University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Family aggression, prosocial friends, and the risk of dating and friend victimization in late adolescence

(USC Thesis Other)

Family aggression, prosocial friends, and the risk of dating and friend victimization in late adolescence

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
1

Family Aggression, Prosocial Friends, and the Risk of
Dating and Friend Victimization in Late Adolescence

Sohyun C. Han
M.A. (PSYCHOLOGY)
University of Southern California
August 2015

Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
2
Table of Contents
Abstract……………………………………….…….…....…………....…………....…….…..…...3
Introduction………………………………….…….…....…………....…………....……….……...4
Methods……………………………………….…….…....…………....…………....……….….....9
Results……………………………………………………………………………………………14
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….……….....17
References………………………………………………………………………………………..24
Tables and Figures…………………………………………………………………………….....33
Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………………40

Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
3
Abstract
Despite prior known associations between family aggression and adolescents’ risk of
victimization, little is known about what types of family aggression confer the most risk and
whether prosocial friends can protect adolescents from those outcomes. This study investigated
whether youth gender and the ratio of prosocial-to-antisocial friends moderates the associations
between different types of family aggression and victimization from dating partners and friends
in late adolescence. One-hundred-and-twenty-five adolescent participants and their parents
reported on family aggression (father-to-child, mother-to-child, father-to-mother and mother-to-
father aggression) in early adolescence. Approximately 5 years later, adolescents reported their
physical, psychological, sexual and electronic victimization experiences with dating partners and
friends. Only father-to-child aggression was significantly related to dating and friend
victimization in late adolescence, with stronger associations for females. Moreover, greater
affiliation with prosocial than antisocial friends buffered the risk for dating victimization for
females. Findings suggest the importance of affiliating with more prosocial than antisocial
friends in the prevention of adolescents’ victimization.

Key Words: family aggression, victimization, late adolescence, prosocial friends

Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
4
Introduction
Adolescents report high rates of victimization in dating relationships (e.g., Vezina &
Hebert, 2007) and in relationships with friends and peers (e.g., Nansel et al., 2001). National
prevalence estimates indicate that 40-60% of high school and college students report
experiencing physical victimization and 80-90% report psychological victimization by dating
partners (Halpern, Oslak, Young, Martin, & Kupper, 2001; White & Koss, 1991), whereas 17-
20% report physical or psychological victimization from peers (Finkelhor, Ormrod, Turner, &
Hamby, 2005). Victimization experiences are in turn associated with adverse mental and
physical health consequences (Evans, Marte, Betts, & Silliman, 2001; Reijntjes et al., 2010;
Swahn et al., 2008; Trickett & McBride-Chang, 1995; Turner, Finkelhor, & Ormrod, 2006).
In identifying risk and resilience factors for victimization, family aggression has been
highlighted as a potent risk factor for later victimization by dating partners and friends (e.g., Stith
et al., 2000). Yet one important question is whether certain types of family aggression may
confer greater risk for victimization than others (i.e., father-to-child, mother-to-child, father-to-
mother and mother-to-father aggression). A second important question is whether an
adolescent’s friends can help protect against victimization and promote more resilient outcomes.
Prior longitudinal work suggests that youth who are exposed to family aggression grow up to
affiliate with deviant or antisocial friends, which increases the likelihood of subsequent romantic
partner violence and peer victimization (Ehrensaft et al., 2003; Capaldi & Clark, 1998). Though
it is evident that friends play an important role in contributing to trajectories of risk, it is unclear
what role prosocial friends may play in protecting against the risk of victimization by dating
partners and friends in adolescence.

Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
5
Family Aggression and Victimization
Parent-to-parent and parent-to-child aggression has often been studied as influential risk
factors for adolescents’ later victimization outside the home. Studies have consistently found that
those with a history of childhood physical or sexual abuse are 2 to 4 times more likely to
experience later physical, sexual, or psychological victimization from dating partners compared
to those without such histories (Cloitre et al., 1996; Coid et al., 2001; Gover, Kaukinen, & Fox,
2008; Schaaf & McCanne, 1998). Further, witnessing violence between parents has also shown
to confer risk for later victimization from dating partners (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004; Stith et al.,
2000). Similarly, parent-to-child aggression, harsh parenting, parental hostility, and maternal
over control have consistently been associated with higher levels of peer victimization
(Kawabata, Alink, Tseng, Ijzendoor, & Crick, 2011; Perry, Hodges, & Egan, 2001; Schwartz,
Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1997).
Several theoretical explanations have been proposed to explain this phenomenon. Social
learning theory, which is most commonly presented as an explanation (i.e., Widom, 1989), posits
that individuals who witness or experience violence in their family-of-origin are likely to
develop schemas or beliefs that such behaviors are acceptable or justifiable in relationships
(Crawford & Wright, 2007; Linder & Collins, 2005). Individuals from aggressive families are
also likely to develop deficiencies in managing conflict and negative emotions in intimate
relationships, as modeled by their parents. Further, adolescents may learn to adopt the role of the
victim in intimate relationships with friends and dating partners (Linder & Collins, 2005).
Beyond social learning theory, exposure to aggression in the home may lead youth to develop
hostile attribution biases and aggressive styles of interactions that could lead to both perpetration
and victimization experiences with others (Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1990).
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
6
Within families, it is unclear whether aggression perpetrated by fathers and mothers may
have differential risks for males and females in the risk for later victimization. Mothers and
fathers are likely to influence gender-specific relationship schemas for adolescent dating
relationships, as well as gender norms for peer relationships (Perry, Hodges, & Egan, 2001). Past
research on differential parent effects has yielded mixed findings. Some studies show that
fathers’, contrasted with mothers’, harsh parenting has a stronger effect on children’s aggression
(Chang, Schwartz, Dodge 2003), whereas other studies suggest that mothers have a more potent
role in later victimization from peers (Baldry, 2003; Hendy et al., 2003; Malik, Sorenson, &
Aneshensel, 1997). Further clarification is needed, especially given that all prior studies have
relied on retrospective reports from single reporters, which are susceptible to recall bias
(Fergusson, Horwood, & Lynskey, 1996) and may underestimate conflict experiences (Margolin,
Vickerman, Oliver, & Gordis, 2010).
Affiliation with Prosocial Friends as a Protective Factor
In adolescence, peers begin to play a stronger role than parents in influencing attitudes
and behaviors (Steinberg, 2008). As a result, peers may be a salient risk or protective factor in
an adolescent’s likelihood of experiencing dating and friend victimization. Prior work has
identified prospective associations between exposure to family aggression and affiliation with
deviant peers (Ehrensaft et al., 2003). Adolescents from aggressive families are likely to develop
hostile ways of relating to others and may gravitate towards an aggressive and antisocial friend
group, who are more likely to victimize them (Güroğlu, Van Lieshout, Haselager, & Scholte,
2007) and may espouse violent attitudes regarding dating relationships (Ehrensaft et al., 2003;
Feiring & Furman, 2000). Indeed, greater exposure to antisocial friends who engage in risky
behaviors, substance use, and risky sex have been associated with increased risk for dating
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
7
victimization, particularly given that adolescents may choose their dating partners from among
an antisocial peer group (Cook, Buehler, & Fletcher, 2012). Lansford, Criss, Pettit, Dodge, and
Bates (2003) also found that antisocial friends strengthened the association between harsh
parenting and negative outcomes, suggesting that antisocial peers may amplify risks associated
with exposure to family aggression.
Yet in contrast, no studies to our knowledge have examined the role of prosocial friends –
or those who engage in community service, get good grades, and are liked by teachers – in
buffering against the risk of victimization. Although one study found that affiliation with
prosocial friends was found to be protective against perpetration of violent behavior (Prinstein,
Boergers, & Spirito, 2000), it is yet unknown how protective prosocial friends may be in
protecting against victimization. It is also possible that prosocial friends may only be protective
in the event that adolescents affiliate with a higher proportion of prosocial to antisocial friends,
given that just a few prosocial friends may not protect against the strong influence of antisocial
friends, who may be more similar to the values and behaviors of their aggressive parents.
Therefore, it is important to consider the ratio between the two, rather than just the influence of
prosocial friends.
Gender Differences in Victimization
Findings on gender differences in rates of victimization have been mixed, with some
studies finding higher rates among females and still others reporting higher rates among males
(e.g., Archer, 2004). It is also unclear whether there are gender differences in predictors of
victimization (O’Keefe, 1998; O’Leary, Malone, & Tyree, 1994), however it is possible that
gender may play a moderating role in the association between family and peer influences on
victimization. A meta-analysis found that the link between family conflict and later victimization
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
8
is stronger for females than for males, suggesting that females in particular may be at increased
risk for victimization following exposure to family aggression (Stith et al., 2000). Yet it is
unclear how gender would interact with both familial and peer influences in predicting dating
and friend victimization.
Victimization in Late Adolescence
Despite the accumulating evidence that victimization occurs widely and leads to a host of
negative outcomes among adolescents, most prior work has focused on adolescents prior to the
age of 17 (e.g., Turner et al., 2010) or on college samples of young adults. Few studies have
assessed victimization among a community sample of individuals between the ages of 17 to 21,
or those who the American Academy of Pediatrics (2008) refers to as late adolescents. Though
rates of victimization tend to decline from high school to college, late adolescents still report
high rates of dating victimization (Hines & Saudino, 2003). Because of the particularly high rates
of sexual and physical victimization during this developmental period (Chan, Straus,
Brownridge, Tiwari, & Leung, 2008; Halpern, Spriggs, Martin, & Kupper, 2009; Rich, Gidycz,
Warkentin, Loh, & Weiland, 2005), it is important to identify contributing factors. Building off
of prior research, the present study seeks to empirically examine the influence of both family and
peer factors on dating and friend victimization in late adolescence.
Present Study
The present study is designed to first investigate direct associations between different
types of family aggression in early adolescence and victimization from friends and dating
partners in late adolescence. It is hypothesized that family aggression is associated with
victimization by friends and dating partners in late adolescence (Hypothesis 1). Four types of
family aggression will be tested: father-to-child, mother-to-child, father-to-mother and mother-
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
9
to- father. Second, the study investigates whether greater affiliation with prosocial than antisocial
friends moderates the association between different types of family aggression and victimization
from dating partners and friends. We hypothesize that the ratio of prosocial-to-antisocial friend
behavior will buffer the association between family aggression and victimization (Hypothesis 2).
Lastly, gender is investigated through exploratory analyses as a possible moderator of the
association of family aggression on victimization as well a moderator in the associations between
family aggression, prosocial-to-antisocial friend behavior, and victimization.
Methods
Overview
Participants for the present study include adolescents and their parents who were
recruited as part of a two-cohort longitudinal, multi-wave research study examining the effects of
family conflict on parent and child outcomes. The two cohorts were recruited in identical ways
and went through the identical procedures in the present study (see Margolin, Vickerman, Oliver
& Gordis, 2010, for more details). Inclusion criteria were that a) families included two parents
and at least one child; b) families lived together for at least the last 3 years; and c) all participants
were able to read and speak English. Children in the first cohort were recruited at age 9-10 when
they began the study and the children in the second cohort, designed to match the first cohort,
were in middle school when they began the study approximately three years later.
The present study includes data from two data collection time points that were spaced
approximately 5 years apart. At the first time point, adolescents and their parents reported on
family aggression experienced within the home. At the second time point, adolescents reported
on their victimization experiences as well as on the prosocial and antisocial behaviors of their
friends. All data were collected in computer-administered questionnaires as part of a larger
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
10
laboratory procedure. Families were compensated for their time and effort in each time point.
The study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board and all participants gave
written consent (assent by the youth) before participating in the study.
Participants
A total of 125 participants (85 from cohort 1 and 40 from cohort 2) are included in the
present study. Inclusion into the present study required both that adolescents and their parents
complete questionnaires of family aggression at the first time point (n = 170) and that
adolescents complete a measure of victimization at the second time point (n = 130), which
reduced the sample size to 125. A comparison of those who participated in the first time point
but were not included in the 125 here indicated that there were no differences in gender, race,
ethnicity, adolescent ages, family income, or level of family aggression. Analyses comparing
differences between participants from cohort 1 and 2 on the same variables indicated that
adolescents from Cohort 2 (M = 13.04) were older than adolescents from Cohort 1 at the first
time point (M = 12.49), t(114)= -3.90, p < .001.
Adolescents were, on average, 12.68 years old (SD = .76) at the first time point and 18.19
years old (SD = 1.11) at the second time point. The sample includes 58 females and 67 males.
The sample for the study is diverse, with 35.2% identifying as Hispanic/Latino. Participants’
self-identified race was 5.6% Asian/Pacific Islander, 17.6% Black/African American, 57.6%
Caucasian, and 19.2% as multiple ethnicities. The median combined income of families in our
study was $80,000 (M= $90,497, SD = $54,956). Reports of family income indicated that 21%
reported incomes <$50,000; 40% reported incomes between $50,000 and $100,000, and 33.9%
reported incomes greater than >$100,000. The incomes of approximately 10% of the
participating families were below the national poverty level.
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
11
Measures
Parent-Child Aggression. Adolescents and their parents reported on parent-child
aggression at the first time point using a modified version of the Parent Child Conflict measure
(PCC; Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, & Runyan, 1998). All participants answered the same 6
items: 4 items of psychological aggression (e.g., “Called you dumb or lazy or some other name
like that”) as well as 2 items of physical aggression (e.g., “Slapped you on the hand, arm, or
leg”). Adolescents completed one set of items for their mother and another identical set for their
father. Parents reported on their own behavior towards their child. Respondents reported the
frequency of each item during the last year on a 7-point scale (0 = Never to 6 = 20+ times).
Given that people tend to under-report violence and conflict experiences (Margolin et al., 2010),
the maximum reported score from each reporter (adolescent, mother, father) was calculated for
each item. Then the scores were summed to yield a separate measure of mother-to-child
aggression and a measure of father-to-child aggression, such that higher scores indicated greater
aggression. Internal consistency was acceptable in the measure of mother-to-child aggression (α
= .77) and father-to-child aggression (α = .78).
Parent-Parent Aggression. Adolescents reported on parent-to-parent aggression at the
first time point through 9 items from the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979) that
represented physical aggression (4 items e.g., “Slapped the other person”) and psychological
aggression (5 items e.g., “Insulted or swore at the other person”). They answered each question
twice, once for mother-to-father aggression and once for father-to-mother aggression and
reported the frequency to which they witnessed parent-to-parent aggression in the last year on a
4-point scale (0 = never to 4 = a lot). Parents reported on the same 9 items from the Domestic
Conflict Inventory, where some items were worded slightly differently (DCI; Margolin, John, &
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
12
Foo, 1998). Parents answered each item twice, once for themselves e.g., “I pushed, grabbed, or
shoved my spouse”, and once for their partner e.g., “My spouse pushed, grabbed, or shoved me”.
Parents were asked to indicate the frequency to which they or their spouse perpetrated aggression
in the last year on a 6-point scale (0 = 0 per year to 5 = >1 per week). To develop a composite
measure of parent-parent aggression, first the items from the parent measure were rescaled to
correspond with the scale from the adolescent measure, such that 0 = never to 4 = a lot. Second,
the maximum reported score from each reporter (adolescent, mother, father) was calculated for
each item. The items were summed to yield a separate measure of mother-to-father aggression
and a measure of father-to-mother aggression, such that higher scores indicated greater
aggression. Internal consistency was acceptable in the measure of mother-to-father aggression (α
= .76) and father-to-mother aggression (α = .74).
Victimization. The assessment of victimization through the How Friends Treat Each
Other scale (HFTEO, see Bennett et al., 2011), included physical (9 items, e.g., “slapped me”),
psychological (26 items, “insulted me with put-downs”), sexual (7 items, e.g., “touched me
sexually when I didn’t want it”) and electronic items of victimization (21 items, e.g., “put a
picture of me on a website that I didn’t want there”). Thirty-five items of the 66 items were
adapted from the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI, Wolfe et al.,
2001), a self-report measure of aggression in adolescent dating relationships. Three items were
excluded because they did not signify victimization e.g., “cheated on me”. Respondents were
asked to indicate the frequency to which they experienced victimization events on a 5-point scale
(0 = never happened to 4 = happened more than 10 times). Respondents answered each question
twice, once for each type of perpetrator: “any boyfriend/girlfriend” or “any friend”. In the
instance that someone fell into more than one category (e.g., was a friend and now is a
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
13
boyfriend/girlfriend), participants were instructed to rate individuals in the category that best
applied. Mean scores were calculated for each of the four types of victimization types separately
for dating partner and friend perpetrators. Internal consistency for each type of dating
victimization (α = .90, .95, .87 and .88 for physical, psychological, sexual and electronic
victimization) and friend victimization was strong (α = .75, .91, .66 and .74 for physical,
psychological, sexual and electronic victimization). Because of the correlations among these
types of victimization and to limit the total number of analyses, we calculated one score for
dating victimization and one for friend victimization, based on the average across all items.
Internal consistency was high (α = .97 for victimization by dating partner and .93 for
victimization by friend).
Prosocial and Antisocial Friend Behavior. Adolescents reported on how many of their
friends engaged in prosocial (13 items, e.g., “have done volunteer work”) and antisocial
behaviors (17 items, e.g., “have cheated on school tests”) at the second time point using a
modified version of the Peer Behavior Inventory (Prinstein, Boergers, & Spirito, 2001). The
original 19-item scale was further expanded to 33 items to include items of risky sexual
behaviors (e.g., “engage in unprotected sex”) as well as additional items of prosocial behaviors.
Two items were removed from the scale for the purposes of the present study because one item
overlapped with victimization (i.e., have hit or threatened to hit someone without a reason) and
one item indicated suicidality (i.e., have attempted to kill themselves). Respondents reported
how many of their closest friends engaged in each of the prosocial or antisocial behaviors on a 5-
point scale (0 = None to 4 = Almost all). Internal consistency was high for the prosocial items (α
= .85) as well as the antisocial items (α = .90). As anticipated, prosocial and antisocial scores
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
14
were not correlated (r = .03 for males and .07 for females) and overall, participants reported that
their friends engaged in over twice as many prosocial than antisocial behaviors. We calculated
the ratio of prosocial-to-antisocial friend behaviors on the prosocial and antisocial means with
higher scores indicating a greater proportion of friends engaging in prosocial behaviors. Thus,
