Individual Factors Influencing Effective Nonviolent Behaviorand Fighting in Peer Situations: A Qualitative Study with

Urban African American Adolescents

Albert D. Farrell

Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University

Elizabeth H. Erwin

School of Nursing, University of Virginia

Amie Bettencourt, Sally Mays, Monique Vulin-Reynolds, Terri Sullivan,Kevin W. Allison, Wendy Kliewer, and Aleta MeyerDepartment of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University

This qualitative study examined individual-level factors that influence adolescents’responses to problem situations involving peers. Interviews were conducted with 106middle school students (97% African American) from an urban school system. Parti-cipants described factors that would make it easier and those that would make it moredifficult for adolescents to make specific responses to problem situations. Responsesincluded effective nonviolent responses and fighting. Qualitative analysis identified 17individual-level themes representing personal resources, beliefs and values, perceivedconsequences, and appraisal of the situation. The identification of factors that influencefighting and nonviolent behavior has important implications for efforts to reduceaggression and promote effective nonviolent responses to problem situations.

Identifying the problem situations that place adolescentsat risk for violence and the factors that influence theiruse of effective nonviolent responses in these situationscould do much to increase the effectiveness of violenceprevention programs. Efforts to reduce youth violenceand other problem behaviors represent part of a larger

effort to promote positive youth outcomes. AsCatalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, and Hawkins(2002) noted, making a successful transition to adult-hood requires more than simply avoiding behaviors suchas drug use and violence. They argued that the mosteffective approach to reducing problem behaviors is topromote the development of positive social, emotional,cognitive, and behavioral skills. Within this framework,prevention efforts are supported and reinforced byconcurrent emphasis on the development of effectivenonviolent behavior (Greenberg et al., 2003; Weissberg,Kumpfer, & Seligman, 2003).

Efforts to promote positive development require aclear understanding of the factors that influence effec-tive nonviolent responding and adaptation, particularlyin challenging environments. Although we have a wealthof information about factors associated with aggression,we know far less about the factors that influence effec-tive nonviolent behavior. This is in part because much

Aleta Meyer is now at the National Institute on Drug Abuse,

Bethesda, Maryland.

This research was supported by grant 1 R21 HD40041 from the

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

(NICHD) and award 1 U49 CE000730 from the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC). The research and interpretations

reported are the sole responsibility of the authors and are not necessar-

ily endorsed by NICHD or CDC, or represent the views, opinions, or

policies of the NICHD, CDC, or their staff. We are grateful to Anne

Y. Greene, who served as coordinator for this project, and to the par-

ticipating students and school staff for their support for this project.

Correspondence should be addressed to Albert D. Farrell, Depart-

ment of Psychology, P.O. Box 842018, Virginia Commonwealth Uni-

versity, Richmond, VA, 23284-2018. E-mail: afarrell@vcu.edu

Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 37(2), 397–411, 2008

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1537-4416 print=1537-4424 online

DOI: 10.1080/15374410801955821

of the research base for current violence prevention pro-grams draws heavily from studies that compare aggress-ive and nonaggressive youth (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1994;Hawkins et al., 1998; Lipsey & Derzon, 1998). Onedrawback to this approach is that the nonaggressiveyouth who compose the comparison groups in suchstudies are a heterogeneous group not all of whom useeffective strategies in problem situations. This is sup-ported by Hanish and Guerra (2002), who identifiedseveral different clusters of children who had relativelylow levels of aggression. These included a group thatwas well adjusted, and other groups that, although lowon aggression, exhibited other adjustment problemsincluding internalizing symptoms, peer rejection, andlow achievement. Moreover, nonviolent responses arenot necessarily effective responses. Farrell, Kliewer,et al. (2007) conducted a qualitative study in which122 middle school students generated responses to prob-lem situations that were subsequently rated for effective-ness in resolving the problem. Many of the responsesstudents identified were nonviolent, but not all wereconsidered effective. Thus, further work is needed toimprove our understanding of factors that influencethe use of effective nonviolent behavior.

One of the challenges to studying effective behavior isthe complexity involved in defining effectiveness. Theeffectiveness of a response depends not only on thenature of the response but also on the individual’s goals,the specific situation it is intended to address, and othercontextual factors. Ultimately, the effectiveness of aresponse can be judged by the outcomes it produces.For example, Goldfried and D’Zurilla (1969) definedeffective behavior as ‘‘a response or pattern of responsesto a problematic situation which alters the situation sothat it is no longer problematical, and at the same timeproduces a maximum of other positive consequencesand minimum of negative ones’’ (p. 158). Implicit in thisdefinition is the notion that the positive consequencesare consistent with the prosocial goals of preventionprograms that seek to assist youth in dealing appropri-ately with conflict, developing a positive identity, andmaking responsible decisions (Meyer & Farrell, 1998).Efforts to teach effective behavior thus require a clearknowledge base regarding what responses are mostlikely to be effective for specific populations of youthin addressing the problematic situations they are mostlikely to encounter.

Children and adolescents in poor urban neighbor-hoods face numerous challenges that influence theirbehavior and increase their risk for a variety of adjust-ment problems (Attar, Guerra, & Tolan, 1994; Evans,2004). These settings are characterized by high crimerates, inadequate housing, schools that are challengedto meet student needs, limited neighborhood resources,and families under economic strain (Hawkins,

Van Horn, & Arthur, 2004; Smith & Hasbrouck, 2006).By adolescence, many poor urban youth have beenexposed to crime, violence, drugs, poverty, family dis-ruption, pregnancy, abuse, and neglect (Evans, 2004).These factors have been found to increase risk for bothinternalizing (e.g., Brown, Powell, & Earls, 1989; Ewart& Suchday, 2002) and externalizing problems (e.g.,Attar et al., 1994; Dubow, Edwards, & Ippolito, 1997).Not all youth growing up in challenging environmentsdevelop adjustment problems, and valuable lessons canbe learned from those that develop effective strategiesto cope with their environment. Before programs canbe designed to equip adolescents with more adaptiveskills, empirical work must be conducted to improveour understanding of both this environment and itsinfluence on effective, nonviolent coping efforts.

This study is one in a series designed to improve therelevance and effectiveness of prevention efforts forurban minority youth. Its focus is on adolescents inurban middle schools. The middle-school era is markedby many social, cognitive, and physical changes(Peterson & Hamburg, 1986), and changes associatedwith the transition from elementary schools to larger,less structured middle schools (Seidman & French,2004). It is also a period marked by increased risk fornegative social and behavioral outcomes (U.S. Depart-ment of Health and Human Services, 2001). Thesestudies were guided by Goldfried and D’Zurilla’s(1969) behavior-analytic model. The first step was toidentify the problem situations most often encounteredby urban African American adolescents. Qualitativeanalysis of interviews with 60 adolescents and 50 adultsfrom the community identified a diverse array of prob-lem situations categorized into five domains—child,family, peer, school, and neighborhood (Farrell, Erwin,Allison, et al., 2007). The relevance of these situationswas confirmed in a second study (Farrell et al., 2006)in which 176 students from three urban middle schoolsrated the frequency and difficulty of 61 problem situa-tions identified in the qualitative study. The extent towhich experiencing these problem situations was relatedto negative outcomes was also confirmed by correlationsbetween the number of different problem situationsexperienced and various outcomes including aggression,delinquency, depression, anxiety, and self-worth.

A subsequent study (Farrell, Kliewer et al., 2007)identified potential responses to these problem situa-tions. Interviews were conducted with 122 middle schoolstudents who were asked to generate responses to the 25problem situations that emerged as most prevalent anddifficult in the Farrell et al. (2006) study. Studentsidentified an average of 14 different responses for eachsituation. The effectiveness of these responses for thespecific situations with which they were linked was thenrated by three groups: (a) 61 adolescents from schools

398 FARRELL ET AL.

and community centers who were nominated by adults asskilled at problem solving; (b) 27 teachers, communitycenter staff, and family interventionists; and (c) nineresearchers. This process identified responses to each situ-ation that were considered effective by all three groups.

Our study extended this line of research by using semi-structured interviews to explore peer problem situationsand to identify factors that influence adolescents to useeither violent or effective nonviolent responses. In con-trast to most previous studies examining risk and pro-tective factors, our study used a qualitative approach.Naturalistic inquiry (Krahn, Hohn, & Kime, 1995,Lincoln & Guba, 1985, Nelson & Quintana, 2005) wasused to give voice to adolescents’ perspectives on the fac-tors that influence them to engage in particular responseswhen faced with challenging situations. The findings ofprevious studies (e.g., Farrell, Ampy, & Meyer, 1998;Farrell, Erwin, Allison, et al., 2007) confirm the valueof using a qualitative approach to illuminate the chal-lenges faced by adolescents and the complexities of theirlived experience growing up in an urban environment.

