University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Community violence exposure and children's subsequent rejection within the school peer group: the mediating roles of emotion dysregulation and depressive symptoms

(USC Thesis Other)

Community violence exposure and children's subsequent rejection within the school peer group: the mediating roles of emotion dysregulation and depressive symptoms

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE AND CHILDREN’S SUBSEQUENT

REJECTION WITHIN THE SCHOOL PEER GROUP:

THE MEDIATING ROLES OF EMOTION DYSREGULATION AND

DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS

by

Brynn M. Kelly

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(PSYCHOLOGY)

December 2006

Copyright 2006 Brynn M. Kelly

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I gratefully acknowledge David Schwartz for his careful guidance and
valuable contributions to this paper. In addition, I am grateful to Andrea Hopmeyer
Gorman for her important role in carrying out this study, and to Gayla Margolin, Jo
Ann Farver, and Frank Manis for their helpful input. The contributions of the
participating children, teachers, and school administrative personnel are also very
much appreciated.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables iv
Abstract v
Introduction 1
Method 10
Results 17
Figure 1: Measurement model examining reciprocal
relations between children's exposure to community
violence and rejection by peers 24

Discussion 25
Bibliography 34

iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Community Experiences
Questionnaire Items 13

Table 2: Bivariate correlations between all variables at Time 1
and Time 2 18

Table 3: The mediating roles of T1 emotion dysregulation and
T1 depressive symptoms in the association between T1
community violence exposure and T2 peer rejection 20

Table 4: T1 community violence exposure predicting T2 peer
rejection after adjusting for T1 bullying by peers 21

v

ABSTRACT
This paper describes a short-term longitudinal study of the relation between
exposure to community violence and peer rejection among 199 3rd- and 4th-grade
children attending an urban Los Angeles elementary school. Assessments of self-
reported community violence exposure and depressive symptoms, teacher-reported
emotion dysregulation, and peer-nominated rejection and victimization were
obtained at Time 1 and at a one-year follow-up. Lifetime history of community
violence exposure was found to significantly predict small increases in peer rejection
over time. This relation appeared to be mediated by Time 1 levels of emotion
dysregulation and by depressive symptoms. These results highlight the negative
influence that community violence exposure can have on children’s peer
relationships.

1

INTRODUCTION
This paper describes a short-term longitudinal study of the relation between
children’s exposure to community violence and their peer relationships. Research has
consistently shown that children residing in the United States are likely to be
exposed to community violence and that such exposure is associated with numerous
negative outcomes. Data indicate that the majority of children and adolescents living
in inner-city neighborhoods have been exposed to some form of community
violence, with at least one-third victimized directly (Bell & Jenkins, 1993; Farver,
Natera, & Frosch, 1999; Fitzpatrick & Boldizar, 1993; Kliewer, Lepore, Oskin, &
Johnson, 1998; Margolin & Gordis, 2000; Osofsky, 1995; Osofsky, Wewers, Hann,
& Fick, 1993; Richters & Martinez, 1993a; Richters & Martinez, 1993b; Schwartz &
Gorman, 2003). Given the likelihood of community violence exposure, it is
important to investigate any negative impacts that it may have on the various
domains affecting children’s adjustment and functioning.
Numerous studies have documented the effects of community violence
exposure on children’s psychosocial adjustment and their school-based functioning.
Associations have been found, for instance, between community violence exposure
and increased aggression (Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998; Schwab-Stone, Ayers,
Kasprow, Voyce, Barone, Shriver et al., 1995; Schwartz & Gorman, 2003), anti-
social behavior (Miller, Wasserman, Neugebauer, Gorman-Smith, & Kamboukos,
1999; Schwab-Stone et al., 1995), symptoms of depression (Kliewer, et al., 1998;

2

Schwab-Stone et al., 1995; Schwartz & Gorman, 2003), and post-traumatic stress
disorder (e.g. Fitzpatrick & Boldizar, 1993).
Given that aggressive, disruptive, and depressive behaviors are aversive to
peers (e.g., Bierman, 2004), children who have been exposed to community violence
may be more likely to experience peer rejection. Little research has been conducted,
however, to directly address this empirical question. A cross-sectional study carried
out by Schwartz and Proctor (2000) found that direct victimization in the community
predicted greater levels of aggression, emotion dysregulation, bullying by peers, and
peer rejection in middle childhood. We are unaware of a longitudinal study which
has examined whether a history of community violence exposure leads to increased
levels of peer rejection over time.
There have, however, been longitudinal investigations which have shown that
maltreatment (Bolger et al., 1998; Bolger & Patterson, 2001) and physical abuse
(Rogosch et al., 1995) predict future rejection by peers. Although only limited
conclusions about the impact of community violence on peer relations can be drawn
from this literature, it is possible that the impact of both types of victimization may
be similar. Osofsky (1995) suggests that, as with maltreated infants, children who are
exposed to community violence at a young age may fail to form secure attachments,
thereby leaving them ill-equipped for forming future relationships.
Given that active rejection by peers is associated with numerous negative
outcomes (Bierman, 2004), it is important to know whether children are increasingly
rejected after being exposed to community violence. As early as kindergarten,

3

children who are classified as rejected early in the year are more likely to show
increased social dissatisfaction and decreased academic readiness later in the year
(Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1997). Peer rejection in the elementary school
years is associated with developing externalizing behavior problems and becoming
more involved with anti-social peers (Laird, Jordan, Dodge, Petitt, & Bates, 2001).
In addition, peer rejection is associated with an increased chance of dropping out of
school, engaging in juvenile and adult crime, and possibly even developing
psychopathology in adulthood (Parker & Asher, 1987). Given the negative outcomes
associated with community violence exposure, it is clearly important to determine
whether this group of children is also more likely to be rejected by peers; as this
could put them at even greater risk for developmental problems. Furthermore,
rejected children exposed to community violence could be missing out on some of
the potential protective factors offered by positive peer relationships (Manly,
Cicchetti, & Barnett, 1994), such as experiencing emotional support and security,
and developing more adaptive social skills and higher self-esteem (Bierman, 2004;
Price, 1996).
One goal of the present study was to build upon Schwartz and Proctor’s
(2000) cross-sectional findings by examining the relation between victimization in
the community and peer rejection over time. Although peer rejection has high
temporal stability, we hypothesized that community violence exposure would predict
small increases in peer rejection over the course of one school year.