the ratio does not specifically indicate the number of friends who engage in certain behaviors,
but serves as an index of affiliation with prosocial compared to antisocial peers in the
participant’s social context.
Demographic variables. Adolescents and their parents additionally reported their age,
gender, family income, race and ethnicity.
Results
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive analyses investigated differences between male and females for
victimization. Separate linear regressions were used to test associations between family
aggression, gender, and the ratio of prosocial-to-antisocial friend behavior with victimization by
dating partner and friend. To evaluate the hypothesis that gender would moderate the association
of family aggression with victimization, we created interaction terms between gender and each of
the four family aggression variables. All continuous variables were standardized prior to
computing interaction terms and conducting regression analyses. Main effect and interaction
terms for gender and family aggression variables were included in interaction models.
Significant interactions were evaluated based on recommendations by Aiken and West (1991).
Lastly, we examined the potentially buffering role of the ratio of prosocial-to-antisocial friend
behavior by creating three-way interaction terms between family aggression, gender, and the
ratio of prosocial-to-antisocial friend behavior in predicting victimization by dating partner and
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
15
friends. As is common with studies on adolescent dating aggression, some participants may not
have been in serious dating relationships. We ran all analyses excluding the subset of those who
had not dated in the past year (n = 15) and found that the direction of the analyses did not
change. Subsequently, we included the full sample (n = 125) in all analyses to maximize the
number of people who experienced both dating and friend victimization and to account for
participants who may have experienced dating victimization outside the bounds of an exclusive
dating relationship, as done in prior studies of dating victimization (Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004).
Descriptive Statistics
Results indicated that 59.2% of participants reported at least one physical victimization
experience, 95.8% psychological, 42.5% sexual and 85% electronic. Further, 63.2% of
participants reported at least one victimization experience from dating partners and 87.2%
reported at least one victimization experience from friends. Table 1 presents mean scores for
males and females for each of the four victimization types by dating partners and friends and also
presents results of four 2 (gender) X 2 (dating partner vs. friend) ANOVAs that tested
differences between males and females by dating partners and friends for each type of
victimization. Overall, both males and females reported more sexual victimization from dating
partners than from friends and females reported more electronic aggression than males. For
physical, psychological and electronic victimization, the interaction between perpetration and
gender indicated that males report more frequent victimization by friends whereas females report
more frequent victimization by dating partners.
Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for study variables and Table 3 presents bivariate
correlations among all study variables for males and females. Although the four types of family
aggression were correlated with each other, only father-to-child aggression was significantly
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
16
correlated with victimization, specifically with females’ friend and dating partner victimization.
The ratio between prosocial and antisocial friends was inversely related to dating partner
victimization. In addition, for females but not males, dating partner victimization and friend
victimization were correlated.
Association between Family Aggression and Victimization with Gender as a Moderator
Table 4 presents a series of four linear regression analyses that tested the main effects and
the interaction for each type of family aggression and gender (Hypothesis 1). Main effects
emerged for father-to-child aggression and both dating partner and friend victimization. In
addition, gender was a significant moderator of the association between father-to-child
aggression and dating partner victimization. When the slope of the interaction was decomposed
(Aiken & West, 1991), a significant positive association emerged between father-to-child
aggression and victimization for females (b = .03, p < .001) but not for males (b = .00, ns).
No other significant main effects for family aggression or gender interactions emerged
for mother-to-child aggression, father-to-mother aggression or mother-to- father aggression. As
anticipated by the correlations, gender consistently showed main effects for dating partner
victimization.
Prosocial Friend Behavior as a Moderator of the Association between Family Aggression
and Victimization
To test whether the ratio of prosocial-to-antisocial friend behaviors moderated the
association between family aggression and victimization (Hypothesis 2), we examined 2-way
(family aggression X friend behavior) and 3-way (family aggression X friend behavior X gender)
interactions, which are displayed in Table 5. For the association between father-to-child
aggression and dating partner victimization, there was a significant two-way interaction between
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
17
for father-to-child aggression and prosocial/antisocial friends, as well as a significant three-way
interaction that also included gender. Figure 3 displays the plot of the significant three-way
interaction, where we evaluated the simple slopes at low (1 SD below the mean), medium
(mean), and high (1 SD above the mean) levels for father-to-child aggression and prosocial-to-
antisocial ratio for females and males. For females, the positive association between father-to-
child aggression and victimization by dating partner was significant for those with low (b = .04,
p < .001) and medium ratios of prosocial friends (b =.03, p < .001) but not for those with a high
ratio of prosocial friends (b = .01, ns). Among males, the positive association between father-to-
child aggression and victimization by dating partner was unrelated to the prosocial friend ratios
(b’s = -.00 – .01, ns).
More generally, the ratio of prosocial-to-antisocial friend behavior was inversely related
to dating partner victimization (e.g., a protective factor). This protective factor was particularly
significant for females, as shown by the significant interactions between the prosocial friend ratio
and gender. The prosocial friend ratio, however, did not significantly moderate any other
associations between family aggression and victimization by dating partner or friends.
Discussion
This study investigated both family and peer influences in the trajectory to late adolescent
victimization by dating partners and friends. In partial support of hypothesis 1 on the influence of
family aggression, we found that father-to-child aggression conferred risk for later dating and
friend victimization among both males and females; however, the other three types of family
aggression were not associated with later victimization. Gender was a significant moderator in
the association between father-to-child aggression and later dating victimization, with stronger
associations for females than for males. In partial support of hypothesis 2, we found that the ratio
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
18
of prosocial-to-antisocial friend behavior moderated the association between father-to-child
aggression in the risk for victimization. Specifically, the association between father-to-child
aggression and dating victimization held among females with low and medium prosocial-to-
antisocial friend ratios but not for females with a high prosocial friend ratio. These data highlight
both the relevance of fathers’ treatment of their daughters and also the ameliorating influences of
prosocial friendships in daughters’ later dating relationships.
The present study is one of the few to directly test the risk for victimization associated
with four common types of family aggression—father-to-child, mother-to-child, father-to-mother
and mother-to-child. Though prior research has identified effects of both parent-to-parent
aggression and parent-to-child aggression on more wide-ranging developmental outcomes
(Herrenkohl, Sousa, Tajima, Herrenkohl, & Moylan, 2008), these findings are more consistent
with studies of community-based samples (Stith et al., 2000), which tend to show more mixed
findings. Our results build on earlier research suggesting that father-to-child aggression in
particular may increase the risk for victimization (Chang et al., 2003), whereas some studies
report stronger effects for mother-to-child aggression (e.g., Hendy et al., 2003; Malik et al.,
1997). Notably, in the present study, mother-to-child aggression was reported more often than
father-to-child aggression, suggesting that mother-to-child aggression may be more normative
than father-to-child aggression. As prior research suggests, father’s aggression may occur less
frequently and be more threatening and scary to children than mother’s aggression (Margolin &
Baucom, 2014), particularly if the aggression is not balanced by more nurturing behaviors.
Father-to-child aggression may also have stronger effects compared to father-to-mother
aggression, given that in addition to modeling aggression, father-to-child aggression causes the
child to be a direct recipient of aggression.
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
19
The findings from the present study suggest that father-to-daughter aggression may set
the stage for daughters’ victimization by a romantic partner. Whereas for friend victimization,
gender did not play a moderating role, these findings point to gender-specific pathways in the
risk for dating victimization following exposure to father’s aggression. Females in particular may
adopt models for romantic relationships based on their own victimization experiences with their
fathers. Other studies have identified important ways that fathers influence their daughters’
romantic relationships, e.g., time spent with father affects the timing of daughters’ first sexual
encounter (Byrd-Craven, Geary, Vigil, Hoard, 2007). Though our findings do not address the
mechanisms underlying the link between victimization by the father and later victimization by a
dating partner, it is possible that problems with emotion regulation (Shields & Cicchetti, 2001),
biases toward negative attributions (Dodge & Pettit, 2003), and anxious and avoidant attachment
(Grych & Kinsfogel, 2010) may be other possible explanations.
The present study is one of the first to examine different types of victimization among a
community sample of late adolescents. Descriptive results revealed some differences between
males and females in the types of victimization experiences they reported. Females reported
more electronic victimization than males but the total amount of victimization was not
significantly different for males and females, which is consistent with the literature (e.g., Archer,
2004). However, males and females differed by the relationship in which the victimization
occurred. On average, females reported more physical, psychological, and electronic
victimization from dating partners than friends whereas males reported more of these types of
victimization from friends than dating partners. In a prior investigation with young adults on
electronic aggression, victimization from dating partners was more distressing than similar
victimization from friends (Bennett et al., 2011). Moreover, while females tend to describe
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
20
victimization as a serious matter, males have been known at times to describe it in a joking
fashion (Kellerman, Margolin, Borofsky, Baucom & Iturralde, 2013; Molidor, Tolman, & Kober,
2000). Greater attention thus is needed not only to the predictive factors for dating and friend
victimization but also to understanding the implications of that victimization.
Models explaining the intergenerational transmission of aggression from the family of
origin to later dating and friend relationships often emphasize the importance of developmental
trajectories. Herrenkohl, Sousa, Tajima, Herrenkohl & Moylan (2008), for example, suggest that
prosocial versus antisocial pathways help to explain resilience versus risk across development.
These authors further suggest that “strong bonds to prosocial others will lessen the risk for
negative outcomes, whereas weak bonds to prosocial others will elevate the risk” (p. 94). In
support of that model, our data suggest that the proportion of prosocial-to-antisocial friend
behaviors is protective against dating partner victimization for females and is an influential
factor in understanding the association between family aggression and dating victimization. Our
study extended prior work on antisocial peers by examining the protective role of prosocial
peers. Although most adolescents in the study reported more friends who engaged in prosocial
than antisocial behavior, prosocial friend behavior by itself was not significantly associated with
victimization. Rather, it was the proportion of prosocial-to-antisocial friend behavior that
emerged as a buffer for the association between father-to-daughter aggression and daughters’
victimization in dating relationships. That is, females who befriended a high proportion of
prosocial than antisocial friends were at no increased risk for dating victimization than those
without father-to-daughter aggression. Our result on the salience of the proportion of prosocial
friends, particularly for females, is consistent with Foshee et al. (2013), who found that girls who
typically have friends with prosocial beliefs are at decreased risk for perpetrating dating
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
21
violence, suggesting that females in particular may be influenced by the beliefs of their friends.
The important role of friends in explicit and implicit norms and attitudes towards dating
violence has been found in the literature (Capaldi, Dishion, Stoolmiller, & Yoerger, 2001;
Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004). In addition, support and nurturance from dating partners has been
identified as a protective factor in the link between family-of-origin aggression and later
relationship aggression (Conger, Schofield, Neppl, & Merrick, 2013). According to the present
study, however, being surrounded by more prosocial than antisocial friends appears to create a
protective social environment against dating victimization for females. At this point, we can only
speculate on the mechanisms underlying that protection. Greater exposure to prosocial friends
may challenge maladaptive norms for dating victimization or may provide models for
maintaining intimate relationships without violence or aggression. Affiliation with a greater
proportion of prosocial friends may also mean that individuals themselves are simply more likely
to select prosocial dating partners, thereby minimizing the likelihood of starting or maintaining
potentially harmful relationships.
The results of this study suggest that friends can be influential in altering risky
trajectories following exposure to family aggression and that there may be several points of
intervention during late adolescence. Preventive interventions could take place in schools and in
the community to increase the prevalence of prosocial behavior. Schools and community
organizations could offer opportunities for adolescents to engage in prosocial behaviors as a way
for them to gain exposure to prosocial peers and to engage in more prosocial behaviors
themselves, thereby spending less time with antisocial peers. As this study targeted late
adolescents who may be graduating from high school and entering higher education or the
workforce, the findings highlight an important juncture by which adolescents might select more
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
22
prosocial peer groups. Greater affiliation with prosocial friends may be especially important for
those who previously affiliated with more antisocial friends in high school. In addition, clinicians
working with adolescents and young adults should be aware of the increased risk for dating
victimization in the presence of father-daughter aggression in early adolescence.
The study had several limitations. First, the study did not include an assessment of
aggression perpetration, which tends to correlate highly with victimization (Olsen et al., 2010).
Future research could seek to incorporate both assessments of victimization and perpetration in
the same study. Second, information on victimization and prosocial and antisocial friend
behavior were collected concurrently, making it unclear whether experiences of dating and friend
victimization led to affiliation with particular peer groups or vice versa. Third, our findings may
only generalize to milder forms of family aggression, given that the present study assessed for
physical and psychological aggression from families in predominantly two-parent households.
Lastly, the study relied on youth to self-report on their victimization experiences and exposure to
prosocial and antisocial friend behavior, rather than using peer nominations or reports from
friends and classmates. However, these reports would have been difficult to obtain given that the
study utilized a longitudinal sample and an appropriate peer group would have to be obtained for
each individual in the study.
The study’s strengths include its contributions to understanding risk and resilience factors
related to victimization by dating partners and friends in late adolescence. Though prior studies
have identified family aggression and antisocial peers as risk factors, this study identified that a
high proportion of prosocial-to-antisocial friends is protective against the risk for dating
victimization. This study contributes to the larger literature by identifying that a high proportion
of prosocial-to-antisocial friends may interrupt the cycle of violence from an adolescent’s
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
23
family-of-origin to their own dating relationships. Therefore, strengthening the proportion of
prosocial-to-antisocial friends among adolescents from aggressive families may prevent
victimization as well as its associated negative outcomes in late adolescence. In sum, our results
highlight the important role of prosocial friends in ameliorating the risks associated with family
aggression. Understanding these risks and protective factors is crucial for preventing the
occurrence of victimization in late adolescence.

Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
24
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Sage.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (2008). Bright futures: Guidelines for health supervision
of infants, children, and adolescents.
https://brightfutures.aap.org/pdfs/Guidelines_PDF/18-Adolescence.pdf. Accessed 31
March 2015.
Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic
review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291-322.
Arriaga, X. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004). Adolescent dating violence do adolescents follow in
their friends’, or their parents’, footsteps?. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(2),
162-184.
Baldry, A. C. (2003). Bullying in schools and exposure to domestic violence. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 27(7), 713-732.
Bennett, D. C., Guran, E. L., Ramos, M. C., & Margolin, G. (2011). College students' electronic
victimization in friendships and dating relationships: Anticipated distress and
associations with risky behaviors. Violence and Victims, 26(4), 410-429.
Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Tremblay, R. E., & Wanner, B. (2002). Parent and peer effects on
delinquency‐related violence and dating violence: A test of two mediational
models. Social Development, 11(2), 225-244.
Byrd-Craven, J., Geary, D. C., Vigil, J. M., & Hoard, M. I. (2007). One mate or two? Life
history traits and reproductive variation in low-income women. Acta Psychologica
Sinica, 39, 469-480.
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
25
Capaldi, D. M., & Clark, S. (1998). Prospective family predictors of aggression toward female
partners for at-risk young men. Developmental Psychology,34(6), 1175-1188.
Capaldi, D. M., Dishion, T. J., Stoolmiller, M., & Yoerger, K. (2001). Aggression toward female
partners by at-risk young men: The contribution of male adolescent friendships.
Developmental Psychology, 37, 61–73
Chan, K. L., Straus, M. A., Brownridge, D. A., Tiwari, A., & Leung, W. C. (2008). Prevalence of
dating partner violence and suicidal ideation among male and female university students
worldwide. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 53(6), 529-537.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmwh.2008.04.016
Chang, L., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Harsh parenting in
relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(4),
598-606.
Cloitre, M., Tardiff, K., Marzuk, P. M., Leon, A. C., & Portera, L. (1996). Childhood abuse and
subsequent sexual assault among female inpatients. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3),
473-482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jts.2490090306
Coid, J., Petruckevitch, A., Feder, G., Chung, W. S., Richardson, J., & Moorey, S. (2001).
Relation between childhood sexual and physical abuse and risk of revictimisation in
women: A cross-sectional survey. The Lancet, 358(9280), 450-454.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05622-7
Cook, E. C., Buehler, C., & Fletcher, A. C. (2012). A process model of parenting and
adolescents' friendship competence. Social Development, 21(3), 461-481.
Conger, R. D., Schofield, T. J., Neppl, T. K., & Merrick, M., (2013). Disrupting
intergenerational continuity in harsh and abusive parenting: The importance of a
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
26
nurturing relationship with a romantic partner, Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, (4-
Supp), S11-17.
Crawford, E., & Wright, M. O. D. (2007). The impact of childhood psychological maltreatment
on interpersonal schemas and subsequent experiences of relationship aggression. Journal
of Emotional Abuse, 7(2), 93-116.
Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of
violence. Science, 250(4988), 1678-1683.
Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic
conduct problems in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 349-371.
Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., & Johnson, J. G. (2003).
Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(4), 741-753.
Evans, W. P., Marte, R. M., Betts, S., & Silliman, B. (2001). Adolescent suicide risk and peer-
related violent behaviors and victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(12),
1330-1348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088626001016012006
Feiring, C., & Furman, W. C. (2000). When love is just a four-letter word: Victimization and
romantic relationships in adolescence. Child Maltreatment, 5(4), 293-298.
Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L., & Lynskey, M. T. (1996). Childhood sexual abuse and
psychiatric disorder in young adulthood: II. Psychiatric outcomes of childhood sexual
abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 35(10),
1365-1374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199610000-00024
Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. L. (2005). The victimization of children and
youth: A comprehensive, national survey. Child Maltreatment,10(1), 5-25.
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
27
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077559504271287
Foshee, V. A., Benefield, T. S., Reyes, H. L. M., Ennett, S. T., Faris, R., Chang, L. Y., ...
Suchindran, C. M. (2013). The peer context and the development of the perpetration of
adolescent dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 471-486.
Gover, A. R., Kaukinen, C., & Fox, K. A. (2008). The relationship between violence in the
family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 23(12), 1667-1693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260508314330
Grych, J. H., & Kinsfogel, K. M. (2010). Exploring the role of attachment style in the relation
between family aggression and abuse in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of
Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(6), 624-640.
Güroğlu, B., Van Lieshout, C. F., Haselager, G. J., & Scholte, R. H. (2007). Similarity and
complementarity of behavioral profiles of friendship types and types of friends:
Friendships and psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(2),
357-386.
Halpern, C. T., Oslak, S. G., Young, M. L., Martin, S. L., & Kupper, L. L. (2001). Partner
violence among adolescents in opposite-sex romantic relationships: Findings from the
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. American Journal of Public
Health, 91(10), 1679-1685.
Halpern, C. T., Spriggs, A. L., Martin, S. L., & Kupper, L. L. (2009). Patterns of intimate partner
violence victimization from adolescence to young adulthood in a nationally
representative sample. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(5), 508-516.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.011
Hendy, H. M., Weiner, K., Bakerofskie, J., Eggen, D., Gustitus, C., & McLeod, K. C. (2003).
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
28
Comparison of six models for violent romantic relationships in college men and
women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(6), 645-665.
Herrenkohl, T. I., Sousa, C., Tajima, E. A., Herrenkohl, R. C., & Moylan, C. A. (2008).
Intersection of child abuse and children’s exposure to domestic violence. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, 9, 84-99.
Hines, D. A., & Saudino, K. J. (2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual
aggression among college students using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales. Violence
and Victims, 18(2), 197-217.
Kawabata, Y., Alink, L. R., Tseng, W. L., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Crick, N. R. (2011).
Maternal and paternal parenting styles associated with relational aggression in children
and adolescents: A conceptual analysis and meta-analytic review. Developmental
Review, 31(4), 240-278.
Kellerman, I., Margolin, G., Borofsky, L. A., Baucom, B. R., & Iturralde, E. (2013). Electronic
aggression among emerging adults motivations and contextual factors. Emerging
Adulthood, 1, 293-304.
Kinsfogel, K. M., & Grych, J. H. (2004). Interparental conflict and adolescent dating
relationships: Integrating cognitive, emotional, and peer influences. Journal of Family
Psychology, 18(3), 505-515.
Lansford, J. E., Criss, M. M., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (2003). Friendship
quality, peer group affiliation, and peer antisocial behavior as moderators of the link
between negative parenting and adolescent externalizing behavior. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 13(2), 161-184.
Linder, J. R., & Collins, W. A. (2005). Parent and peer predictors of physical aggression and
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
29
conflict management in romantic relationships in early adulthood. Journal of Family
Psychology, 19(2), 252-262.
Malik, S., Sorenson, S. B., & Aneshensel, C. S. (1997). Community and dating violence
among adolescents: Perpetration and victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21,
291−302.
Margolin, G., & Baucom, B.R. (2014). Adolescents' aggression to parents: Longitudinal links
with parents' physical aggression. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 645-651.
Margolin, G., John, R. S., & Foo, L. (1998). Interactive and unique risk factors for husbands'
emotional and physical abuse of their wives. Journal of Family Violence, 13(4), 315-344.
Margolin, G., Vickerman, K. A., Oliver, P. H., & Gordis, E. B. (2010). Violence exposure in
multiple interpersonal domains: Cumulative and differential effects. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 47(2), 198-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.01.020
Molidor, C., Tolman, R. M., & Kober, J (2000). Gender and contextual factors in adolescent
dating violence. The Prevention Researcher, 7, 1-7
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001).
Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial
adjustment. JAMA, 285(16), 2094-2100.
O'Keefe, M. (1998). Factors mediating the link between witnessing interparental violence and
dating violence. Journal of Family Violence, 13(1), 39-57.
O'Leary, K. D., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1994). Physical aggression in early marriage:
Prerelationship and relationship effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 62(3), 594-602.
Olsen, J. P., Parra, G. R., & Bennett, S. A. (2010). Predicting violence in romantic relationships
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
30
during adolescence and emerging adulthood: A critical review of the mechanisms by
which familial and peer influences operate. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(4), 411-422.
Perry, D. G., Hodges, E. V., & Egan, S. K. (2001). Determinants of chronic victimization by
peers. Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized, 73-104.
Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Spirito, A. (2001). Adolescents' and their friends' health-risk
behavior: Factors that alter or add to peer influence. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 26(5), 287-298.
Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization and
internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 34(4), 244-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.009
Rich, C. L., Gidycz, C. A., Warkentin, J. B., Loh, C., & Weiland, P. (2005). Child and
adolescent abuse and subsequent victimization: A prospective study. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 29(12), 1373-1394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.07.003
Schaaf, K. K., & McCanne, T. R. (1998). Relationship of childhood sexual, physical, and
combined sexual and physical abuse to adult victimization and posttraumatic stress
disorder. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(11), 1119-1133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0145-
2134(98)00090-8
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1997). The early socialization of
aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 68(4), 665-675.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltreatment and emotion dysregulation as risk
factors for bullying and victimization in middle childhood. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 30(3), 349-363.
Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
31
taking. Developmental Review, 28(1), 78-106.
Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., Middleton, K. A., Busch, A. L., Lundeberg, K., & Carlton, R. P.
(2000). The intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse: A meta‐analysis. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 640-654.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT)
scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 75-88.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Finkelhor, D., Moore, D. W., & Runyan, D. (1998). Identification
of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and
psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 22(4), 249-270.
Swahn, M. H., Bossarte, R. M., & Sullivent, E. E. (2008). Age of alcohol use initiation, suicidal
behavior, and peer and dating violence victimization and perpetration among high-risk,
seventh-grade adolescents. Pediatrics, 121(2), 297-305.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-2348
Trickett, P. K., & McBride-Chang, C. (1995). The developmental impact of different forms of
child abuse and neglect. Developmental Review, 15(3), 311-337.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/drev.1995.1012
Turner, H. A., Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (2006). The effect of lifetime victimization on the
mental health of children and adolescents. Social Science & Medicine, 62(1), 13-27.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.05.030
Turner, H. A., Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (2010). Poly-victimization in a national sample of
children and youth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,38(3), 323-330.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.11.012
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION

!
32
Vezina, J., & Hebert, M. (2007). Risk factors for victimization in romantic relationships of
young women: A review of empirical studies and implications for prevention. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, 8(1), 33-66.
White, J. W., & Koss, M. P. (1991). Courtship violence: Incidence in a national sample of higher
education students. Violence and Victims, 6, 247-256.
Widom, C. S. (1989). The cycle of violence. Science, 244(4901), 160-166.
Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., Wekerle, C., Grasley, C., & Straatman, A. L. (2001).
Development and validation of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships
inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13(2), 277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-
3590.13.2.277

Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
!
33
Tables and Figures
Table 1. Mean scores of victimization from dating partners and friends within the past year
Types of
Victimization
Males (n = 67) Females (n = 58)
F
Gender
F
Perpetrator
F
Gender X
Perpetrator Dating Partner Friend Dating Partner Friend
Physical .08 (.23) .21 (.31) .19 (.51) .10 (.46) .00 .23 7.10*
Psychological .23 (.33) .37 (.40) .51 (.78) .36 (.26) 3.57 .001 6.90*
Sexual .10 (.24) .07 (.17) .16 (.51) .04 (.10) .06 5.22* .23
Electronic .08 (.13) .13 (.18) .22 (.39) .14 (.16) 6.05* .36 5.65*