The framework for this study was guided by thedevelopmental-contextual models of Lerner (1995) andBronfenbrenner (1997). Within this framework, ado-lescent coping efforts are seen as driven by both internalfactors and transactional processes between the individ-ual and his or her environment. Although the interviewwas structured to explore factors within both the indi-vidual and environment, the focus of this article is onthose that emerged at the individual level. Previousresearch has identified numerous individual-level riskfactors for aggression. For example, Hawkins and col-leagues (1998) conducted a review of the literature thatidentified a range of individual-level factors that predictviolent behavior, including psychological characteristics(i.e., hyperactivity, impulsivity, nervousness), attitudestoward and internalized beliefs supporting aggressivebehavior, and early engagement in risk taking and delin-quent behaviors. Other researchers have describedspecific social-cognitive processing deficits (i.e., hostileattribution biases, emotional reactivity) that influencethe enactment of aggressive responses to peer conflict(Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge et al., 2002; Lemerise &Arsenio, 2000). Although it was anticipated that manyof these same factors would also influence the use ofeffective nonviolent responses, other factors were alsoexpected to emerge.

The study presented here restricted its focus to prob-lem situations involving peers. During adolescence rela-tionships with peers develop new qualities of reciprocityand intimacy (Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Interactionswith and approval from peers become increasinglyimportant to youth during this time (Baumrind, 1987;Holmbeck, 1994). Not surprisingly, situations thatoccur within the context of peer relationships can be

particularly problematic for adolescents and contributeto violence and victimization (Crean, 2004; Farrellet al., 1998; Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002).

METHOD

Participants

This project was conducted with adolescents inRichmond, Virginia—a community with a large popu-lation of low-income African American adolescentsliving in neighborhoods with high rates of crime and vio-lence. Census data from 2000 indicate that 61% of 15- to24-year-olds in Richmond were African American, and61% of children lived in neighborhoods classified ashigh in poverty (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2004).Richmond was ranked the ninth most dangerous cityamong all U.S. cities with populations of more than75,000 based on 2003 FBI violent crime statistics (Nolan,2004). In 2001, the violent crime rate for individualsyounger than 18 was almost four times the state average.

Participants were sixth and seventh graders fromthree public middle schools (ages 11–15) serving a pre-dominantly African American student population(87%, 99%, and 100%) and high percentages of stu-dents eligible for the federal free or subsidized lunchprogram (72%; Richmond Public Schools, n.d.). Toobtain a broad sample, students were randomly sampledfrom classrooms serving students with disabilities,advanced curriculum classrooms, and general class-rooms. All procedures were reviewed and approved byVirginia Commonwealth University’s InstitutionalReview Board. Students received a $5 gift certificatefor showing consent forms to their parents and return-ing them to research staff, whether or not they or theirparents agreed to allow them to participate. Participantsreceived a second $5 gift certificate for completing theinterview. Signed consent forms from parents and assentforms from students were obtained from 118 of the 136students selected. Of these, 109 students (80% of thoseeligible) completed interviews. Three interviews couldnot be transcribed because of recorder malfunctions.The final sample included 65 girls, 41 boys, 48 sixth gra-ders and 58 seventh graders. Ten percent were fromclassrooms for students with disabilities, and 19% werefrom advanced curriculum classrooms. All but 3 parti-cipants were African American.

Interviews

Interviews were conducted during February and March2004. Interviewers were 8 women (6 White, 2 Black) and2 men (both Black), all of whom had at least a bache-lor’s degree. The majority of interviews were completed

PEER NONVIOLENT BEHAVIOR AND FIGHTING 399

by Black interviewers (36% by men, 23% by women).Interviewers completed 8 hr of training in protection ofhuman participants, developmental and cultural consid-erations in interviewing, and procedures for reportingsuspected abuse and handling emotional upset. Role-plays were used to give feedback and supervision,increase interviewer comfort and skill, and promoteconsistency across interviews. Two of each interviewer’stapes were reviewed, and oral feedback was given toindividual interviewers.

Interviews lasted 20 to 60 min and were conducted atthe schools or in participants’ homes. Students weregiven a written description of a problem situation andresponse. Interviewers read the description and askedparticipants to imagine the problem was happening tothem and that they were going to make the specifiedresponse. They were then asked a series of questionsabout how easy it would be to make the response,how likely they would be to make the response, andwhy they would or would not make the response.Researchers then explored perceptions of what wouldmake it easier and harder to make the response in thatparticular situation. Interviewers systematically askedadolescents about the following domains: (a) personalcharacteristics (e.g., the type of person they are, thingsimportant or hard for them, ways they think or feelabout things), (b) family, (c) school, (d) neighborhoodand community, (e) friends, and (f) other people.Following this semistructured format, participants wereasked to complete eight fill-in-the-blank statementsabout the domains (e.g., ‘‘Kids need to be [blank] tobe able to do this [response inserted],’’ ‘‘Kids’ parentsneed to be [blank] to be able to help them do this’’).Interviewers followed these up with prompts for clarifi-cation and member checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

The situation-response descriptions that served asstimuli for the interviews were derived from earlierstudies. Twelve problem situations identified in theFarrell, Erwin, Allison, et al. (2007) qualitative studythat involved peer interactions that were found to beprevalent and difficult (Farrell et al., 2006) were selected(see the appendix). Thirteen situation-response pairswere formed by pairing each situation with one or twononviolent responses that received the highest effective-ness ratings in the Farrell, Kliewer, et al. (2007) study.Effectiveness ratings for these responses based on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (really bad ), 2 (bad ), 3(okay), 4 (good ), and 5 (really good), ranged from 3.6to 4.4 (M ¼ 4.0), 3.7 to 4.6 (M ¼ 4.2), and 3.7 to 5.0(M ¼ 4.4), for ratings by students, community represen-tatives, and researchers, respectively. Effective responsesrepresented several domains including assertive limit set-ting; communicating positively; seeking adult support;seeking adult intervention; problem solving and imple-menting a solution; offering support; behavioral change

and adaptation; and disengaging, avoiding, or ignoringthe problem. Each participant was randomly assignedto respond to one of six sets of situation-responsepairs. Each set included two or three peer situationspaired with an effective nonviolent response. Four ofthe sets also included one of four peer situations pairedwith a physically aggressive response (e.g., I’d fighthim=her). Each set also contained one or two situationsinvolving interactions with teachers that were not partof our study.

Qualitative Analyses

Audiotapes of the interviews were transcribed andimported into N6, a software program designed forqualitative analysis (QSR International, 2002). Two levelsof coding occurred over 2 years. A team of six investi-gators was trained in methods of open coding and useof the software, and decision rules were developed anddiscussed to increase consistency. Initially, two investiga-tors read a subset of 20 male and female interviews andmarked text that met preliminary definitions of barriersand supports. Researchers wrote memos about the codingand began developing definitions and training pro-cedures for first-level coding. Other team members trian-gulated with existing literature about factors influencing(a) adolescent problem solving and (b) barriers and sup-ports for violent and nonviolent coping. A table definingthe themes generated from open coding of the initialsubset of interviews and the triangulation procedurewas constructed to guide the first-level coding.

During first-level coding, transcripts were coded forthemes and for the larger domains they represented(i.e., individual, family, peer, school, and neighbor-hood). Codes for specific interview segments were notmutually exclusive, because interview segments oftenrepresented multiple themes. For example, a student’sdetailed description of the process of weighing the prosand cons of a particular response could reflect themesrepresenting problem-solving skills and fear of con-sequences. Transcript segments were also coded as abarrier or support for either a nonviolent or violentresponse. Analyses continued for 1 year, during whichtime researchers coded individually and in small groups,held team meetings to discuss codes, and developeddecision rules to increase consistency. Throughout cod-ing, the team wrote memos and conducted constantcomparisons between the transcripts and emergentfindings. This process was used to ensure transparentresults and to document bias reduction activities (e.g.searching for negative cases). This resulted in an initialset of 51 themes. Intercoder agreement on a randomsample of 10% of the transcripts was 79%.