4

An additional goal of our study was to identify factors which may mediate
the relation between community violence exposure and peer rejection. One construct
of particular interest was emotion dysregulation. Emotion dysregulation is
conceptualized as displaying narrow and inflexible responses in emotionally
arousing situations (Pope & Bierman, 1999). Failure to reframe upsetting events and
to replace undesirable behaviors with adaptive ones can lead to impairments in key
domains of functioning, such as forming positive interpersonal relationships (Pope &
Bierman, 1999; Schwartz & Proctor, 2000). Osofsky and colleagues (1993) have
suggested that being exposed to situations which provoke intense negative emotions
may interfere with the development of emotion regulation. This, indeed, seems to be
the case when children are maltreated (Sheilds, Ryan, & Cicchetti, 2001). The
intense negative affect associated with violent victimization in the community may
also affect emotion regulation in this way. Cross-sectional studies have shown that
community violence exposure and emotion dysregulation are indeed highly
associated (Kliewer, Cunningham, Diehl, Parrish, Walker, Atiyeh, et al., 2004;
Schwartz & Proctor, 2000). Thus, we expected that victimization by community
violence would be associated with emotion regulation deficits in our sample.
Research findings indicate that emotion dysregulation is predictive of
deficient social functioning (Eisenberg, Fabes, Murphy, Maszk, Smith, & Karbon,
1995; Melnick & Hinshaw, 2000; Shields and Cicchetti, 1998; Sheilds, Ryan, &
Cicchetti, 2001). Disruptions in emotion regulation may also interfere with the
development of prosocial attributes such as empathy (Osofsky, 1993). Because

5

emotion dysregulation is characterized by a number of negative attributes, we
expected that it would be associated with peer rejection in our sample (as per
Schwartz & Proctor, 2000). Consequently, we hypothesized that emotion
dysregulation would mediate the relation between violent victimization in the
community and subsequent rejection by peers.
Depressive symptoms were examined as a second potential mediator. Cross-
sectional studies have shown that being victimized in the community is associated
with reporting greater levels of depressive symptoms (e.g., Kliewer et al., 1998;
Schwartz & Gorman, 2003). Studies have also shown that children experiencing
depressive symptoms are more likely to be rejected by their peers than children
without such symptoms (Rudolph, Hammen, & Burge, 1994; Kennedy, Spence, &
Hensley, 1989). Depressed children may be at increased risk for peer rejection due to
social skills deficits. For example, depressed children have been shown to display
impaired social problem-solving skills (Levendosky, Okun, & Parker, 1995; Rudolph
et al. 1994), low assertiveness, and high submissiveness (Kennedy et al., 1989).
After interacting with previously unknown peers, depressed children are more likely
to be rated by these peers as shyer, quieter, sadder, and less fun than non-depressed
children (Rudolph et al., 1994). Several studies have shown that submissive and
withdrawn children are more likely to be rejected by peers (e.g. Bierman, 2004;
Hymel, Rubin, Rowden, & LeMare, 1990; Rubin, Chen, & Hymel, 1993; Schwartz,
Chang, & Farver, 2001). Consequently, we hypothesized that violent victimization in
the community would be associated with increased depressive symptoms, and that

6

depressive symptomatology would partially mediate the relation between
victimization and peer rejection.
In addition to our primary objectives, we also had a number of exploratory
goals. First, we sought to examine whether the relation between community violence
exposure and peer rejection was reciprocal in nature. Although researchers have
suggested that having a negative social status among peers may be associated with
greater violence exposure (Salzinger, Feldman, Stockhammer, & Hood, 2002) we are
not aware of any study directly testing this hypothesis. We do, however, know that
peer rejection is associated with exhibiting greater levels of externalizing behaviors
over time (Keiley, Lofthouse, Bates, Dodge, & Petitt, 2003; Laird et al., 2001).
Researchers have also suggested that children with externalizing problems may be at
risk for future victimization in their communities (Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998;
Halliday-Boykins & Graham, 2001). Given this possibility, we wanted to determine
whether peer rejection predicted increases in community violence exposure over
time.
Examining reciprocal relations provides an important contribution to existing
research. First, although we know a great deal about the negative outcomes
associated with peer rejection, research had not yet explored whether it led to
community violence exposure. Given the negative outcomes associated with
community violence exposure, it is clearly important to identify its risk factors.
Second, knowing whether community violence exposure and peer rejection predict
increases in one another over time will help us to better understand the nature of their

7

association. It is possible that community violence exposure and peer rejection could
exacerbate the effects of each other over time. In other words, community violence
exposure may lead to peer rejection, which subsequently puts children at risk for
additional victimization in the community. Although examining reciprocal relations
among these variables does not directly show how they interact with one another
over time, it lays the groundwork to do so.
A second area of exploration involved examining the relations between peer
victimization, victimization in the community, and peer rejection. In doing so, we
sought to determine whether victimization in the community predicted increases in
peer rejection that could not be accounted for by peer victimization. Research has
shown that peer victimization and peer rejection are two distinct constructs (Ladd et
al., 1997), but that substantial overlap exists between them (Bierman, 2004). The
direction of the relation between bullying and rejection is not known, but it is
possible that peer victimization may lead to increases in peer rejection. Moreover,
victimization in the community and victimization by peers may overlap
conceptually, and children may have difficulty distinguishing between them. Thus, it
is possible that these constructs do not uniquely contribute to the prediction of peer
rejection. We aimed to address this question by testing whether community violence
exposure predicted increases in peer rejection even when peer victimization had been
statistically controlled for.
A final area of exploration related to the potential moderating role of gender.
There was no clear consensus from previous research as to how gender might

8

moderate the relation between community violence exposure and peer rejection over
time. Some studies have reported that males endorse higher levels of victimization in
the community (Fitzpatrick & Boldizar, 1993; Miller et al., 1999; Schwab-Stone et
al., 1995; Schwartz & Proctor, 2000), but others have reported no gender differences
(Kliewer et al., 1998), or differences only among certain age groups (Martinez &
Richters, 1993). The role of gender in moderating the relation between community
violence exposure and symptoms of distress is likewise unclear. It has been reported
that after being exposed to violence females are more likely to display internalizing
symptoms (Fitzpatrick & Boldizar, 1993) and males are more likely to display
externalizing behavior problems (Schwab-Stone et al., 1995). Other studies,
however, have found that gender differences do not exist (Kliewer et al., 1998), or
are age dependent (Martinez & Richters, 1993). Although research indicates that
males are generally more likely to be rejected than females (Bierman, 2004), we had
no basis for knowing whether males and females would be differentially rejected by
their peers after being exposed to violence.
To test our hypotheses, we recruited a sample of elementary school children
residing in a major metropolitan area. We chose to focus our study on middle
childhood because this is a period in which children begin to actively engage in, and
benefit from, positive interactions within the peer group (Bierman, 2004). The latter
years of elementary school are distinctive in that peer group dynamics have already
begun to be established and children are on the cusp of transitioning into a new

9

social situation (i.e., middle school). Thus, it may be particularly important to
identify any factors which trigger increased rejection by peers during this period.
In summary, our primary objectives were to examine whether victimization
in the community predicted future increases in peer rejection and to identify any
factors mediating this relation. We expected that emotion dysregulation would
primarily mediate this relation, and that depressive symptoms could be a second
mediator. Exploratory goals included determining whether the relation between
community violence exposure and peer rejection was reciprocal in nature, and
whether the relation was independent of peer victimization. We did not have any
specific hypotheses relating to gender, but wanted to test whether it moderated the
relations between community violence exposure and our adjustment variables of
interest.