Note. SDs are in parentheses.
*p < .05

Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
!
34
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of study variables reported by total sample, males, and females.

Variable, M (SD) Total (n =125) Males (n = 67) Females (n = 58)
Father-to-child aggression 6.22 (5.63) 6.49 (5.54) 5.91 (5.77)
Mother-to-child aggression 7.94 (5.70) 7.66 (5.38) 8.28 (6.09)
Father-to-mother aggression 3.46 (3.25) 3.18 (2.83) 3.78 (3.67)
Mother-to-father aggression 4.17 (3.44) 3.85 (3.62) 4.53 (3.21)
Prosocial friend behavior 2.74 (.65) 2.64 (.79) 2.80 (.55)
Antisocial friend behavior 0.97 (.70) 1.05 (.72) 0.88 (.66)
Ratio of prosocial/antisocial friend
behavior
2.12(.81) 1.99 (.85) 2.23 (.74)
Dating partner victimization
a
0.21 (.23) 0.14 (.19) 0.30 (.51)
Friend victimization 0.20 (.32) 0.21 (.23) 0.20 (.24)
a
significant gender difference at p < .05.

Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
!
35

Table 3. Correlations among study variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Father-to-Child
Aggression
- .47** .36** .15 .12 .09 -.10 .02 .20
2. Mother-to-Child
Aggression
.51** - .29* .32** .00 .16 -.21 -.01 .20
3. Father-to-Mother
Aggression
.39** .41** - .67** -.11 .13 -.22 -.02 .12
4. Mother to Father
Aggression
.27* .38** .63** - -.11 .18 -.24 .08 .09
5. Prosocial Friends
.06 .14 .05 -.07 - .03 .51** -.17 .17
6. Antisocial Friends
.37** .05 -.09 -.10 .07 - -.77** .34** .30*
7. Ratio of Prosocial/
Antisocial
-.25 .02 .14 .07 .36** -.81** - -.30** -.16
8. Dating Partner
Victimization
.40** .05 -.01 .04 -.18 .57** -.52** - .19
9. Friend
Victimization
.29* .15 -.01 -.10 -.01 .26 -.22 .36** -

Note: Correlations for males are reported in the top half of the matrix and correlations for females are reported in the bottom half.
* p < .05, ** p < .001

Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
!
36

Table 4. Regression analyses of family aggression variables predicting victimization by dating partners and friends

Dating Partner Victimization Friend Victimization
B SE β B SE β
Father-to-Child Aggression .028 .007 .496** .012 .005 .293*
Gender -.159 .053 -.250* .011 .042 .023
Father-to-Child x Gender -.027 .009 -.346* -.004 .007 -.065

Mother-to-Child Aggression .003 .007 .057 .006 .005 .146
Gender -.149 .056 -.235* .021 .042 .045
Mother-to-Child x Gender -.004 .010 -.044 .003 .007 .044

Father-to-Mother Aggression -.001 .011 -.009 .000 .009 .041
Gender -.151 .056 -.237* .019 .043 .041
Father-to-Mother x Gender -.001 .018 -.003 .010 .014 .086

Mother-to-Father Aggression .004 .013 .048 -.008 .010 -.112
Gender -.147 .056 -.232* .016 .043 .034
Mother-to-Father x Gender .000 .017 -.003 .014 .013 .150
* p < .05, ** p < .001

Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
!
37
Table 5. Regression analysis investigating prosocial-to-antisocial friend ratio and gender as moderators of the association between
family aggression and dating partner and friend victimization
Dating Partner Victimization Friend Victimization
B SE β B SE β
Father-to-child aggression .022 .006 .398* .012 .006 .291*
Gender -.175 .049 -.275** .009 .126 .019
Prosocial/antisocial -.246 .049 -.626** -.048 .043 -.164
Father-to-child aggression x gender -.021 .009 -.270* -.007 .008 -.116
Prosocial/antisocial x gender .186 .063 .371* .000 .055 -.001
Father-to-child aggression x prosocial/antisocial -.018 .008 -.251* -.012 .007 -.220
Father-to-child aggression x gender x
prosocial/antisocial
.022 .011 .229* .004 .010 .058