Second-level coding was an iterative process thatinvolved examining and recoding transcripts by a team

400 FARRELL ET AL.

of five investigators until there was 100% agreement incoding and all areas of nonagreement were eitherresolved and integrated into the thematic structure orarticulated as unanswered questions. This process tookapproximately 9 months. During this process new codeswere identified and defined, similar themes were merged,and transcripts were recoded as definitions were refined.A table listing definitions and representative quotes foreach theme was developed and refined by constant com-parison between the emerging themes and transcripts(Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Integrating relevant theoryand literature identified themes consistent with theliterature and those that represented new themes. Thefocus of our study was on themes representing the indi-vidual level (personal resources; beliefs and attitudes,perceived consequences, and appraisal of the situation).

RESULTS

Overview

The end point of the qualitative analysis was a set of 17themes representing individual-level factors. Thesethemes were generally well represented in the data basedon the number of interviews in which they were men-tioned as an influence on the use of either effective non-violent responses or fighting (see Table 1). Of the 14themes students identified as a factor influencing non-violent behavior, all but 3 were mentioned by 10 or morestudents, 11 were mentioned by 25 or more students,and 5 by more than half the students. Of the 16 themesrelated to fighting, 11 were identified by 10 or morestudents, 5 by 25 or more, and 3 by at least half. Thegreater frequency with which themes related to non-violent strategies were mentioned may be in part becauseof the interview protocol, which included 14 nonviolentresponses but only 4 that involved fighting. This waspartially offset by the fact that many students discussedwhy they would fight rather than use the nonviolentresponse they were presented. The following sectionsdescribe the themes within each domain and includerepresentative quotes to illustrate their relation to non-violent behavior and fighting and the influence ofvarious contextual issues on responses. Themes mostfrequently mentioned by participants are described atthe beginning of each section.

Skills and Abilities

Problem-solving skills. Problem-solving skills werementioned by more than half the participants as animportant influence on how adolescents respond to prob-lem situations. This was largely reflected in descriptionsof their decision-making processes, particularly howtheir choice of response would be influenced by their

understanding of the situation and consideration of con-sequences. Students often weighed the impact of theirresponses on friendships, as reflected in one girl’s dis-cussion of what would lead her to tell a friend she wassorry for teasing her: ‘‘I think in my head, ‘Should I dothis? Well, if I do this, she’ll probably stop being myfriend and if I don’t she’ll be my friend. I should doit.’’’ With close friends, students often elaborated onthe nonviolent response and generated additional alterna-tives. For instance, one girl noted that if she crossed theline, ‘‘I’d just tell her that I’m sorry, that I really didn’tmean it, and if we could talk it out.’’ Many students alsodiscussed consequences such as getting in trouble atschool or at home or getting hurt. One girl demonstratedher ability to anticipate consequences and generate alter-natives to fighting another student: ‘‘I would say I’m notgoing to fight because I wouldn’t want to get in troubleand if this person try to tell me to fight him I could goto the principal and get that person in trouble.’’

Some students discussed how poor problem-solvingskills could serve as a barrier to nonviolent behaviorand a support for fighting. One boy discussed how theinability to select a response would make him less likelyto tell an adult at school if he were picked on by his peers:

I’d be thinking about what my friends would be tellingme to do, and then on the other hand I probably do

TABLE 1

Number of Interviews with Adolescents During which Specific

Themes were Identified as Barriers or Supports for Nonviolent

Responses and Fighting

Domain=Theme

Nonviolent

Response Fighting

Skills and Abilities

Problem-Solving Skills 73 50

Self-Efficacy for Nonviolent Responses 73 13

Self-Efficacy for Fighting 0 4

Emotion Regulation Skills 51 54

Beliefs and Values

Prosocial Values and Goals 95 70

Beliefs About the World 59 9

Beliefs Supporting Fighting 38 62

Beliefs Against Fighting 37 47

Consequences

Negative Outcome for Nonviolent Response 82 0

Perceived Ineffectiveness of Nonviolent

Response

36 10

Perceived Ineffectiveness of Fighting 1 2

Fear of Physical Harm From Fighting 0 24

Fighting Now Prevents Future Fighting 7 14

Other Negative Outcome for Fighting 3 12

Absence or Lack of Fear of Consequences 0 5

Appraisal of the Situation

Attributions of the Other Person 33 7

Perceived Closeness, Connection,

or History with the Person

31 22

Note: N ¼ 106.

PEER NONVIOLENT BEHAVIOR AND FIGHTING 401

want to tell the teacher. Like I had choices to make, butI don’t know which one to choose.

Students who mentioned a problem-solving deficit inrelation to aggressive responses often failed to considerthe emotional impact of their actions or to generatealternatives. For instance, when asked if he would fightin response to any argument with a peer, one studentindicated he would. Another student described the needto critically evaluate the input she might receive if shewent to peer mediation with a student with whom shehad a conflict: ‘‘I want to get advice because when youget advice, that’s good, but if it’s the wrong kind ofadvice, then that’s bad. I mean, it might not helpyou . . . so, I don’t know what I do.’’

Although typically mentioned as a factor that woulddecrease the likelihood of fighting, there were severalstudents who suggested that problem-solving skillscould support fighting. One girl explained how herappraisal of consequences and the value she places onher role as a relational support would help her determinewhen she would fight:

If I get suspended over a rumor, cuz I got in a fight witha girl over a rumor, I’ll get mad a little bit because Iknow it wasn’t worth it. But if I get suspended for fight-ing, like taking up for my sister, cuz some older girlswant to fight her or something like that, or they bankedher or something like that, I really won’t get mad cuzI did what I know I had to do to take up for my sister.

Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was defined as anindividual’s perception of his or her ability to enact aparticular response in a specific situation. More thanhalf the participants indicated that adolescents are morelikely to engage in a nonviolent response if they are con-fident of success. For instance, one boy stated that hewould be able to ask an adult for help with a problemwith a peer ‘‘because I’m not afraid to go talk to some-body when I need help.’’ Students also noted how self-efficacy for nonviolent responses can help adolescentsresist fighting even if their peers are teasing them orencouraging a fight. When describing a kid who couldsay no to a fight, one female participant said, ‘‘They’regood at saying, ‘I don’t want to fight. . . .’ They got goodskills.’’ In contrast, many participants discussed the dif-ficulty of enacting nonviolent responses, particularlythose that involve seeking help from adults or using peermediation, and expressed doubt that they could makesuch responses. Self-efficacy tended to be most salientfor youth attempting to enact a nonviolent responsewith peers with whom they did not have a close relation-ship. Participants did, however, indicate that it alsotakes confidence to settle conflicts with close friends.Students noted that apologies are difficult and that in

conflicts with friends, their relationship may be at stake.A contextual factor that may influence a student’s per-ception of self-efficacy, especially when engaging in anonviolent response, is whether they are alone or othersare watching. Students explained that the presence ofother friends or peers can make enacting a nonviolentresponse challenging because of embarrassment orpressure. One girl noted that it might be difficult toapproach a friend in a positive way because ‘‘that’s hardto do when you’re around your friends.’’

Although a lack of self-efficacy for nonviolentbehavior was seen as a barrier to nonviolent responses,a lack of self-efficacy for fighting behavior was onlyreported by one student as a barrier to fighting. Threeof the four students who mentioned self-efficacy forfighting indicated that it was a support for fighting.For example, one girl noted, ‘‘Sometimes when it cometo fighting somebody I’m not scared.’’

Emotion regulation skills. Emotional regulation refersto managing physiological and cognitive responses toproblem situations. More than half the participants dis-cussed its importance. Emotion regulation was seen asnecessary for enacting many nonviolent responses. Dif-ficulty managing emotions was frequently reported asa barrier to talking things out with peers involved in aconflict. Some students reported that if the other personkept getting in their face and not letting the problem go,they would become angry and be unable to resolve theconflict nonviolently. One girl explained why it wouldbe hard for her to talk it out with a person who thinksshe started a rumor about them: ‘‘If a person come inmy face and say you say all this kinda stuff about meand all this?’’ On the other hand, many students indi-cated that their ability to stay calm would make it easierto talk things out. One girl described how this wouldmake it easier to talk to a friend who broke a promise:‘‘I would still talk to her and be calm about it and listento what she has to say first before I get all frustrated.’’Students also noted that their ability to control theirtemper or emotions would make it easier for them tonot let it bother them if another student said somethingdisrespectful about their family. In contrast, some part-icipants noted that it would be difficult to not let itbother them if the student continued to provoke them.One boy explained what would make it hard forhim: ‘‘If they just keep on coming and coming andtalking about my parents and talk about them . . . I losemy temper.’’