10

METHOD
Overview
We used a short-term longitudinal design to examine the nature of the
relation between children’s exposure to violence in the community and their
rejection by peers at school. It was accomplished as part of the Los Angeles Social
Development Project, which is a short-term longitudinal investigation of social
adjustment among children living in economically-distressed urban neighborhoods
(see Schwartz & Gorman, 2003; Toblin, Schwartz, Gorman, & Abou-Ezzeddine, in
press).
Participants
Children were recruited from two elementary schools in Los Angeles County.
All of the children in the third and fourth grade classrooms were invited to
participate. Children with frequent absences, learning or hearing impairments, in-
school suspension, or educational placements outside of the classroom were deemed
to be ineligible. Of children who were eligible, 78% (125 boys, 115 girls; mean age
of 9.1 years) returned positive parental permission and assented to participate in the
first year of the project. A final sample of 199 children (105 boys, 94 girls)
participated in both the first and second years of the project. Retained children did
not differ from attrited children on any of the Time 1 (T1) measures described below
(all Fs < 3.00, all ps > .10). According to self-reports, 36% of the children in the
final sample were Hispanic American, 26% were European American, 7% were
Asian American, 2% were African American, 23% were of other ethnic-racial

11

background (e.g. mixed background), and 6% rated themselves as unclassified. This
predominantly Hispanic American and European American sample is consistent with
the ethnic-racial composition of both the school and surrounding neighborhoods at
the time of data collection (United Way of Greater Los Angeles, 1999). Thus, the
sample should be fairly representative of the community from which it was drawn.
The children in the sample were recruited from elementary schools located in
an urban area with moderate per capita crime rates. The families living in the
neighborhoods surrounding the schools have been classified as “working poor” in
demographic studies of the Los Angeles region (e.g. Los Angeles Alliance for a New
Economy, 2000). Although unemployment rates are low in this area, the household
incomes are considered to be marginal for subsistence in Southern California (see
United Way of Greater Los Angeles, 1999). Moreover, approximately 70% of
children attending the two schools participated in federally supported lunch
programs.
Measures.
Community violence exposure. Children completed the Community
Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ), which is a self report questionnaire that was
developed and validated in previous investigations (Schwartz & Gorman, 2003;
Schwartz & Proctor, 2000; Schwartz, Gorman, Toblin, & Abouezzedine, 2003). The
CEQ has been shown to yield scores that are internally consistent and that correlate
with relevant adjustment indicators in a theory-consistent manner. Items on the CEQ
range in severity from threats to shootings. Children rate their level of exposure to

12

each item on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (a lot of times). The items on
the CEQ were identified from existing measures, particularly Richters & Saltzman’s
(1990) Survey of Exposure to Community Violence, and were then modified, based
on consultation with local school teachers, to better fit the sample and study
procedure. Specifically, the wording of the items was simplified to facilitate group
administration to children for whom English is not a first language. Thus, the CEQ’s
departure from existing measures is practical in nature, rather than empirical or
theoretical. Although the CEQ has separate subscales assessing exposure to violence
through witnessing and direct victimization, analyses for the present study were
restricted to the 11-item violent victimization subscale ( α = .84, M = 1.45, SD =
0.52). The findings of past research (Kliewer et al., 1998; Schwartz & Proctor, 2000)
suggest that direct victimization in the community is more closely linked to our
hypothesized mediating processes. Descriptive statistics for the direct victimization
items, such as the percentage of children endorsing each item, are shown in Table 1.

13

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Community Experiences Questionnaire Items

% Reported
Factor One or More
Item Loading M SD Occurrences
1. “Somebody broke in or tried to
force their way into your home.” .36 1.16 0.48 11.7
2. “Somebody threatened to hurt
you really badly.” .71 1.70 0.99 40.8
3. “Chased by somebody who
was trying to hurt you.” .77 1.62 0.94 35.6
4. “Somebody hit, punched, or
slapped you.” .74 1.95 1.10 50.6
5. “Somebody stole something
from you using violence (like
somebody ‘mugging’ you or
stealing something from you
after beating you up or
threatening to hurt you).” .63 1.20 0.63 10.8
6. “Somebody fired a gun at you
or at your home.” .41 1.09 0.41 6.3
7. “Somebody tried to hurt you
with a knife or other sharp
object.” .61 1.12 0.41 9.2
8. “Somebody tried to hurt you
by hitting you with a stick, bat,
pole, or club.” .78 1.41 0.80 24.3
9. “Somebody threw a bottle,
rock, or other hard object at you.” .72 1.74 0.94 46.4
10. “Somebody tried to use
violence or threats to get you to
do something that you didn’t
want to do.” .71 1.48 0.93 24.17

Note. Items are scored on a 4-point scale, with 1 = never, 2 = once, 3 = a few times,
4 = lots of times. A principle components analysis with a single factor solution was
used to generate factor loadings. Means and standard deviations describe
participating children’s average ratings for each item and the dispersion in responses
for each item. Percentages represent the proportion of participating children who
gave a rating of 2 or higher on the 4-point scale.

14

Depressive Symptoms. Children were given the Children’s Depression
Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1985), as it is a widely used self-report assessment of
depressive symptoms. The CDI is composed of 27 items that cover a wide range of
symptoms related to the areas of negative mood, interpersonal problems,
ineffectiveness, anhedonia, and negative self-esteem. For each item, children are
provided with three different sentences and are asked to choose the one which
describes them best. An item which assesses suicidal ideation was not included in the
data collection. For the present study, each child’s summary depression score will
represent the mean score of the 26 administered items.
1
Emotion dysregulation. Teachers completed the Emotion Regulation
Checklist (ERC; Shields & Cicchetti, 1997), a 24-item rating scale that assesses
children’s capacities for emotion self-regulation. The areas of self-regulation
targeted by the ERC include affective lability, intensity, valence, flexibility, and
situational appropriateness (e.g., “Can recover quickly from episodes of upset or
distress,” “Can modulate excitement in emotionally arousing situations,” “Displays
appropriate negative emotions in response to hostile, aggressive, or intrusive acts by
peers”). Teachers rate how well each item describes a child on a 4-point scale
ranging from 1 (never true for child) to 4 (almost always true for child). The ERC

1
Given that the CDI contains items which tap interpersonal problems, we also generated a modified
version of the scale which did not include items pertaining to social relations. The same pattern of
results was obtained with the modified scale as with the original scale.