Mother-to-child aggression .012 .021 .212 .010 .018 .242
Gender -.654 .153 -1.03** -.071 .130 -.150
Prosocial/antisocial -.291 .051 -.740** -.074 .043 -.251
Mother-to-child aggression x gender -.009 .028 -.108 .001 .023 .014
Prosocial/antisocial x gender .214 .069 .797* .036 .058 .180
Mother-to-child aggression x
prosocial/antisocial
-.003 .008 -.134 -.001 .007 -.086
Mother-to-child aggression x gender x
prosocial/antisocial
0.00 .012 -.002 .000 .010 -.011

Father-to-mother aggression .015 .043 .153 -.057 .037 -.782
Gender -.672 .151 -1.06** -.102 .128 -.216
Prosocial/antisocial -.296 .052 -.753** -.082 .044 -.281
Father-to-mother aggression x gender -.016 .051 -.104 .041 .043 .359
Prosocial/antisocial x gender .223 .067 .830* .059 .057 .293
Father-to-mother aggression x
prosocial/antisocial
-.003 .017 -.074 .024 .015 .770
Father-to-mother aggression x gender x
prosocial/antisocial
.000 .023 .001 -.011 .019 -.189

Mother-to-father aggression .015 .034 .157 -.041 .029 -.593
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
!
38

Note. Prosocial/antisocial = the ratio of prosocial/antisocial friend behavior.
* p < .05, ** p < .001

Gender -.673 .151 -1.06** -.106 .128 -.223
Prosocial/antisocial -.293 .052 -.745** -.080 .044 -.274
Mother-to-father aggression x gender -.011 .042 -.087 .021 .035 .236
Prosocial/antisocial x gender .225 .068 .838* .059 .058 .294
Mother-to-father aggression x
prosocial/antisocial
-.003 .015 -.059 .016 .013 .476
Mother-to-father aggression x gender x
prosocial/antisocial
.000 .021 .007 -.002 .018 -.031
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
!
39
Figure 1. The ratio of prosocial-to-antisocial friend behavior as a moderator of the interaction of gender by father-to-child aggression,
reported separately for females and males.

Note: Slopes are significant for females at a low (b = .04, p < .001) and medium ratio of prosocial/antisocial friends (b = .03, p < .001)
but not at a high ratio of prosocial/antisocial friends (b = .01, n.s.) Slopes are not significant for males (b’s = .00 – .004, n.s.).
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
!
40

Appendix
Conflict Tactics Scale – Adolescent Report – Time point 1
I am going to ask you some questions about your parents. We know that kids sometimes wonder whether it’s OK to tell us certain
things about their parents. Of course, what you tell us is up to you. However, I want you to know that nothing you tell me about your
parents’ arguing, or about what your parents may have done to each other in the past, will get you or your parents in trouble. Do you
have any questions about this?

No matter how well parents get along, there are times when they disagree on big decisions, get annoyed about something the other
person did, or just have fights because they’re in a bad mood, or tired, or for some other reason. Parents use many different ways of
trying to settle their differences.

You will find a list of some things that your parents might have done when they have had an argument. You will find that some of the
things may be true for your family, while others are not. Please be sure to think about all the items, even if they seem extreme.

Think about arguments between your parents, and ask yourself: 1) How many times has my mother done this in the past year? 2)
How many times has my father done this in the past year?
How many times has your
Mother
done this in the PAST YEAR?
How many times has your Father
done this in the PAST YEAR?
Never Once A few
times
A lot Never Once A few
times
A lot
1) Insulted or swore at the other person 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
2) Did or said something to spite the other 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
3) Threatened to hit or throw something at the other person 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
4) Threw, smashed, hit, or kicked something 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
5) Threw something at the other person 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
6) Pushed, grabbed, or shoved the other person 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
7) Slapped the other person 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
8) Kicked, bit, or hit with a fist 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
9) Hit, or tried to hit, with something 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3

Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
!
41

Domestic Conflict Inventory - Parent Report – Time point 1

No matter how well a couple gets along, there are times when they disagree on major decisions, get annoyed about something the other person does, or just
have spats or fights because they’re in a bad mood, or tired, or for some other reason. People have many different ways of expressing frustration, annoyance,
or hostility with one another. Attached you will find a list of some things that you and your partner may have done. You will find that some of these items
apply, while others do not. Please be sure to consider all items, even if they seem extreme.

Please indicate how frequently each behavior occurred within the last year. If a behavior occurred within the last year, indicate whether or not it happened in
front of your child (to the best of your knowledge).

From one year ago until today...
Have you: 0 per
year
1 per
year
2-5 per
year
6-12 per
year
2-4 per
month
>1 per
week
1. insulted or swore at your spouse
2. damaged a household item, or some part of your home, out of anger towards
your spouse

3. done or said something to spite your spouse
4. threatened to hit your spouse or throw something at him/her in anger
5. pushed, grabbed, or shoved your spouse
6. slapped your spouse
7. thrown an object at your spouse
8. kicked, bit or hit your spouse with a fist
9. hit your spouse, or tried to hit your spouse, with something

Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
!
42
Spouse Report
In this section, you will answer the same types of questions about your spouse. Again, you will find that some of these items apply, while others do not.
Please be sure to consider all items, even if they seem extreme.

From one year ago until today...
Has your spouse: 0 per
year
1 per
year
2-5 per
year
6-12 per
year
2-4 per
month
>1 per
week
1. insulted or swore at you
2. damaged a household item, or some part of your home, out of anger towards you
3. done or said something to spite you
4. threatened to hit you, or throw something at you, in anger
5. pushed, grabbed, or shoved you
6. slapped you
7. thrown an object at you
8. kicked, bit or hit you with a fist
9. hit you, or tried to hit you, with something

Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
!
43
Parent Child Conflict – Adolescent Report on Father – Time point 1

DIRECTIONS: Below is a list of some things that parents sometimes do when having an argument or disciplining a child. Please
indicate if your dad has done this with you within the past year.

Never Once Twice
3-5
times
6-10
times
11-20
times
20+
times
1. Shook you ! ! ! ! ! ! !
2. Shouted, yelled, or screamed at you ! ! ! ! ! ! !
3. Swore or cursed at you ! ! ! ! ! ! !
4. Said he would send you away or kick you out of the house ! ! ! ! ! ! !
5. Slapped you on the hand, arm, or leg ! ! ! ! ! ! !
6. Called you dumb or lazy or some other name like that ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Parent Child Conflict – Adolescent Report on Mother – Time point 1

DIRECTIONS: Below is a list of some things that parents sometimes do when having an argument or disciplining a child. Please
indicate if your mom has done this with you within the past year.

Never Once Twice
3-5
times
6-10
times
11-20
times
20+
times
1. Shook you ! ! ! ! ! ! !
2. Shouted, yelled, or screamed at you ! ! ! ! ! ! !
3. Swore or cursed at you ! ! ! ! ! ! !
4. Said he would send you away or kick you out of the house ! ! ! ! ! ! !
5. Slapped you on the hand, arm, or leg ! ! ! ! ! ! !
6. Called you dumb or lazy or some other name like that ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
!
44
Parent Child Conflict - Parent Report – Time point 1

DIRECTIONS: Below is a list of some things that parents sometimes do when having an argument or disciplining a child. Please
indicate if you have done this with your child within the past year. Mark only one answer for each statement.