The inability to manage emotions during confronta-tions was repeatedly cited as a precursor to fighting.One boy explained why he would fight children whowere teasing him: ‘‘Because they make you real mad;you can’t really control what you’re doing. You just feelthe urge to hit somebody.’’ In contrast, some studentsreported that strategies such as ignoring what others

402 FARRELL ET AL.

say, walking away, and staying calm in the face ofprovocation helped students refrain from fighting peerswho were teasing or arguing with them. One girlexplained how she would keep herself from fighting:‘‘Sometimes I get frustrated very easily and my angercan really get the best of me. But I would try not tolet it get the best of me. Try to listen, calm myself ’causeI get mad really easy.’’

Beliefs and Values

Prosocial values and goals. Prosocial values andgoals was the most commonly mentioned support for non-violent behavior and barrier to fighting. Students reportedbeing motivated to maintain friendships and make surefriends were not hurt or angry. One girl explained whyshe would apologize if she accidentally made her friendmad: ‘‘Because that’s my best friend; I don’t want to hurttheir feelings. And it was the wrong thing to do, crack onsomebody.’’ A value on achievement was cited as a reasonto choose a nonviolent response, such as peer mediation ortalking to a teacher. One student said,

I want to be able to stay on a good record like I got.I don’t want to stay in fights and stuff. Because that’sthe way that you won’t get in college and you won’tget a good job.

Prosocial values were also seen as barriers to fighting.Some students reported that fighting was incompatiblewith goals such as academic achievement. These valuesoften represented general tendencies, as reflected in thisgirl’s explanation of her reasons for not fighting: ‘‘AfterI finish fighting, I’m gonna feel so bad about myself,because I’m gonna be like, ‘Why did I do that?’ becausethat’s not the kind of person I am.’’ Prosocial values wereespecially likely to decrease the likelihood of fighting inthe case of a friend flirting with a boy or girl the studentlikes. In this situation, students often cited a value onfriendship as being much more important than a fleetingromantic attachment, as explained by the following girl:

I wouldn’t let a boy come in between our friendship. . . .I’m the type of person that don’t fight over boys ’cause ifmy friend want him, I’ll let her keep him, because I’mnot going to waste my time fighting over a boy.

Beliefs about the world. Beliefs about the worldwere considered an important influence on behaviorby more than half the participants. These beliefs weremost often mentioned as influences on nonviolentbehavior. One of the more common beliefs was thatthe world is a benevolent place in which being nice, kind,and helpful is the right thing to do and usually leads topositive outcomes and, conversely, that being unkind

usually leads to negative consequences. Students indi-cated that such beliefs made them more likely to choosenonviolent responses. Beliefs about trust also supportednonviolent behavior when students felt that they couldgenerally trust their friends, teachers, school personnel,and parents to support them and try their best to helpthem. One student noted that her beliefs about trustwould encourage a nonviolent response in a conflictwith a friend: ‘‘If she was a true friend, then you haveto give some trust to her. Have the faith that shewouldn’t tell again if you told her something else.’’ Incontrast, a more negative view of the world was depictedby a boy who explained why he would not seek helpfrom peers: ‘‘When a friend get mad at you, they’regonna spread your business. So that’s why I don’t tellmy friends nothing.’’ Several students identified beliefsabout fairness that served as a barrier to nonviolentbehavior. For example, helping a friend with an assign-ment that the student had worked hard on could be con-sidered unfair. In contrast, the sense of being wrongedor treated unfairly was seen as a support for fighting.

Beliefs supporting fighting. Beliefs supportingfighting were mentioned by more than half the sample.Participants described a variety of beliefs supporting thenotion that fighting is justified and even necessary undercertain circumstances. Such beliefs were seen as barriersto nonviolent responses and supports for fighting.Students described beliefs about fighting that would pro-hibit them from using a variety of nonviolent strategies.Sometimes, even when students indicated that they werevery likely to enact a nonviolent response, they indicatedthat if certain beliefs about fighting were activated, theymight switch to an aggressive response. For instance, oneboy explained that he would definitely try to calm his frienddown if he accidentally crossed the line with him, but hewould not be able to maintain that stance if his friend acti-vated the belief that it’s all right to fight in response tophysical aggression: ‘‘If they keep on pushing me aroundand stuff and keep hitting me, then I’ll fight him.’’

Some beliefs reflected a revengeful style of reacting toperceived provocations. For example, one girl said,‘‘That’s how I am. I just fight them.’’ Another girl con-sidered fighting an appropriate response to anotherstudent spreading rumors about her: ‘‘[I would] fighther . . . because she shouldn’t be making rumors aboutme.’’ In these cases, youth indicated that certain factorsinfluenced their decision to enact revenge. Revenge tookdifferent forms, including relational aggression such ascutting off a friendship and more physical forms suchas fighting. Students indicated that they were morelikely to seek revenge if another student violated theirbeliefs about the world or acted contrary to how theyexpected a friend to act. For example, one boy explained

PEER NONVIOLENT BEHAVIOR AND FIGHTING 403

he would get back at a friend for talking to a girl heliked because ‘‘that’s two-faced, you don’t supposed todo that to your friends.’’

Many students indicated that violence was justified ifanother person engaged in behaviors such as name callingor initiated physical contact. These constitute the ‘‘rulesof engagement’’ that some youth use to determine whento fight. Many students indicated that although theywould like to solve conflicts peacefully, if someone physi-cally aggresses against them, they have no choice but torespond in kind. Although some youth are motivated tofight for self-preservation, others respond in anger. Asone girl explained, ‘‘If I was to tell them leave me aloneand get out of my face or something, they’ll just go offlike, push me or something and I wouldn’t let nobody justpush me, I’d hit them back.’’ Youth also indicated that attimes, nonphysical aggression, such as rumor spreadingand teasing, particularly when one’s family membersare the focus, are justifiable reasons for physical retali-ation. In these cases, youth appear to be motivated lessby self-defense than by anger. For example, one studentsaid, ‘‘If they say something that I don’t really like andthey like, for instance, push one of my buttons, I’ll getangry and like fight them.’’ In addition, many youth indi-cated that responding to certain physical or nonphysicalprovocations is necessary to protect their reputation.For example, one student explained that many studentswould fight someone who started a rumor about thembecause ‘‘people just be like, ‘So everybody know thatI’m not scared of nobody. And let everybody know,you talk about me, you can’t get it your way.’’’

Beliefs against fighting. Students also describedspecific beliefs against fighting that served as supportsfor nonviolent responses and barriers to fighting. Manystudents expressed the belief that fighting won’t solve pro-blems, is not worth it, or is ‘‘dumb.’’ Said one girl, ‘‘Whenyou fight, that’s not really solving nothing, but as you talkit out with someone that you know like a school counse-lor, your parent, their parents, it might solve it better.’’These youth hold beliefs that there are other ways tosettle problems, or they take a more philosophical viewtoward peer provocation. For instance, one girl said shewouldn’t fight kids who were teasing her because

There’s certain people [who will] talk about you whileyou’re here, before you’re here, and once you’re gone.So it’s no use for you sitting there . . . just fightingbecause someone has teased you because people do thatand most of the time when they’re teasing you, they’rejust not secure with theirself.

Beliefs against fighting were part of a more complex struc-ture that included other values. For example, the following

boy’s quote illustrates how a value on friendship can influ-ence a belief against fighting: ‘‘Friends aren’t supposed tofight each other. They supposed to talk it out and try tosolve it a better way instead of fighting, because if theyfighting they not doing nothing to solve the problem.’’

Consequences

Negative outcome in relation to a nonviolent res-ponse. One of the most commonly mentioned themeswas the belief that nonviolent responses had the potentialto produce negative outcomes. Many students indicatedthat they would not enact a nonviolent response in situa-tions involving conflicts with a close friend because theirfriend would be angry with them, the friendship wouldend, or the situation would escalate into a fight. Forexample, one girl stated that students might be afraidof talking to friends who broke a promise not to tell asecret because ‘‘they probably think that their friendwould get mad at them by asking. Or they probably thinkthat they’ll end up getting in a fight because they con-fronted their friend about it.’’ Similarly, many studentsindicated that they would not ask their friends to stopspreading a rumor about them because it would be likelyto elicit a negative reaction, lead to further rumor spread-ing, or escalate into a fight. One girl explained why itwould be hard for her to tell another student that shedidn’t start a rumor about that person: ‘‘The personprobably get a attitude with me because I’m coming tothem and asking them to give me a reason why.’’ In con-trast, only two students believed that talking to theirpeers about a rumor would solve the problem. Concernsabout nonviolent responses leading to physical harmwere particularly common in situations that involvedpeers who were not close friends. For example, in situa-tions involving rumor spreading, several students notedthat they would not tell their peers to stop spreadingthe rumor or explain to another student that they didnot start a rumor because it would be likely to result inaggressive retaliation. A large number of students indi-cated that seeking adult support or going to peermediation to handle a conflict with a peer would notsolve the problem but could lead to a fight. One girlexplained why students might not go to peer mediationto deal with rumor spreading: ‘‘That person that theywent to peer mediation with would be just talking aboutthem more, just calling them names and saying they’rescared because they had to go to peer mediation.’’

Perceived ineffectiveness of response. Manyparticipants indicated that they would be unlikely touse a particular response because they did not believeit would be effective. In nearly every case, these concernswere seen as a barrier to the use of nonviolent responsesand a support for fighting. Only two students indicated

404 FARRELL ET AL.

that they would not use fighting because it was not effec-tive. Students were somewhat more likely to indicatethat nonviolent responses would be ineffective in situa-tions that involved peers that were not close friends.There were, however, situations involving close friendsfor which several students noted that they would notuse a nonviolent response because it would not solvethe problem. These included situations where a friendbroke their promise to keep a secret, flirted with someonethe student liked, and become angry when jokingbetween friends crossed the line. For example, inresponse to a situation where a student told a friendsomething private but a friend went behind their backand told other people, a student indicated that kids mightnot be likely to talk it out because ‘‘the friend mightjust keep going around telling people what he told him.’’

Many participants questioned the effectiveness of try-ing to talk it out or seeking outside support in situationsinvolving conflicts with peers that were not close friends.Several noted that they would not tell others to stopspreading rumors about them because their peers wouldlikely ignore them and keep spreading the rumors. Simi-larly, some participants indicated that they would nottalk it out with a student who thought they were spread-ing a rumor about them because the student would notbelieve them. Many participants indicated that nonvio-lent response such as seeking help from a teacher orgoing to peer mediation in response to peer conflictwould not stop the problem. For example, when askedwhy he would not go talk to an adult about a friendwho was acting fake, one student simply said, ‘‘I justdon’t think they’ll be able to help.’’ Finally, several stu-dents indicated not letting it bother them would be anineffective response to another student disrespectingtheir family because the teasing would just continue.

Fear of physical harm from fighting. Physicalharm from fighting was often mentioned as a barrier tofighting. Many students expressed fears about getting hurtor beat up if they chose to fight. For instance, one girlnoted that she would choose not to fight other kids whowere teasing her ‘‘because you could get hurt or you getscratched up.’’ Students reported fearing physical harmnot only from one youth but sometimes from several. Theyalso reported fearing that another student in a conflictmight be able to overpower them, either because of a sizeor strength imbalance or because they might be carrying aweapon. For instance, one girl said, ‘‘Kids think that . . . -when you start to fight they’ll pull out the gun and put it inyour face and they’ll press the button, then the bullet comeout and it will go right in your head.’’

Fighting now prevents future fighting. Fighting nowprevents future fighting was mentioned as both a barrier to

nonviolent responses and a support for fighting. Severalstudents suggested that fighting may be inevitable—ifsomeone wants to fight you it’s going to happen sooneror later so you may as well get it over with. For example,one student reported, ‘‘Some people would probably tellthem to go ahead and fight her and get it over with: ‘Youfight her she won’t mess with you no more or say nothingabout you.’’’ Another student explained that most kidswould also fight in response to teasing and name callingbecause ‘‘that person said they’ll fight you later on andthey will look around for you and they will fight you.’’Some participants indicated that, in their world, fightingmay be necessary to establish a reputation as someonewho should not be victimized, especially when they donot know the other person: ‘‘I think that you shouldn’tfight because it’s not gonna solve anything, but if you haveto at a certain point to let the person know that you’re notscared of them, then I could do it.’’ On the other hand, say-ing ‘‘I’m not going to fight’’ was often perceived as a weak-ness, leading others to believe the student is vulnerable tovictimization. One student noted, ‘‘You say I ain’t goingto fight you they will talk about you like a dog. You willnever hear the end of it.’’ Students were far more likelyto endorse the belief that fighting prevents future fightingas a reason to fight when the problem they were presentedwith involved other kids they didn’t know well actingaggressively. Only one gave this as a reason to fight agood friend.

The notion that fighting now prevents future fightingwas also mentioned as a reason not to use a nonviolentresponse. Nonviolent responses that were identified asmost likely to leave the student vulnerable to futureaggression from other students were ‘‘I would not fight’’when other kids are boosting up an argument and ‘‘Iwouldn’t let it bother me, because I’d know they werewrong’’ if another student said something disrespectfulof a family member.

Other negative outcome in relation to fight-ing. Some participants discussed how fightingcan lead to other negative outcomes. More specifi-cally, students indicated that they would not fighttheir peers because it would lead to punishment(e.g., school or legal consequences), damage totheir reputation, or the loss of a friendship. Forexample, one girl stated that she would not fighteven if peers were boosting up the conflict because‘‘if I fight the person I might lose or something andpeople wouldn’t like me,’’ and another girl notedthat students may be hesitant to fight because theybelieve ‘‘their friendship would be broken up.’’Another student talked about how difficult it canbe to balance the desire to fight with the potentialof a negative outcome:

PEER NONVIOLENT BEHAVIOR AND FIGHTING 405

You might want to stay in school to learn. But peoplekeep getting on your nerves talking about, oh, it’s arumor about you around school, whatever that youdid, then you might get real angry. Then you might goup to them and punch them or whatever a few times.Then you’ll get in trouble.

Absence or lack of fear of consequences. A smallnumber of students viewed the absence or lack of con-cern over consequences as a support for fighting. Onegirl suggested that youth who fight often know theyhave other options: ‘‘They had a way to stop, yeah theydo have some way not to fight, they can tell the tea-cher.’’ However, they may not tell the teacher if ‘‘theydon’t care . . . if they get suspended.’’ Whereas this lackof concern or absence of punishment was reported byseveral youth as a support to responding aggressively,none indicated that it would support or prevent themfrom using a nonviolent response.

Appraisal of the Situation

Attributions of the other person. The meaning anadolescent attributes to the actions of others and the attri-butions made by others were also mentioned as importantdeterminants of behavior. Nonviolent responses were con-sidered more likely if others involved in a conflict regu-lated their emotions, acted in a way that valued therelationship, or attempted restitution. In contrast, nonvio-lent responses were seen as less likely if the other personwas perceived as hostile or antagonistic. Attributions weremore often viewed as a barrier to nonviolent responses inconflicts involving a close friend. More specifically, theperception that the other person would not listen or wouldbecome angry and physically violent if the studentattempted to approach them and talk things out preventedmany students from enacting a nonviolent response. Stu-dents also mentioned attributions of the other person asa barrier to trying to talk it out, seek adult support, orgo to peer mediation with peers that are not close friends.As in situations with close friends, the attribution thattheir peers would not listen to them, would not believetheir apology, or would want to fight them would makethem less likely to choose a nonviolent response. One girlexplained what would make it hard for her to tell a peerthat she did not start a rumor about them: ‘‘What wouldmake it hard is they think that I started it, which I didn’t.They will believe other persons before they believe me.’’

Perceived closeness, connection, or history with theperson. Perceived closeness, connection, or historywith the person in the situation was also mentioned asan important influence on behavior. Perceived closenesswas generally cited as a support for nonviolentresponses. One boy indicated he would apologize to a

close friend if he accidentally crossed the line and hurthis feelings because ‘‘us being friends for so long thatwe can come to one another and tell that person howwe feel about what we did to that person.’’ Moreover,perceived closeness was frequently reported as a supportfor nonviolent behavior in a situation involving a closefriend’s request for help with a class project. Every timethis theme was cited in the context of this situation, stu-dents reported that the closeness and length of time theyhad been friends with the person supported them indeciding to ‘‘help my friend with the paper, but not letthem copy mine.’’ In addition, several students reportedthat the closeness of their relationship with a teacher attheir school would support them in going to peermediation with a peer who started a rumor about them.Students noted that the closer the relationship, the lesslikely there would be an aggressive response. This wasparticularly salient when the situation involved a friendflirting with someone the student liked. One boyexplained that he would not fight his friend in this situ-ation ‘‘because he’s my friend. And, you know, if he’s agood friend, they’re hard to come across most of thetime.’’ In contrast, if there was a history of conflict, orif they did not value or feel valued by the other personthey would be more likely to respond aggressively.

DISCUSSION

This study used qualitative methods of naturalisticinquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Nelson & Quintana,2005) to explore individual-level factors believed to influ-ence urban African American adolescents’ responses toproblem situations involving peers. A particular focuswas on the factors that influenced nonviolent responsesversus those that influenced fighting. Many of the factorsthat were perceived as important influences on nonvio-lent responses (e.g., emotion regulation skills, problem-solving skills, negative beliefs about aggression) werethe converse of factors that have previously been relatedto aggression (e.g., poor emotion regulation, poor prob-lem-solving skills, beliefs supporting aggression). Otherswere specifically related to nonviolent behavior (e.g.,self-efficacy for nonviolent responses, perceived conse-quences of nonviolent responses).

Participants indicated that adolescents were morelikely to use a nonviolent response if they were confidentthat they could successfully enact that response in theparticular situation. This finding is consistent with pre-vious research that has identified self-efficacy as animportant influence on aggressive behavior. Crick andDodge (1989), for example, noted that some youth con-sider aggression an appropriate response because theyhave greater confidence in their ability to engage in

406 FARRELL ET AL.

physically aggressive behaviors than to walk away froma provocation. In contrast, youth who are confident intheir ability to use prosocial responses are less likely toengage in problem behaviors (Ludwig & Pittman,1999). Interview transcripts indicated how challengingmany adolescents found making nonviolent responsesin various situations. This underscores the value ofexamining self-efficacy not as a general factor (i.e.,self-efficacy for nonviolent responses) but to examinethe contextual factors that influence self-efficacy formaking a particular response in a specific context.

Participants identified the ability to regulate emotions asan important prerequisite to the use of many nonviolentresponses, and the lack of such ability was mentioned asa frequent antecedent to fighting. This is consistent withprevious empirical (e.g., Cunningham, Kliewer, & Garner,in press) and theoretical work that has demonstrated astrong link between emotion regulation and aggressivebehavior. For example, Lemerise and Arsenio (2000) notedthat an individual’s capacity to regulate their emotionsinfluences the ability to process social information andenact socially appropriate responses. Participants noted avariety of contextual factors that may make emotionregulation especially challenging in peer conflict situationssuch as perceived loss of status or relationship, violatingboundaries, and escalating the conflict.

Problem-solving skills relate to several key com-ponents of social-information processing models ofbehavior (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1994). Our study didnot examine skills that involve the encoding andinterpretation of cues or response construction, in thatparticipants were provided with a description of the situ-ation and a possible response. Participants did, however,identify factors related to other processes within thismodel, particularly factors related to response selection.Some participants were able to articulate the reasoningprocesses they would use to decide whether to engagein a particular response. In most instances this led themto endorse a nonviolent response, but this was not con-sistently the case. Values and goals played a clear role inthe decision-making process of many participants whoviewed nonviolent responses as more consistent withtheir academic goals or the value they placed on friend-ships. The complex nature surrounding adolescents’decisions regarding how to respond to a problem situ-ation was evident from the contextual factors they iden-tified. Compared to conflicts with peers to whom theydid not feel close, adolescents’ responses to close friendswere often less aggressive and less heavily influenced byrules of engagement, other beliefs regarding fighting,and concern about consequences such as later retri-bution or other negative outcomes.

Participants identified a variety of beliefs related tofighting. Prior research has established a relation betweenbeliefs about the legitimacy of aggression and aggressive

behavior (e.g., Crane-Ross, Tisak, & Tisak, 1998; Erdley& Asher, 1998; Werner & Nixon, 2005). Huesmann andGuerra (1997) noted the important role of such beliefs inregulating behavior by establishing an individual’sstandards for acceptable behaviors in a given situation.Many adolescents indicated that they would use nonvio-lent strategies in conflicts with peers, but if the otherindividual engaged in specific behaviors that ‘‘crossedthe line,’’ they would fight them. Such behaviors includedboth physical acts and nonphysical acts such as derogatoryremarks about family members. For many adolescents inthis sample, a cultural norm has developed indicating thatit is unacceptable to allow physical and certain kinds ofnonphysical provocation to pass unchecked.

A key factor within social-information processingmodels of behavior concerns an individual’s appraisalof the outcomes expected for a particular response(e.g., Huesmann, 1998). An important finding in ourstudy was that many participants would not engage inspecific nonviolent responses because they believed suchresponses would not be effective, would not enable themto achieve their goals in the situation, and could escalatea situation and eventually lead to a fight. Many parti-cipants expressed a certain degree of fatalism or power-lessness regarding the inevitability of conflicts leading tofighting. It should be noted that the specific nonviolentresponses presented to participants had been suggestedby adolescents from the same school system in a pre-vious study and had been identified as effective basedon ratings from three groups of ‘‘experts,’’ includingadolescents from the same community (Farrell, Kliewer,et al., 2007). A variety of factors may be responsiblefor differing perceptions of the effectiveness of theseresponses. Adolescents in the Farrell, Kliewer, et al.(2007) study were selected on the basis of their prob-lem-solving skills. As such, they may have had a historyof success in using nonviolent responses to addressproblem situations. Participants in our study repre-sented a broader cross-section of adolescents. Theseyouth may have had less ability to implement nonviolentresponses and had less success when they did.

Our study focused on individual-level factors that influ-ence adolescents’ responses to problem situations. It isimportant to note that such factors are but part of abroader model that views adolescent coping efforts as dri-ven by both internal factors and transactional processesbetween the individual and his or her environment (Bron-fenbrenner, 1997; Lerner, 1995). Adolescents’ responses toproblem situations are clearly influenced by their inter-actions with family, peer, school, and neighborhood=community networks. These include both direct influenceson behavior (e.g., contingencies within the school environ-ment, peer reactions) and indirect influences through theirimpact on individual-level factors (e.g., parental and mediainfluences on beliefs). Qualitative analyses of external

PEER NONVIOLENT BEHAVIOR AND FIGHTING 407

factors identified by participants in our study are the focusof a separate paper (Farrell et al. 2008). These analysesidentified 24 themes representing family (e.g., parental sup-port; parental values, models, and messages about fightingand prosocial behavior), peer (e.g., peer support for fightingand nonviolent responses, peer pressure and instigation,concern about reputation), school (e.g., proximal supportand behavioral consequences), and neighborhood (e.g.,support and exposure to antisocial behavior) domains.Further work is needed to clarify the interplay betweenindividual-level factors and these broader social influences.

One of the strengths of this study was its use of aqualitative approach that built on several previousstudies designed to examine the experiences of urbanAfrican American youth. Previous work identified situa-tions that were particularly relevant to these adolescentsin terms of their frequency of occurrence, difficulty, andrelation to problem behaviors such as violence and druguse (Farrell et al., 1998; Farrell et al., 2006). Subsequentstudies examined the variety of ways adolescents werelikely to respond to those situations and used com-munity input to evaluate the effectiveness of responses(Farrell, Kliewer, et al., 2007). This approach wasdesigned to identify the specific responses and problemsituations most relevant to the participants. Our studyrepresents a further contribution to the identificationof factors associated with aggression and those associa-ted with positive development of African American ado-lescents growing up in poor urban neighborhoods. At ageneral level, these findings identified a broad range ofpotential risk and protective factors for further study.At a more specific level, the detailed responses obtainedthrough these interviews provide information that mayimprove existing measures of risk and protective factorsfor use with this population.

Although the qualitative approach employed in thisstudy provides a valuable perspective on the factors influ-encing adolescents’ responses to problem situations, it isnot without limitations. One methodological challenge isto determine the appropriate level of detail to include inproblem situations and their associated responses. Lessdetailed descriptions may leave out important contextualfactors that influence responses. More detailed descrip-tions may make it less likely that adolescents actuallyexperienced a particular situation or would enact aresponse in a particular way. This manner of presentingthe conflict situation with a paired response also pre-cluded examining processes within the social infor-mation-processing model related to the processing ofenvironmental cues and generation of responses.Further, the interviews did not examine how the outcomeof initial responses might influence subsequent responses.Such efforts may require a less structured format and acombination of methods building on both perceivedresponses and observations of actual behavior. Our

strategy of aggregating barriers and supports acrossinterviews assumes that they will show some degree ofsimilarity across different problem situations andresponses. This is, of course, an empirical question thatwould require a far larger sample in which a wide rangeof situations and responses are presented. This semistruc-tured interview approach also assumes that adolescentshave insight into the factors that influence their behaviorand are willing to share these insights. Although theirvoice is imperative in designing interventions, furtherstudy is needed to corroborate this perspective. We dobelieve that these findings provide a good starting pointfor such an exploration. Finally, given the specific con-text within which this study was conducted, further work,both qualitative and quantitative is needed to explore theextent to which the findings of our study represent theexperiences of subgroups of youth that vary in their riskand protective factor profiles. For example, more struc-tured measures could be developed to assess the extentto which factors identified in our study are relevant tospecific populations of youth.

Implications for Future Research, Policy, and Practice

The findings of this study have important implicationsfor the developers of prevention programs for adoles-cents. Many such programs have been guided byresearch that has examined factors associated with prob-lem behaviors (Catalano et al., 2002). Our study focusedon not only factors associated with violence but alsothose that influence the use of nonviolent behaviors.Participants in this study identified several skills relatedto nonviolent behavior such as emotion regulation andproblem solving that are key emphases of many indi-vidually focused prevention programs (e.g., Grossmanet al., 1997; Lochman, 1992). They also identified bar-riers that must be overcome to promote adolescents’use of nonviolent responses to problem situations. Ado-lescents, particularly those in high-risk settings, facemany challenging situations (Allison et al., 1999; Farrell,Erwin, Allison, et al., 2007). Participants indicated thatmaking many of the nonviolent responses described tothem would be extremely difficult and expressed doubtsabout their ability to make these responses. This sug-gests the need for prevention programs to provide suf-ficient training and practice to enable youth to masterthe ability to use these skills in challenging situations.This should be accompanied by efforts to determine ifintervention participants are actually able to use theseskills effectively in their everyday lives (Farrell &Vulin-Reynolds, 2007). Adolescents must also be willingto use these responses. Participants in our study ident-ified a variety of social beliefs that discourage non-violent responses. Given the strong influence of thesebeliefs on behavior (Huesmann, 1988) interventions

408 FARRELL ET AL.

may have limited impact if they are not able to alterthem. This underscores the need to identify those beliefsmost prevalent within a particular population. Suchbeliefs may be particularly difficult to change at the indi-vidual level and may require more broadly based effortsto promote changes in the social environment (e.g.,Embry, Flannery, Vazsonyi, Powell, & Atha, 1996;Kallestad & Olweus, 2003).

One of the biggest challenges to developers of preven-tion programs that focus on promoting effective nonvio-lent alternatives to fighting is identifying such responsesand promoting their use. Our study underscores the dif-ficulty of such efforts. Nonviolent responses examinedin our study had been identified in a previous study byadolescents from the same schools, and their effectivenesshad been determined by samples of adolescents, com-munity members, and researchers. The types of nonvio-lent responses examined in this study are typical ofthose that are the focus of many prevention programs.They include responses such as talking things out witha peer, walking away from a fight, seeking adult assis-tance, and making use of resources such as peermediation. Many prevention programs promote the useof such responses on the assumption that they will beeffective. Participants in our study questioned thatassumption. One of the most common reasons they gavefor not making a particular response was that it wouldnot work or, more important, would make the situationworse. In contrast, many participants expressed the beliefthat fighting is not only acceptable in certain circum-stances but also appropriate, and in certain cases evennecessary. Such concerns highlight the need for compre-hensive efforts that include components that not onlypromote changes at the individual level but also producechanges in the peer culture and broader social environ-ment that ensure that individual-level changes will besupported (Farrell & Camou, 2006). Such efforts requirea knowledge base that clarifies the outcomes associatedwith the use of specific nonviolent responses within parti-cular environmental contexts and identifies specific fac-tors that may reduce their effectiveness. The methodsemployed in our study provide one model for initial stepsthat might be used to address this important issue.

REFERENCES

Allison, K. A., Burton, L., Marshall, S., Perez-Febles, A., Yarrington, J.,

Kirsh, L. B., et al. (1999). Life experiences among urban adolescents:

Examining the role of context. Child Development, 70, 1017–1029.

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2004). KIDS COUNT Census data

online. Baltimore: Author. Retrieved November 29, 2004, from

http://www.kidscount.org/census/

Attar, B. K., Guerra, N. G., & Tolan, P. H. (1994). Neighborhood dis-

advantage, stressful life events, and adjustment in urban elementary

school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 391–400.

Baumrind, D. (1987). A developmental perspective on adolescent risk

taking in contemporary america. New Directions for Child Develop-

ment, 37, 93–125.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1997). Ecological models of human development.

In M. Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of

children (2nd ed., pp. 37–43). New York: W. H. Freeman.

Brown, L. J. P., Powell, J., & Earls, F. (1989). Stressful life events

and psychiatric symptoms in black adolescent females. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 4, 140.

Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., &

Hawkins, J. D. (2002). Positive youth development in the United

States. Research findings on evaluations of the Positive Youth

Development Programs. Prevention & Treatment, 5, 1–106.

Crane-Ross, D., Tisak, M., & Tisak, J. (1998). Aggression and conven-

tional rule violation among adolescents: Social-reasoning predictors

of social behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 24, 347–365.

Crean, H. F. (2004). Social support, conflict, major life stressors, and

adaptive coping strategies in latino middle school students: An inte-

grative model. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 657–676.

Crick, N. R. & Dodge, K. A. (1989). Children’s perceptions of peer

entry and conflict situations: Social strategies, goals, and outcome

expectations. In B. Schneider, J. Nadel, G. Attili, & R. Weissberg

(Eds.), Social competence in developmental perspective (pp. 396–

399). New York: Kluwer=Plenum.

Crick, N. R. & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of

social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social

adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.

Cunningham, J. N., Kliewer, W., & Garner, P. W. (in press). Emotion

socialization, child emotion understanding and regulation, and

adjustment in urban African American families: Differential

associations across child gender. Development and Psychopathology.

Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Burks, V. S., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S.,

Fontaine, R., et al. (2002). Peer rejection and social information-

processing factors in the development of aggressive behavior pro-

blems in children. Child Development, 74, 374–393.

Dubow, E. F., Edwards, S., & Ippolito, M. F. (1997). Life stressors,

neighborhood disadvantage, and resources: A focus on inner-city

children’s adjustment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26,

130–144.

Embry, D. D., Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Powell, K. E., & Atha, H.

(1996). Peacebuilders: A theoretically driven, school-based model

for early violence prevention. American Journal of Preventive

Medicine, 12(Suppl.), 91–100.

Erdley, C. & Asher, S. (1998). Linkages between children’s beliefs

about the legitimacy of aggression and their behavior. Social Devel-

opment, 7, 321–339.

Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American

Psychologist, 59, 77–92.

Ewart, C. K. & Suchday, S. (2002). Discovering how urban poverty

and violence affect health: Development and validation of a neigh-

borhood stress index. Health Psychology, 21, 254–262.

Farrell, A. D., Ampy, L. A., & Meyer, A. L. (1998). Identification

and assessment of problematic interpersonal situations for urban

adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 293–305.

Farrell, A. D. & Camou, S. (2006). School-based interventions for

youth violence prevention. In J. R. Lutzker (Ed.), Preventing

violence: Research and evidence-based intervention strategies (pp.

125–145). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Farrell, A. D., Erwin, E. H., Allison, K., Meyer, A. L., Sullivan, T. N.,

Camou, S., et al. (2007). Problematic situations in the lives of urban

African American middle school students: A qualitative study.

Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 413–454.

Farrell, A. D., Erwin, E. H., Mays, S., Bettencourt, A., Vulin-

Reynolds, M., & Allison, K. W. (2008). Environmental Influences

on fighting versus nonviolent behavior in Peer situations: A qualitative

PEER NONVIOLENT BEHAVIOR AND FIGHTING 409

study with urban African American adolescents. Manuscript

submitted for publication.

Farrell, A. D., Kliewer, W., Sullivan, T. N., Camou, S., Erwin, E. H., &

Allison, K. (2007). Urban adolescents’ responses to problem situations:

What they would do, think they should do, and think others would do.

Manuscript in preparation, Virginia Commonwealth University.

Farrell, A. D., Sullivan, T. N., Kliewer, W., Allison, K. W., Erwin, E.

H., & Meyer, A. L., et al. (2006). Peer and school problems in the

lives of urban adolescents: Frequency, difficulty, and relation to

adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 169–190.

Farrell, A. D. & Vulin-Reynolds, M. (2007). Violent behavior and the

science of prevention. In D. Flannery, A. Vazonsyi, & I. Waldman

(Eds.), Cambridge handbook of violent behavior (pp. 766–786). New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Goldfried, M. R. & D’Zurilla, T. J. (1969). The behavioral-analytic

method for assessing competence. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Cur-

rent topics in clinical and community psychology (pp. 151–196).

New York: Academic Press.

Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E.,

Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., et al. (2003). Enhancing school-based pre-

vention and youth development through coordinated social, emotion-

al, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466–474.

Grossman, D., Neckerman, H., Koepsell T., Liu, P., Asher, K.,

Beland, K., et al. (1997). Effectiveness of a violence prevention

curriculum among children in elementary school. Journal of the

American Medical Association, 277, 1605–1611.

Hanish, L. D. & Guerra, N. G. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of pat-

terns of adjustment following peer victimization. Development and

Psychopathology, 14, 69–89.

Hawkins, J. D., Herrenkohl, T., Farrington, D., Brewer, D., Catalano, R.,

& Harachi, T. (1998). A review of predictors of youth violence.

In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent

juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp.

106–146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hawkins, J. D., Van Horn, M. L., & Arthur, M. W. (2004). Com-

munity variation in risk and protective factors and substance use

outcomes. Prevention Science, 5, 213–220.

Holmbeck, G. N. (1994). Adolescence. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.),

Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 17–28). Orlando, FL:

Academic.

Huesmann, L. R. (1998). The role of social information processing and

cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of habitual

aggressive behavior. In R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Human

aggression: Theories, research, and implications for social policy (pp.

73–.109). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Huesmann, L. R. & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs

about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 72, 408–419.

Kallestad, J. H. & Olweus, D. (2003). Predicting teachers’ and schools’

implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention program: A mul-

tilevel study. Prevention & Treatment, 6, Article 21. Retrieved

August 31, 2005, from http://www.journals.apa.org/prevention/

volume6/pre0060021a.html

Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. & Skinner, K. (2002). Children’s coping strate-

gies: Moderators of the effects of peer victimization? Developmental

Psychology, 38, 267–278.

Krahn, G. L., Hohn, M. F., & Kime, C. (1995). Incorporating quali-

tative approaches into clinical child research. Journal of Clinical

Child Psychology, 24, 204–213.

Lemerise, E. A. & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of emo-

tion processes and cognition in social information processing. Child

Development, 71, 107–118.

Lerner, R. M. (1995). The place of learning within the human develop-

ment system: A developmental contextual perspective. Human

Development, 38, 361–366.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lipsey, M. W. & Derzon, J. H. (1998). Predictors of violent or serious

delinquency in adolescence and early adulthood: A synthesis of

longitudinal research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.),

Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful

interventions (pp. 86–105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lochman, J. E. (1992). Cognitive-behavioral intervention with aggres-

sive boys: Three-year follow-up and preventive effects. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 426–432.

Ludwig, K. & Pittman, J. (1999). Adolescent prosocial values and self-

efficacy in relation to delinquency, risky sexual behavior, and drug

use. Youth & Society, 30, 461–482.

Meyer, A. L. & Farrell, A. D. (1998). Social skills training to promote

resilience and reduce violence in African American middle school

students. Education and Treatment of Children, 21, 461–488.

Nelson, M. L. & Quintana, S. M. (2005). Qualitative clinical research

with children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and

Adolescent Psychology, 34, 344–356.

Nolan, J. (2004, November 23). City ninth most dangerous. The Rich-

mond Times Dispatch, B3.

Peterson, A. & Hamburg, B. (1986). Adolescence: A developmental

approach to problems and psychopathology. Behavior Therapy,

17, 480–499.

QSR International. (2002). N6. Melbourne, Australia: Author.

Richmond Public Schools. (n.d.). RPS statistics: Free & reduced

lunches 2001–2002. Retrieved July 13, 2006, from http://www.

richmond.k12.va.us/

Seidman, E. & French, S. E. (2004). Developmental trajectories and

ecological transitions: A two-step procedure to aid in the choice of

prevention and promotion interventions. Development and Psycho-

pathology, 16, 1141–1159.

Smith, E. P. & Hasbrouck, L. M. (2006). Preventing youth violence

Among African American Youth: The sociocultural context of

risk and protective factors. In N. Guerra & E. P. Smith (Eds.),

Preventing youth violence in a multicultural society (pp. 169–197).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Steinberg, L. & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual

Review of Psychology, 52, 83–110.

Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research:

Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Youth vio-

lence: A report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: United

States Department of Justice.

Weissberg, R. P., Kumpfer, K. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Pre-

vention that works for children and youth. American Psychologist,

58, 425–432.

Werner, N. & Nixon, C. (2005). Normative beliefs and relational

aggression: An investigation of the cognitive bases of adolescent

aggressive behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 229–243.

APPENDIX

Problem and Response Pairs for Interviews

Effective Nonviolent Responses

Situation: Someone started a rumor about you and otherstudents are keeping it going and making the rumor

410 FARRELL ET AL.

worse. Now, it seems like all the kids are talkingabout you.Response: I would tell my friends to stop spreading therumor.Situation: You told a good friend you were interested ingoing with a girl=boy. You see your friend flirting andtrying to talk with this person like they want to go outwith them.Response: I would confront my friend in a positive way.For example, I’d say I want to be friends and tell myfriend that I don’t want them to flirt with someone Iwant to go with.Situation: You told a friend something private and theytold it to other people. This friend had promised theywould not tell anyone but went behind your back andtold other people.Response: I’d talk to my friend and ask why they broketheir promise not to tell.Situation: Somebody is spreading a rumor about a stu-dent and you got blamed for it. Now you have a bigproblem with this person who thinks you were talkingabout them behind their back.Response: I’d talk it out with the person the rumor wasstarted about and explain I didn’t start it.Situation: Someone is fake with you, sometimes actinglike a friend and sometimes saying mean things aboutyou. You can’t trust them because they change how theyact all the time.Response: I would talk it over with an adult I trust likeone of my parents, a teacher, or my counselor and tellthem what’s going on.Situation: You and a friend are joking and cracking oneach other. You accidentally say something that youdidn’t think would cross the line but your friend getsreally mad at you. You didn’t mean it, you were justjoking around but you crossed the line and now yourfriend wants to fight you for real.Response: I would say I’m sorry for what I said, I didn’tmean it.Situation: Two of your friends are fighting and they tryto put you into the middle of it. You feel pressure fromboth sides because they can’t get along and they eachwant you to take their side.Response: I would get them together so they could talkbut not fight and try to help them solve the problem.Situation: Someone started a rumor about you and otherstudents are keeping it going and making the rumorworse. Now, it seems like all the kids are talking aboutyou.Response: I would go to peer mediation with theperson.

Situation: A friend asks to cheat off a paper you workreally hard on. Their friendship is really important toyou but this was your work and it took you a lot of timeto do.Response: I’d help them with the paper but not let themcopy mine.Situation: You and a friend are joking and cracking oneach other. You accidentally say something that youdidn’t think would cross the line but your friend getsreally mad at you. You didn’t mean it, you were justjoking around but you crossed the line and now yourfriend wants to fight you for real.Response: I’d try to calm my friend down.Situation: You and another kid get into an argument atschool. Other students are there boosting it up saying,‘‘Fight, fight, fight.’’Response: I would say, ‘‘I’m not going to fight.’’Situation: Other students are disrupting class andmaking it hard for you to concentrate and get your workdone.Response: I’d ask the teacher to move me.Situation: Other kids at school tease and pick on you.They call you names and make fun of you.Response: I would tell an adult at school, like the teacheror a principal.Situation: Another kid at school says something that isdisrespectful about your family.Response: I wouldn’t let it bother me, because I’d knowthey were wrong.

Violent Responses

Situation: You and another kid get into an argument atschool. Other students are there boosting it up saying,‘‘Fight, fight, fight.’’Response: I would fight the person.Situation: Someone started a rumor about you and otherstudents are keeping it going and making the rumorworse. Now, it seems like all the kids are talking aboutyou.Response: I would fight the person who started therumor.Situation: You told a good friend you were interested ingoing with a girl=boy. You see your friend flirting andtrying to talk with this person like they want to go outwith them.Response: I would fight my friend.Situation: Other kids at school tease and pick on you.They call you names and make fun of you.Response: I would fight the other kids doing it or sayingit to me.

PEER NONVIOLENT BEHAVIOR AND FIGHTING 411