15

has been shown to be appropriate for children throughout the 6- to 12-year age range.
Two subscales of the ERC have been derived by exploratory factor analysis:
Lability/Negativity and Emotion Regulation. Each child’s emotion dysregulation
summary score will be calculated as the mean of the Lability/Negativity items and
reverse-coded Emotion Regulation items.
Peer rejection. Peer nomination inventories were administered to assess each
child’s level of peer rejection. Children were given a classroom roster and asked to
identify up to three friends or highly liked peers and up to three disliked peers. Each
child’s social preference score is calculated as the difference between his/her liking
score and the disliking score, each of which will be standardized within classroom
(as per Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982).
Bullying by peers. Children completed a peer nomination inventory which
included four items assessing bullying by peers (“kids who get hit or pushed by other
kids,” “kids who get bullied or picked on by other kids,” “kids who have mean things
said about them by other kids,” “kids who get left out of fun games or play when
other kids are trying to hurt their feelings”; α = .87). Each child’s bullying by peers
score will represent the total number of nominations that he or she receives across
these four items, standardized within classroom.
Procedure
Approximately six weeks after the start of the fall semester, participating
children were given the first wave of self-report and peer-nomination measures in
one-hour group testing sessions. These group sessions were conducted by Dr. David

16

Schwartz, Dr. Andrea Hopmeyer Gorman, or a trained research assistant. The
administrators were of varied ethnic-racial descent, including European American,
Hispanic American, and Asian American. Although all participating children were
fluent in English, it was second language for some. Thus, Spanish-speaking research
assistants and teachers were present during administration to provide assistance in
the event that any child had difficulty understanding questionnaire items. Spanish
language instructions of all measures were also made available. During the group
testing session, children were seated apart from one another and were asked to
remain silent. Standardized instructions and questionnaire items were read aloud, but
the order in which the questionnaires were administered was randomly varied across
classrooms.
After the administration of child measures, teacher measures were completed
over a period of several weeks. Teachers were paid $50 for their participation. This
procedure was repeated for the second wave of data collection, which occurred
approximately one year later, in the fall semester of the second year of the study.

17

RESULTS
Overview
First, bivariate correlations were conducted to describe the relations among
all of the variables under study across different time points. Next, multiple regression
was used to examine direct and indirect relations between community violence
exposure and peer rejection. Specifically, we first assessed whether community
violence exposure predicted changes in peer rejection over time. Next, we assessed
whether emotion dysregulation and depressive symptoms each served as mediators
of the relation between T1 community violence exposure and Time 2 (T2) peer
rejection. Multiple regression was also used in exploratory analyses which examined
whether the relation between community violence exposure and peer rejection was
affected by peer victimization and whether the relation was moderated by gender.
Structural equation modeling was used to examine our exploratory hypothesis that
the relation between community violence exposure and peer rejection might be
reciprocal in nature.
2
Bivariate Relations
Table 2 summarizes bivariate correlations among all variables at T1 and
between T1 and T2 variables.

2
After examining descriptive statistics and plots of the data, log transformations were applied to
variables that appeared to be skewed. Since these transformations did not alter the pattern of results,
untransformed scores are presented for ease of interpretation.
18

Table 2
Bivariate correlations between all variables at Time 1 and Time 2

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Violence exposure
Community violence exposure
1. Time 1 –
2. Time 2 .51
***
–
Bullying by peers
3. Time 1 .14
*
.20
**
–
4. Time 2 .10 .19
**
.47
***
–
Behavioral and psychological adjustment
Teacher-rated emotion dysregulation
5. Time 1 .19
**
.13
**
.31
***
.23
***
–
6. Time 2 .15
*
.37
***
.22
***
.43
***
.39
***
–
Depression
7. Time 1 .33
***
.10 .11 .10
**
.31
***
.08 –
8. Time 2 .01 .40
***
.20
**
.24
***
.09 .30
***
.48
***
–
Social Functioning
Peer-nominated rejection
9. Time 1 -.20
**
-.14
*
-.54
***
-.18
**
-.37
***
-.30
***
-.16
*
-25
***
. –
10. Time 2 -.13
*
-.26
***
-.15
**
-.57
***
-.21
***
-.41
***
-.14
*
-.30
***
-.56
***
–

Note. Variables are listed in the same order on the vertical and horizontal axes. Correlations between T1 and T2 variables
were computed controlling for T1 levels the T2 variable.
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p < 0.001.

19

In general, the constructs had moderate levels of stability over time. As can
be seen, the T1 predictor, T1 mediator, and T2 outcome variables were found to be
significantly correlated in the expected directions. These correlations are small to
moderate in magnitude (Cohen, 1988).
The Mediating Roles of Emotion Dysregulation and Depressive Symptoms
Given that T1 community violence exposure was correlated with T2 levels of
peer rejection, our next step was to examine whether community violence exposure
predicted increases in peer rejection over time, and, if so, whether T1 emotion
dysregulation and/or depressive symptoms mediated this relation. Mediation was
assessed using the criteria outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986). Specifically, the
conditions for mediation were considered to have been met if the predictor was
significantly associated with the outcome, if the mediator was significantly
associated with both the predictor and the outcome, and if including the mediator in
the model significantly reduced the association between the predictor and the
outcome.
A series of multiple regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the
conditions for mediation separately for T1 emotion dysregulation and T1 depression.
We used Sobel’s (1988) procedure for generating the standard error of the indirect
effect to test whether the strength of the association between the predictor and the

20

outcome was significantly reduced after including the mediator in the model.
3
The
results of the regression analyses are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
The mediating roles of T1 emotion dysregulation and T1 depressive symptoms in the
association between T1 community violence exposure and T2 peer rejection

Step Variables Entered β sr
2

1 T1 peer rejection .53 .27
***
T1 community violence exposure -.13 .02
*

2 T1 peer rejection .46 .18
***
T1 community violence exposure -.10 .01
T1 emotion dysregulation -.22 .04
***
-------------------------------------------
Model 1: F(3, 199) = 37.63, p < .001, r
2
= .37
-------------------------------------------
3 T1 peer rejection .52 .25
***
T1 community violence exposure -.09 .01
T1 depressive symptoms -.12 .01
-------------------------------------------
Model 2: F(3, 196) = 31.90, p < .001, r
2
= .33

*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p < .001.

As can be seen in the first step of the model, T1 community violence
exposure significantly predicted increases in peer rejection over time. The pattern of
results also supports the mediating roles of both T1 emotion dysregulation and T1
depressive symptoms. The direct path between T1 community violence exposure and
T2 peer rejection was reduced to nonsignificance both when T1 emotion
dysregulation was included in the model and when T1 depressive symptoms were
included in the original model. Entering T1 emotion dysregulation into the model

3
We also generated the standard error of the indirect effect with the Arioan (1947) and Goodman tests
(1960). These tests produced the same pattern of results as the Sobel test.

21

caused the standardized estimate of the direct path to drop by 23%. Results from
Sobel’s test indicated that this drop was significant, t(199) = -2.21, p < .05.
Similarly, entering T1 depressive symptoms into the model caused the standardized
estimate of the direct path to drop by 31%, which, according to Sobel’s test, was
significant, t(196) = -2.17, p < .05. Thus, the association between T1 community
violence exposure and T2 peer rejection appeared to be mediated by both T1 emotion
dysregulation and T1 depressive symptoms.
Relations Between T1 Community Violence Exposure and T2 Peer Rejection With
Bullying by Peers Controlled
Multiple regression was used to evaluate whether T1 community violence
exposure uniquely predicted T2 peer rejection after adjusting for any association
between bullying by peers and peer rejection. The multiple regression model
specified T1 peer rejection, community violence exposure, and bullying by peers as
predictors of T2 peer rejection. As can be seen in Table 4, community violence
exposure and bullying by peers both uniquely predicted T2 peer rejection.
Table 4
T1 community violence exposure predicting T2 peer rejection after adjusting for T1
bullying by peers

Variables Entered β sr
2

T1 peer rejection .44 .13
***

T1 community violence exposure -.12 .01
*
T1 bullying by peers -.18 .02
*
-------------------------------------------
Model: F(3, 198) = 34.82, p < .001, r
2
= .35

*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p < .001.