Never Once Twice
3-5
times
6-10
times
11-20
times
20+
times
1. Shook your child ! ! ! ! ! ! !
2. Shouted, yelled, or screamed at your child ! ! ! ! ! ! !
3. Swore or cursed at your child ! ! ! ! ! ! !
4. Said you would send your child away or kick your child out of
the house
! ! ! ! ! ! !
5. Slapped your child on the hand, arm, or leg ! ! ! ! ! ! !
6. Called your child dumb or lazy or some other name like that ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
!
45
Friend Behavior Inventory – Adolescent Report – Time point 2

Think about your closest friends – the people you spend time with and hang out with. With these friends in mind, please indicate how
many of those friends do each of the following items

HOW MANY OF YOUR FRIENDS: None One A few
More
than Half
Almost
All
1. Have stolen something worth more than $50

2. Ruined or damaged other people’s things on purpose
3.
Could have gotten into trouble with the police for some of the things they have
done

4. Have broken into a place, like a car or a building, to steal something
5. Have suggested that you do something against the law
6. Have stolen something worth less than $5
8. Have cheated on school tests
9. Get good grades
10. Are liked by teachers
11. Have been involved in school clubs/teams
12. Are liked by most other teenagers
13. Have helped other teens who are having problems
14. Have talked about wanting to hurt themselves or about suicide
15. Have gotten drunk
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
!
46

HOW MANY OF YOUR FRIENDS: None One A few
More
than Half
Almost
All
16. Have used marijuana
17. Have smoked cigarettes
18. Disapprove of using drugs or alcohol
19. Skip or ditch school without parents’ permission
20. Use illegal drugs or prescription drugs that belong to others
21. Are sexually active
22. Engage in unprotected sex
23. Have been asked to join a gang
24. Are in a gang
25.
Have had a sexually transmitted disease or infection (STD/STI – such as
Chlamydia, HPV, Gonorrhea, etc)

26. Have helped take care of younger siblings or babysits other kids
27. Have done volunteer work
28. Complete their homework
29. Plan in a positive way for their future
30. Are kind to elderly relatives or acquaintances
31. Help with chores around the house
32. Have a paying job

Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
!
47
How Friends Treat Each Other – Adolescent Report – Time point 2

With respect to the PAST YEAR, please indicate whether each event happened with any of the following people: Any friend, any
boyfriend/girlfriend or an acquaintance or someone you barely know. Think about these categories as broadly as possible. If someone falls into
more than one category, for example, was a friend and now is a boyfriend/girlfriend, just describe that person in the one category that best applies.

0 = never happened
1 = happened 1-2 times
2 = happened 3-5 time
3 = happened 6-10 times
4 = happened more than 10 times

Any
Friend
Any
Boyfriend/
Girlfriend
1. Bullied me through text messaging
2.
Wrote something mean or hurtful on a website or through a
chatroom/“bash-board”

3. Put a picture of me on website that I didn’t want there
4. Took phone picture of me to embarrass me
5. Sent mean or hurtful e-mail
6. Sent mean or hurtful text message
7. Sent a threatening e-mail
8. Sent a threatening text message
9. Intrusively called or texted me to monitor or check up on me
10. Used a fake online profile to interact with me
11.
Posted an insulting/hurtful comment or poke on a social networking
site such as Facebook or MySpace

12.
Posted an embarrassing photo of me on a social networking site such
as Facebook or MySpace

13. Circulated an embarrassing but true story online
14. Circulated an embarrassing but untrue story online
15. Created a website to hurt or embarrass someone other than me
16. Logged into my e-mail to make trouble for me or check up on me
17.
Was jealous because of someone else’s comments or internet
comments about me

18. Checked up on me by being deceitful on the internet
19. Blocked me on AIM or on a website such as MySpace or Facebook
20. Excluded me or shut me out from top friend list
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
!
48
21. Lied to me to try to get me to have sex
22. Got me to give in to sex because I wanted them to like me
23. Told others things I said in confidence
24. Pressured me to take drugs/drink alcohol
25. Pressured me to break parent or school rule
26. Pressured me to break the law
27. Pressured me to have sex
28. Made me feel my thoughts and feelings are not important
29. Touched me sexually when I didn’t want it
30. Turned friends against me
31. Did something to make me jealous
32. Destroyed or threatened to destroy something I valued
33. Told me I was to blame for our arguments
34. Threw something at me
35. Said things just to make me angry
36. Said things to hurt my feelings
37. Spoke to me in a hostile or mean tone of voice
38. Forced me to have sex when I didn’t want to
39. Threatened me in an attempt to have sex
40. Insulted me with “put-downs”
41. Kissed me when I didn’t want to
42. Said things to my friends to turn them against me
43. Ridiculed or made fun of me in front of others
44. Kept track of who I was with and where I was
45. Blamed me for a problem
46. Kicked, hit or punched me
47. Accused me of flirting with someone else
48. Deliberately tried to frighten me
49. Slapped me
50. Pulled my hair
51. Threatened to hurt me
52. Threatened to end the relationship
53. Threatened to hit me or throw something at me
54. Pushed, shoved or shook me
55. Spread rumors about me
Running Head: AGGRESSION AND VICTIMIZATION
!
49

56. Drove recklessly with me in the car
57. Argued with me while s/he was driving
58. Argued with me while I was driving
59. Kicked me out of the car
60. Grabbed my arm and held it in a way that hurt
61.
Would not let me leave the room or get off the phone when I wanted
to leave to end an argument

62.
Threatened to do something bad if I stopped being a friend or
stopped seeing him/her

63.
Tried to make me jealous by commenting/posting on someone else’s
internet page.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Despite prior known associations between family aggression and adolescents’ risk of victimization, little is known about what types of family aggression confer the most risk and whether prosocial friends can protect adolescents from those outcomes. This study investigated whether youth gender and the ratio of prosocial‐to‐antisocial friends moderates the associations between different types of family aggression and victimization from dating partners and friends in late adolescence. One hundred and twenty‐five adolescent participants and their parents reported on family aggression (father‐to‐child, mother‐to‐child, father‐to‐mother and mother‐to‐father aggression) in early adolescence. Approximately 5 years later, adolescents reported their physical, psychological, sexual and electronic victimization experiences with dating partners and friends. Only father‐to‐child aggression was significantly related to dating and friend victimization in late adolescence, with stronger associations for females. Moreover, greater affiliation with prosocial than antisocial friends buffered the risk for dating victimization for females. Findings suggest the importance of affiliating with more prosocial than antisocial friends in the prevention of adolescents’ victimization.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Young adult dating couple interactions in daily life: links to family aggression and physiological processes

PDF

You always say that: physical aggression perpetration, linguistic behavior, and conflict intensity in young adult dating couples

PDF

Using observed peer discussions to understand adolescent depressive symptoms and interpersonal interactions

PDF

Family aggression exposure and community violence exposure associated with brain volume in late adolescence: a comparison of automated versus manual segmentation

PDF

Couple conflict during pregnancy: Do early family adversity and oxytocin play a role?

PDF

Family conflict, negative mood, and adolescents' daily problems in school

PDF

Predictors and outcomes across the transition to fatherhood

PDF

Dynamics of victimization, aggression, and popularity in adolescence

PDF

Mediators and moderators in the link between maternal psychological control and peer victimization for Hong Kong Chinese boys

PDF

Popularity as a predictor of friendship affiliation in adolescence

PDF

Couples’ neuroendocrine activity in response to family conflict discussions: the role of self-reported anger and previous marital aggression

PDF

Examining the longitudinal relationships between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior among a sample of maltreated and non-maltreated adolescents

PDF

The role of social status and gender in the composition of bully-victim dyads in early adolescence

PDF

Stigma-based peer aggression and social status in middle adolescence: the unique implications of weight-related aggression

PDF

Spouse aggression, depression, and physical health: a multivariate longitudinal study of midlife couples

PDF

The link between maternal depression and adolescent daughters' risk behavior: the mediating and moderating role of family

PDF

The relationship between dating status and academic and social functioning among Latinx and Asian-American middle adolescents

PDF

Parents' attunement: relation to adolescent problem behavior and the moderating role of marital conflict

PDF

Adolescent life stress and the cortisol awakening response: the moderating roles of emotion regulation, attachment, and gender

PDF

How parental psychological control is related to adolescent anger and aggression

Asset Metadata

Creator Han, Sohyun C. (author)

Core Title Family aggression, prosocial friends, and the risk of dating and friend victimization in late adolescence

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 07/01/2015

Defense Date 04/29/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag family aggression,late adolescence,OAI-PMH Harvest,prosocial friends,victimization

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Margolin, Gayla (committee chair), John, Richard S. (committee member), Saxbe, Darby E. (committee member)

Creator Email sohyun.han@usc.edu,sohyunha@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-584442

Unique identifier UC11300278

Identifier etd-HanSohyunC-3535.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-584442 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HanSohyunC-3535.pdf

Dmrecord 584442

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Han, Sohyun C.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA