572.
Available free from Dr. Ellickson, RAND, PO Box 2138, Santa Monica 90407




TV Wrestling and Dating Don’t Mix

There are plenty of studies showing a link between violent TV and children’s aggressive behavior, but a new study makes the unusual claim that watching a specific sport on TV -- wrestling -- is linked with date fighting. The results were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting in Baltimore in April, 2001.

The study of more than 2,200 North Carolina high school students is perhaps especially shocking to adults because it reported that 63 percent of the boys had watched wrestling on TV during the past two weeks, as had 35 percent of the girls. In fact, one out of every 4 boys and one out of 11 girls had watched TV wrestling six or more times during the last two weeks.

As someone who has never watched TV wrestling, I was even more shocked to hear a description of one match: "A man dangled a woman upside down and then dropped her on her head, knocking her unconscious" according to Dr. Robert DuRant, professor at Wake Forest School of Medicine and the author of the study. Dr. DuRant speculated that in reality this would have broken her neck and killed her. He added that the announcer stated that she "deserved it" because she had previously cheated on this wrestler.

The boys and girls who watched wrestling were more likely to start a physical fight with a date or be a victim in a date fight, use Ritalin without a prescription, and carry a gun or other weapon. Boys who watched wrestling were also more likely to spit tobacco and drive after drinking. Girls who watched wrestling were more also likely to fight at school, be injured in a fight, use alcohol, use alcohol at school, use marijuana, and drive with a drinking driver. More frequent viewing of TV wrestling was linked to use of drugs or alcohol while dating, for both boys and girls.

When the students were studied six months later, the girls who watched wrestling in October 1999 were still involved in dating violence and other health risk behavior, but this was not true for boys.

DuRant speculates that exposure to violence on TV wrestling "doesn’t in itself cause violence" but in combination with other life experiences, "can affect what is perceived as socially acceptable behavior." In other words, watching wrestling may be a symptom of other problems and also contribute to those problems. Given these findings, parents, teachers, and other adults should consider how they might discourage youth viewing of TV wrestling, and discourage the kind of imitative behavior it seems to inspire.


These articles are based on Diana Zuckerman's monthly Research Watch columns that appeared in Youth Today in issues from November 1999 through November 2004, and were reprinted with permission. Youth Today is a publication of the American Youth Work Center, 1200 17th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20036. (800) 599-2455. E-mail: youthtoday@aol.com.






National Research Center for Women & Families
1701 K St. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20006. (202) 223-4000



Design by: MoonLight Enterprises
© NRC & MoonLight Enterprises. All rights reserved.
Contents are copyrighted by their respective owners.