22

Gender as a Moderator of the Relations between T1 Community Violence Exposure
and Adjustment Variables.
Preliminary analyses indicated that males (M = 1.64, SD = 0.59) and females
(M = 1.48, SD = 0.57) did not differ in their levels of self-reported community
violence exposure, t(197) = 1.89, ns. To determine whether there were gender
differences in the pattern of relations between children’s community violence scores
and their adjustment ratings (i.e. mediator and outcome variable ratings), a series of
simultaneous regression analyses were conducted. The main effect of T1 community
violence exposure, the main effect of gender, and the interaction between T1
community violence exposure and gender were entered as predictors of each of the
adjustment variables. For the prediction of T2 peer rejection, the main effect of T1
peer rejection was entered as an additional predictor. Significant interaction effects
were considered to be indicative of moderation. Results indicated that gender did not
moderate any of the relations between T1 community violence exposure and the
adjustment variables, as no significant interactions were found.
Reciprocal Relations Between Community Violence Exposure and Peer Rejection
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to examine reciprocal relations
between community violence exposure and peer rejection at both time points. The
AMOS statistical package was used to examine the model, which was constructed
using observed variables (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). Indices which assess a
number of distinct aspects of model fit were considered when evaluating the model
(Kline, 1998). Specifically, we assessed the chi-square statistic, the comparative fit

23

index (CFI, Bentler, 1990), and the root mean square residual error of approximation
(RMSEA). The chi-square is a test of “badness of fit”, meaning that non-significant
values are indicative of adequate fit. The CFI is an index which compares the
specified model to a null model in which all variables are assumed to be
uncorrelated. The index ranges from 0 to 1 and values greater than .95 reflect
adequate fit. The RMSEA is an index which is not influenced by model complexity
and values of 0.08 or less indicate adequate fit. For a more detailed description of
these indices, see Kline (1998).
In the specified model T1 levels of community violence exposure and peer
rejection were entered as exogenous variables and T2 levels of community violence
exposure and peer rejection were entered as endogenous variables. We allowed the
exogenous variables to be associated with one another and we specified paths
between each exogenous and endogenous variable. The fit of this model was
acceptable ( χ
2
(1, N = 199) = 2.18, p > .05; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .08). As depicted in
Figure 1, the pattern of path coefficients indicates that the relation between
community violence exposure and peer rejection is reciprocal in nature. Although
community violence exposure and peer rejection were associated with one another at
T1 and were each highly stable over time, T1 community violence exposure
significantly predicted T2 peer rejection and T1 peer rejection also significantly
predicted T2 community violence exposure.

24

Figure 1
Measurement model examining reciprocal relations between children’s exposure to
community violence and rejection by peers

T1 Community
Violence Exposure
T1 Peer
Rejection
T2 Peer
Rejection
d
T2 Community
Violence Exposure
d
-.20
.53
-.14
-.13
.48

***
*
**
*
***

Note: Standardized path coefficients are presented. See text for details regarding
model fit. d = disturbance.
*
p < .05,
**
p < .01,
***
p < .001.

25

DISCUSSION
This study extends our knowledge of the relation between community
violence exposure and peer rejection over time. A previous cross-sectional study by
Schwartz and Proctor (2000) documented the relation between community violence
exposure and peer rejection and showed that the relation was mediated by emotion
dysregulation. Although Schwartz and Proctor’s model specified community
violence exposure as a predictor of peer rejection, their design prohibited them from
making causal inferences. As far as we are aware, ours is the first longitudinal
investigation of the relation between community violence exposure and peer
rejection. In addition to examining the nature of this relation over time, our study
helps to further clarify the processes which underlie it.
We found that children’s exposure to community violence predicts increases
in their rejection by peers over time. This is an important finding, for Sroufe and
Rutter (1984) have suggested that it is pivotal during middle childhood for children
to develop certain social skills, such as understanding social rules of fairness.
Meeting age-appropriate milestones lays the groundwork for reaching future
developmental goals (Sroufe & Rutter, 1984). Being rejected by peers may indicate
that a child has failed to exhibit developmentally appropriate social skills. If so, peer
rejection would be expected to be associated with current and future developmental
difficulties. Indeed, peer rejection has been shown to be associated with increased
emotional (Prinstein & Aikins, 2004), behavioral (e.g., Laird et al., 2001), social
(Ladd et al., 1997) and academic problems (e.g., Parker & Asher, 1987) over time.

26

Our findings also offer some clues about the processes that may underlie the
relation between community violence exposure and peer rejection. Children who
have been exposed to violence in the community may be more likely to be rejected
by their peers because they have a hard time regulating their emotions. Consistent
with previous research (Kliewer, Cunningham, Diehl, Parrish, Walker, Atiyeh, et al.,
2004; Schwartz & Proctor, 2000), we found that community violence exposure was
associated with deficits in emotion regulation and that these deficits predicted
increases in peer rejection over time. Emotion dysregulation partially explained the
association between community violence exposure and peer rejection. In fact, there
was no longer a significant direct relation between community violence exposure and
peer rejection after emotion dysregulation was taken into account. It is important to
note that children who reported being exposed to community violence may have
already had a history of problems with emotion regulation. Children who fail to learn
to regulate their emotions during early childhood would be expected to exhibit more
future problems in this area than other children, particularly during times of stress
(Sroufe & Rutter, 1984). Thus, being victimized in the community may exacerbate
existing deficits in emotion dysregulation, which then trigger greater rejection by
peers.
Our findings indicate that children who experience symptoms of depression
after being victimized in their communities are also more likely to be rejected by
their peers over time. We found that children’s history of exposure to community
violence predicted their self-reported depressive symptoms, which in turn predicted

27

future rejection by peers. As with emotion dysregulation, depressive symptoms
partially mediated the association between community violence exposure and
subsequent peer rejection. Children who have been victimized in their communities
may withdraw from their environments and internalize their problems when they fail
to receive adequate support from others (Kliewer et al., 1998). The sad affect and
submissive and withdrawn behavior exhibited by these children may trigger
increased rejection by their peers (e.g. Bierman, 2004; Rudolph et al., 1994). Thus,
our findings point to two pathways by which children that have been exposed to
community violence may become increasingly rejected by their peers over time: one
involving emotion dysregulation and another involving depressive symptoms. Future
research may be able to identify additional pathways.
Another important finding is that community violence exposure predicted
increases in rejection by peers even when levels of victimization by peers were taken
into account. This is particularly notable given that some of the experiences tapped
by community violence exposure and bullying measures are similar. Despite this
possible conceptual overlap, we found that community violence exposure and peer
victimization each explained small, but significant, portions of the variance in future
peer rejection. Consequently, children who are victimized both in the community and
at school may be even more likely to experience increased rejection by their peers
over time.
Our study also contributes to existing research by showing that the relation
between community violence exposure and peer rejection is reciprocal in nature. In

28

other words, community violence exposure predicts increased peer rejection over
time, and peer rejection also predicts increased violence exposure. As mentioned
previously, peer rejection may be a marker of general adaptational problems.
Children may be more likely to be victimized in their communities not because of
their experiences with peer rejection per se, but because of other characteristics, such
as externalizing problems. While this may be the case, children’s experiences with
social rejection likely also shape the way they interact with their environments
(Sroufe & Rutter, 1984). Children who are rejected by their peers may, for instance,
experience less social support and have less positive behavior modeled for them by
peers (Bierman, 2004; Price, 1996). These experiences may exacerbate existing
adjustment difficulties. Some children may be involved in a vicious cycle whereby
victimization in the community and/or rejection by peers leads to, or exacerbates,
externalizing behavior problems, which in turn lead to additional victimization
and/or rejection. Although our study does not directly test this theory, previous
research has shown that that both community violence exposure (e.g., Schwab-Stone
et al., 1995) and peer rejection (e.g., Laird et al., 2001) predict greater externalizing
problems. In addition, externalizing problems have been shown to be associated with
increased victimization in the community (Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998) and
increased rejection by peers (e.g., Schwartz & Proctor, 2000). Future longitudinal
studies are needed to examine whether community violence exposure and peer
rejection exacerbate one another over time. Additional research could also shed light
on the processes underlying this reciprocal relation.

29

Gender did not appear to moderate the relations between community violence
exposure and adjustment variables in our sample. Moreover, we did not find any
gender differences in self-reported violence exposure. Although our null results are
consistent with some studies (e.g., Kliewer et al., 1998), they are inconsistent with
others (e.g., Miller et al., 1999). Null findings are, of course, not interpretable, but
one explanation might be that gender differences become less pronounced after early
childhood (Richters & Martinez, 1993a, Martinez & Richters, 1993).
When interpreting our findings, there are some limitations that should be kept
in mind. As stated earlier, we believe this to be the first longitudinal investigation of
the relation between community violence exposure and peer rejection. While this is
an important contribution, our design was relatively short-term in nature. As a result,
we cannot be entirely sure about how violence exposure and peer rejection relate to
one another over extended periods of time. Our findings indicate that children who
have been exposed to violence engage in externalizing and internalizing behaviors
which trigger social rejection. Although it is likely that these children’s adaptational
problems would persist, it is also possible that they represent transient reactions to
stressful situations (Sroufe & Rutter, 1984). Thus, we cannot be certain that these
children would continue to be socially rejected over time. Our findings also suggest
that community violence exposure and peer rejection trigger increases in one
another, but, as stated previously, the extent to which they may exacerbate one
another over time is unknown. Theoretically, children who have been exposed to
violence and rejected by their peers could be at particularly high risk for developing

30

additional adjustment difficulties, but further research will need to clarify such
issues.
It is also important to note that our effect sizes are modest. Community
violence exposure accounted for a relatively small amount of the variance in
children’s rejection by peers over time. This is not too surprising given the known
stability of peer rejection (Cillessen, Bukowski, & Haselager, 2000). Indeed, we
found that initial levels of peer rejection explained a substantial portion of the
variance in later peer rejection. Given that we adjusted for baseline levels of peer
rejection, it is meaningful that community violence exposure was able to predict
significant increases in rejection over time. Studies examining the ability of
community violence exposure to predict changes in other stable characteristics (e.g.,
aggression) have likewise reported small effect sizes (e.g., Gorman-Smith & Tolan,
1998).
Another potential limitation of our study is that we did not examine whether
ethnicity moderated the relations between community violence exposure and our
adjustment variables of interest. Given the size of our sample, we did not have the
statistical power needed to conduct such an analysis. According to Salzinger and
colleagues (2002), most studies have found that youth from minority groups, and
especially African American youth, tend to report more violence exposure than
Caucasian youth. Given that we had a relatively small number of African American
students in our sample, our findings may not generalize to this population. We are

31

not aware, however, of any literature which shows that children from different ethnic
or racial groups are differentially affected by violence.
A final consideration is the way in which community violence exposure is
assessed. In the literature, it has been standard practice to use self-report assessments
of community violence exposure (Brandt, Ward, Dawes, & Flisher, 2005; Guterman,
Cameron, & Staller, 2000). Given that children may have experiences that others are
not aware of (Richters & Martinez, 1993), self-report measures may get around some
of the limitations associated with obtaining reports from other sources, such as parent
reports or crime statistics. It should be kept in mind, however, that children’s self-
reports may not directly map on to actual levels of violence exposure. A general
criticism of self-report measures is that the responses given may be more indicative
of the respondent’s cognitive and perceptual biases than of his or her actual
experiences (e.g., Schwarz, 1999). Children could, for example, report relatively
high levels of violence exposure because they feel that the world is generally unsafe,
rather than because they have actually been victimized a great deal. This is a problem
common to all measures which rely on self reports to assess actual experiences
(Schwarz, 1999).
Nonetheless, children’s perceptions of their experiences are important. In
addition to identifying whether violence has occurred in a community, it is important
to know whether, and how, children have actually been affected by this violence
(Trickett, Duran, & Horn, 2003). Thus, it seems important to know what children
perceive their experiences to be. Asking children about their experiences can, for

32

example, help to clarify how they may be differentially affected by feeling that they
have been victims, versus witnesses, of violence (Trickett, Duran, & Horn, 2003).
Moreover, evidence suggests that children’s schemas are at least somewhat
representative of reality. Children’s ratings of violence exposure do appear to
correspond with neighborhood rates of violent crime (Richters & Martinez, 1993a).
4

Ideally, measures of community violence exposure would integrate children’s
subjective reports of their experiences with more objective measures of violence in
the community, such as violent crime data. When the children under study reside in
neighborhoods with similar crime levels, however, incorporating crime data may not
be as informative. Moreover, police crime records are not without limitations. Some
research indicates that inner-city residents’ distrust of the police can prevent them
from reporting violent crimes (Freudenberg, Roberts, Richie, Taylor, McGillicuddy,
& Greene, 1999). Because we used children’s self-reports to assess community
violence exposure in this study, we should not assume that alternative measures
would have yielded the same pattern of results. Future research should address this
issue.
Our findings are buttressed by the fact that we used multiple informants to
assess our constructs of interest. This means that our findings cannot simply be
accounted for by shared method (i.e., informant) variance (Campbell & Fiske, 1959).

4
We compared mean levels of violence exposure from our earlier studies conducted in high violence
neighborhoods (Schwartz & Proctor, 2000) and low violence neighborhoods (Schwartz & Gorman,
2003) and found higher levels of self-reported violence exposure in the high violence neighborhoods.

33

Community violence exposure and depressive symptoms were the only variables
measured with reports from the same informant. Consequently, even if children’s
reports of victimization in the community are affected by their cognitive and social
biases, we can be confident that these biases alone do not explain the relation
between community violence exposure and peer rejection. The teachers of victimized
children tend to describe them as dysregulated and their peers tend to report disliking
them.
In summary, this study adds to our understanding of how community
violence exposure and peer rejection are related over time. In our sample, being
victimized in the community led to increased rejection by peers. This relation held
when both initial levels of peer rejection and peer victimization were adjusted for.
Analyses indicated that the relation between community violence exposure and peer
rejection was independently mediated by children’s deficits in emotion regulation
and elevated depressive symptoms. Structural equation modeling revealed that the
relation between community violence exposure and peer rejection was reciprocal in
nature. In other words, community violence exposure and peer rejection
simultaneously predicted increases in one another over time. We recommend that
future research examine whether, and how, community violence exposure and peer
rejection may exacerbate one another over longer periods of time.

34

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 Users’ Guide [Computer software].
Chicago: SmallWaters Corporation.

Aroian, L. A. (1944/1947). The probability function of the product of two normally
distributed variables. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18, 265-271.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction
in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bell, C. C., & Jenkins, E. J. (1993). Community violence and children on Chicago’s
southside. In D. Reiss, J. E. Richters, M. Radke-Yarrow, & D. Scharff (Eds.),
Children and violence (pp. 46-54). New York: Guilford.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

Bierman, K. L. (2004). Peer Rejection. New York: Guilford.

Bolger, K. E., & Patterson, C. J. (2001). Developmental pathways from child
maltreatment to peer rejection. Child Development, 72, 549-568.

Bolger, K. E., Patterson, C. J., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1998). Peer relationships and
self-esteem among children who have been maltreated. Child Development, 69,
1171-1197.

Brandt, R., Ward, C. L., Dawes, A., & Flisher, A. J. (2005). Epidemiologial
measurement of children's and adolescents' exposure to community violence:
Working with the current state of the science. Clinical Child and Family Psychology
Review, 8(4), 327-342.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by
the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.

Cillessen, A. H. N., Bukowski, W. M., & Haselager, G. J. T. (2000). Stability of
sociometric categories. In H. N. Cillessen & W. M. Bukowski’s (Eds.), Recent
advances in the measurement of acceptance and rejection in the peer system: New
direction for child and adolescent development (pp. 75-93). San Francisco: Josey-
Bass.

35

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2
nd
ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social
status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Maszk, P., Smith, M., & Karbon, M.
(1995). The role of emotionality and regulation in children’s social functioning: A
longitudinal study. Child Development, 66, 1360-1384.

Farver, J. M., Natera, L. X., & Frosch, D. L. (1999). Effects of community violence
on inner-city preschoolers and their families. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 20, 143-158.

Fitzpatrick, K. M., & Boldizar, J. P. (1993). The prevalence and consequences of
exposure to violence among African-American youth. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 424-430.

Freudenberg, N., Roberts, L., Richie, B. E., Taylor, R. T., McGillicuddy, K., &
Greene, M. B. (1999). Coming up in the boogie down: The role of violence in the
lives of adolescents in the south Bronx. Health Education & Behavior, 26, 788-805.

Goodman, L. A. (1960). On the exact variance of products. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 55, 708-713.

Gorman-Smith, D., & Tolan, P. (1998). The role of exposure to community violence
and developmental problems among inner-city youth. Development and
Psychopathology, 10, 101-116.

Guterman, N. B., Cameron, M., & Staller, K. (2000). Definitional and measurement
in the study of community violence among children and youths. Journal of
Community Psychology, 28, 571-587.

Halliday-Boykins, C. A., & Graham, S. (2001). At both ends of the gun: Testing the
relationship between community violence exposure and youth violent behavior.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 383-402.

Hymel, S., Rubin, K., Rowden, L., & LeMare, L. (1990). Children’s peer
relationships: Longitudinal prediction of internalizing and externalizing problems
from middle to late childhood. Child Development, 61, 2004-2021.

36

Keiley, M. K., Lofthouse, N., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2003).
Differential risks of covarying and pure components in mother and teacher reports of
externalizing and internalizing behavior across ages 5 to 14. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 31, 267-283.

Kennedy, E., Spence, S. H., & Hensley, R. (1989). An examination of the
relationship between childhood depression and social competence amongst primary
school children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30, 561-573.

Kliewer, W., Cunningham, J. N., Diehl, R., Parrish, K. A., Walker, J. M., Atiyeh, C.,
Neace, B., Duncan, L., Taylor, K., & Mejia, R. (2004). Violence exposure and
adjustment in inner-city youth: Child and caregiver emotion regulation skill,
caregiver-child relationship quality, and neighborhood cohesion as protective factors.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 477-487.

Kliewer, W., Lepore, S., Oskin, D., & Johnson, P. D. (1998). The role of social and
cognitive processes in children’s adjustment to community violence. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 199-209.

Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New
York: Guilford.

Kovacs, M. (1985). The Children’s Depression Inventory. Psychopharmacology
Bulletin, 21, 995-998.

Laird, R. D., Jordan, K. Y., Dodge, K. A., Petitt, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2001). Peer
rejection in childhood, involvement with antisocial peers in early adolescence, and
the development of externalizing behavior problems. Development and
Psychopathology, 13, 337-354.

Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1997). Classroom peer
acceptance, friendship, and victimization: Distinct relational systems that contribute
uniquely to children’s school adjustment? Child Development, 68, 1181-1197.

Levendosky, A. A., Okun, A., & Parker, J. G. (1995). Depression and maltreatment
as predictors of social competence and social problem-solving skills in school-age
children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19, 1183-1195.

Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy. (2000). The other Los Angeles: The
working poor in the city of the 21st century. Los Angeles: Author.

Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. (2000). The Effects of Family and Community Violence
on Children. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 445-479.

37

Martinez, P., & Richters, J. E. (1993). The NIMH Community Violence Project: II.
Children’s Distress Symptoms Associated with Violence Exposure. In D. Reiss, J. E.
Richters, M. Radke-Yarrow, & D. Scharff’s (Eds.) Children & Violence (pp. 22-35).
New York: Guilford.

Melnick, S. M., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2000). Emotion regulation and parenting in
AD/HD and comparison boys: Linkages with social behaviors and peer preference.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 73-86.

Manly, J. T., Cicchetti, D., & Barnett, D. (1994). The impact of subtype, frequency,
chronicity, and severity of child maltreatment on social competence and behavior
problems. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 121-143.

Miller, L. S., Wasserman, G. A., Neugebauer, R., Gorman-Smith, D., & Kamboukos,
D. (1999). Witnessed community violence and antisocial behavior in high-risk, urban
boys. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 2-11.

Osofsky, J. D. (1995). The effects of exposure to violence on young children.
American Psychologist, 50, 782-788.

Osofsky, J. D., Wewers, S., Hann, D. M., & Fick, A. C. (1993). Chronic community
violence: What is happening to our children? In D. Reiss, J. E. Richters, M. Radke-
Yarrow, & D. Scharff (Eds.), Children and violence (pp. 36-45). New York:
Guilford.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment:
Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.

Pope, A. W., & Bierman, K. L. (1999). Predicting adolescent peer problems and
antisocial activities: The relative roles of aggression and dysregulation.
Developmental Psychology, 35, 335-346.

Price, J. M. (1996). Friendships of maltreated children and adolescents: Contexts for
expressing and modifying relationship history. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb,
& W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The Company They Keep (pp. 262-285). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Prinstein, M. J., & Aikins, J. W. (2004). Cognitive moderators of the longitudinal
association between peer rejection and adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 147-158.

38

Richters, J. E., & Martinez, P., (1993a). The NIHM community violence project: I.
Children as victims of and witnesses to violence. In D. Reiss, J. E. Richters, M.
Radke-Yarrow, & D. Scharff’s (Eds.) Children & Violence (pp.7-21). New York:
Guilford.

Richters, J. E., & Martinez, P. E. (1993b). Violent communities, family choices, and
children’s chances: An algorithm for improving the odds. Development and
Psychopathology, 5, 609-627.

Richters, J. E., & Saltzman, W. (1990). Survey of Exposure to Community Violence:
Self-Report Version. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.

Rogosch, F. A., Cicchetti, D., & Aber, J. L. (1995). The role of child maltreatment in
early deviations in cognitive and affective processing abilities and later peer
relationship problems. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 591-609.

Rubin, K. H., Chen, X., & Hymel, S. (1993). Socioemotional characteristics of
withdrawn and aggressive children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 518-534.

Rudolph, K. D., Hammen, C., & Burge, D. (1994). Interpersonal functioning and
depressive symptoms in childhood: Addressing the issues of specificity and
comorbidity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22, 355-371.

Salzinger, S., Feldman, R. S., Stockhammer, T., & Hood, J. (2002). An ecological
framework for understanding risk for exposure to community violence and the
effects of exposure on children and adolescents. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7,
423-451.

Schwab-Stone, M. E., Ayers, T. S., Kasprow, W., Voyce, C., Barone, C., Shriver, T.,
& Weissberg, R. P. (1995). No safe haven: A study of violence exposure in an urban
community. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
34, 1343-1352.

Schwartz, D., Chang, L., & Farver, J. M. (2001). Correlates of victimization in
Chinese children’s peer groups. Developmental Psychology, 37, 520-532.

Schwartz D., & Gorman, A. H. (2003). Community Violence Exposure and
Children’s Academic Functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 163-173.

39

Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Toblin, R. L., & Abouezzedine, T. (2003). Mutual
antipathies in the peer group as a moderating factor in the association between
community violence exposure and psychosocial maladjustment. In E. V. E. Hodges
& N. A. Card (Eds.), Enemies and the darker side of peer relations, New Directions
for Child and Adolescent Development.

Schwartz, D., & Proctor, L. J. (2000). Community Violence Exposure and Children’s
Social Adjustment in the School Peer Group: The Mediating Roles of Emotion
Regulation and Social Cognition. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68,
670-683.

Schwarz, N. (1999). Self reports: How the questions shape the answers. American
Psychologist, 54, 93-105.

Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulation among school-age children:
The development and validation of a new criterion Q-sort scale. Developmental
Psychology, 33, 906-916.

Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1998). Reactive aggression among maltreated children:
The contributions of attention and emotion dysregulation. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 27, 381-395.

Sheilds, A., Ryan, R. M., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Narrative representations of
caregivers and emotion dysregulation as predictors of maltreated children’s rejection
by peers. Developmental Psychology, 37, 321-337.

Sobel, M. E. (1988). Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models.
In J. S. Long (Ed.) Common problems/Proper solutions: Avoiding error in
quantitative research (pp. 46-64). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sroufe, L. A., & Rutter, M. (1984). The domain of developmental psychopathology.
Child Development, 55, 17-29.

Toblin, R. L., Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., & Abou-Ezzeddine, T. (2005). Social-
cognitive and behavioral attributes of aggressive victims of bullying. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 329-346.

Trickett, P. K., Duran, L., & Horn, J. L. (2003). Community violence as it affects
child development: Issues of definition. Clinical Child and Family Psychology
Review, 6, 223-236.

United Way of Greater Los Angeles. (1999). 1998-99 state of the county report. Los
Angeles: Author.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This paper describes a short-term longitudinal study of the relation between exposure to community violence and peer rejection among 199 3rd- and 4th-grade children attending an urban Los Angeles elementary school. Assessments of self-reported community violence exposure and depressive symptoms, teacher-reported emotion dysregulation, and peer-nominated rejection and victimization were obtained at Time 1 and at a one-year follow-up. Lifetime history of community violence exposure was found to significantly predict small increases in peer rejection over time. This relation appeared to be mediated by Time 1 levels of emotion dysregulation and by depressive symptoms. These results highlight the negative influence that community violence exposure can have on children's peer relationships.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Depressive outcomes following peer victimization during adolescence: the moderating role of friends’ attributes

PDF

Heterogeneity among adolescents with elevated depressive symptoms: distinct patterns of social and academic attributes

PDF

Negative peer relationships and academic failures as predictors of depressive symptoms in early adolescence

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Actual and perceived social reinforcements of weight-related cognitions and behaviors in adolescent peer groups

PDF

The association between peer victimization and school functioning in Latino children

PDF

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

PDF

The link between the expression of negative emotion and future well-being: the role of disclosure modality in an East Asian American population

PDF

Examining the impact of prenatal maternal internalizing symptoms and socioeconomic status on children’s frontal alpha asymmetry and psychopathology

PDF

Dynamic analyses of the interrelationship between mothers and daughters on a measure of depressive symptoms

PDF

Examining the associations of respiratory problems with psychological functioning and the moderating role of engagement in pleasurable activities during late adolescence

PDF

Complicated relationships: the prevalence and correlates of sexual assault, dating violence victimization, and minority stress among sexual minority adolescents throughout the United States

Asset Metadata

Creator Kelly, Brynn M. (author)

Core Title Community violence exposure and children's subsequent rejection within the school peer group: the mediating roles of emotion dysregulation and depressive symptoms

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 11/15/2006

Defense Date 07/20/2006

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

Tag communities,emotional control,OAI-PMH Harvest,peer relations,social adjustment,Violence

Language English

Advisor Schwartz, David (committee chair), Manis, Franklin R. (committee member), Margolin, Gayla (committee member)

Creator Email bkelly@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m152

Unique identifier UC1462134

Identifier etd-Kelly-20061115 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-26336 (legacy record id),usctheses-m152 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Kelly-20061115.pdf

Dmrecord 26336

Document Type Thesis

Rights Kelly, Brynn M.

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu