This article was downloaded by: [ ]On: 09 October 2012, At: 10:22Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Stress, Trauma, and Crisis: AnInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcit20

Trauma and Violent Delinquent Behavioramong Males: The Moderating Role ofSocial SupportTina Maschi aa Monmouth University, West Long Branch, New Jersey, USA

Version of record first published: 25 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Tina Maschi (2006): Trauma and Violent Delinquent Behavior among Males: TheModerating Role of Social Support, Stress, Trauma, and Crisis: An International Journal, 9:1, 45-72

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15434610500506233

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Trauma and Violent DelinquentBehavior among Males: The Moderating

Role of Social Support

TINA MASCHIMonmouth University, West Long Branch, New Jersey, USA

This study investigated the moderating role of social support (i.e.,‘‘having anyone to count on’’) on the relationship between maleyouths’ exposure to violence and other stressful life events and theirviolent behavior. Self-report interviews from a nationally representa-tive sample of male adolescents aged 12 to 17 and their caretakerswere used to assess youths’ lifetime exposure to violence (i.e., beinga victim and=or witness to physically abusive punishment, physicalassault, sexual assault, and witnessing violence), past-year stressfullife events (i.e., the loss of positively valued stimuli and the blockageof positively valued goals), levels of social support, and their violentoffending behavior. Having someone to count on buffered theimpact of being a victim of physical abuse and witnessing violenceon violent offending. Potentially confounding variables, such asage, race=ethnicity, social class, family structure, geographic loca-tion, negative affect, and delinquent peer exposure were controlled.These findings underscore the significant role that social supportmay have on decreasing the likelihood that adolescent males whoexperienced trauma would engage in violent offending. Implicationsfor intervention and suggestions for future research are discussed.

KEYWORDS trauma, delinquency, social support, moderationanalysis

Youth violence is a social problem significantly impacted by gender. Officialstatistics reveal substantial sex differences in which males are not onlythe majority of the perpetrators of violence (84%) but also the victims

Address correspondence to Tina Maschi, PhD, Department of Social Work, MonmouthUniversity, 400 Cedar Avenue, West Long Branch, NJ, 07764. E-mail: tmaschi@monmouth.edu

Stress, Trauma, and Crisis, 9:45�72, 2006Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1543-4613 print/1543-4591 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15434610500506233

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

(70%; Finkelhor & Ormrod, 2000; Snyder, 2000; Snyder & Sickmund, 1999).Over four decades of empirical research has evidenced a pattern, especiallyamong male youth, in which being a victim of differing types of trauma ispositively related to becoming an offender (Falshaw, Browne, & Hollin,1996; Jaffe, Wolfe, Wilson, & Zak, 1986; Lemmon, 1999; Smith & Thornberry,1995; Widom, 1989a; 1989b). For example, male youth who were exposed toviolence, as either victims and=or witnesses to family and=or community viol-ence, were found to be at an elevated risk of engaging in serious delinquency(Jaffe et al., 1986; Lemmon, 1999; Smith & Thornberry, 1995; Widom, 1989a;1989b). Additionally, other less severe types of traumatic or stressful lifeevents, such as parents divorcing, losing a loved one, or being suspendedfrom school, also have been linked to antisocial behavior and violence amongmale youth (Erwin, Newman, McCackin, Morrissey, & Kaloupek, 2000;Hoffman & Cerbone, 1999; Martin, Sigda, & Kupersmidt, 1998).

While a link between differing types of trauma and youth violence hasbeen consistently shown, what is absent from view is a full understanding ofthe moderating factors that can explain why only some traumatized youthengage in violence. Social support is one such protective factor that is arguedto act as a buffer against the negative consequences of trauma, includingdelinquency (Barrera & Li, 1996; Kim & Goto, 2000; Sim, 2000, Tremblay,Hebert, & Piche, 1999; Windle, 1992). Although there has been much theor-etical speculation of the protective role of social support in reducing violentoffending (Agnew, 1985), there is a lack of empirical evidence exploring theimpact of social support on the link between trauma and violent youth beha-vior (Barrera & Li, 1996; Kim & Goto, 2000; Sim, 2000, Tremblay et al., 1999;Windle, 1992).

Because there are differing pathways from trauma to violent offendingamong youth, it is particularly important to examine how a risk factor, suchas trauma, and any moderating factors may influence the relationshipbetween trauma and male violence. Understanding these pathways will assistin identifying those traumatized youth who are most at risk of violence. It willalso help to explain why only some traumatized youth become violent whileothers remain resilient to its adverse effects. These explanations can then beused to inform how prevention and intervention efforts may be designed toimprove health, mental health, and social justice outcomes.

The purpose of the article is to extend the previous research on thetrauma�delinquency link by exploring: 1) the differing impact of minor tosevere stressors (i.e., exposure to violence and stressful life events); and 2)the moderating role of social support (i.e., having anyone to count onthroughout childhood) among adolescent males. It begins with a review ofthe literature investigating the relationship between trauma and delinquencyand the influence of social support on trauma and juvenile delinquency.Directly following, a moderation analysis is conducted exploring the con-ditioning influence of social support between the following subtypes of

46 T. Maschi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

trauma: being a victim of physical abuse, physical assault, and sexual assaultor experiencing the loss of positively valued stimuli or the blockage of posi-tively valued goals. The paper concludes with a discussion of the findingsand their implications for social work practice and research.

BACKGROUND

Trauma

A review of the literature reveals that the research examining the trauma-delinquency can be grouped into four categories (Maschi, in press). Thesecategories are: child maltreatment (Alfaro, 1981; Brezina, 1998; Ireland, Smith,& Thornberry, 2002; Lemmon, 1999; Perez, 2001; Smith & Thornberry, 1995;Zingraff, Leiter, Myers, & Johnsen, 1993), family violence (Jaffe et al., 1986;Kruttschnitt & Dornfeld, 1993), community violence (Martinez & Richters,1993; Rosenthal, 2000), and stressful life events (Agnew & White, 1992;Hoffman & Cerbone, 1999; Hoffman & Su, 1997). What can be drawn fromthe literature is a comprehensive definition of trauma. The types of traumalinked to juvenile delinquency may range from minor to severe stressors thatoccur in childhood or adolescence and can be classified as either exposure toviolence or stressful life events. Exposure to violence represents the moresevere types of trauma and consists of being a victim and=or witness tofamily or community violence (Maschi, in press). These acts that youth aredirectly or indirectly exposed to are: physically abusive punishment, physicalassault, and sexual assault. Stressful life events represent less severe types oftrauma, compared to exposure to violence, and include negative life experi-ences, such as parents divorcing, losing a loved one, and being suspendedfrom school. The impact of stressful life events on youth often is measuredcumulatively over the course of one year (Williams & Uchiyama, 1989).

While both minor to severe types of trauma have been positively linkedto delinquency, there are both risk and protective factors that may exacerbateor ameliorate this link. Social support is an example of a protective factor thatcan decrease the onset of antisocial and violent behavior for youth who haveexperienced traumatic life circumstances (Tremblay et al., 1999).

Social Support

A social support theory of crime views social support as being inversely cor-related to juvenile delinquency (Cullen, Wright, & Chamlin, 1999). Socialsupport can be broadly conceptualized as emotional, instrumental, and=orinformational social support (Vaux, 1988). Emotional social support oftenrefers to ways in which other people provide an expressive and yet untangi-ble kind of help that makes an individual feel loved and cared for. In con-trast, instrumental social support is a tangible type of assistance provided

Trauma and Violent Delinquency 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

by others, often in the form of services, such as transportation or money.Lastly, informational support refers to the help others provide by givingvalued information (Garmezy & Masten, 1994; Vaux, 1988).

According to Brezina (1998), social support is ‘‘critical to the preventionof crime and delinquency because the development of informal controls,prosocial learning, and the ability to minimize and cope with strain dependon its existence’’ (p. 90). According to general strain theory, social support isimportant because it helps to facilitate coping abilities (Agnew, 1992). Thisrole of social support in increasing youths’ coping abilities may serve animportant function in decreasing the negative impact of trauma, includingbeing a victim and=or witness to violence or experiencing stressful lifeevents.

The literature on victims of child maltreatment reveals that social sup-port provided by a significant other, especially an adult, is negatively associa-ted to adverse emotional and behavioral outcomes (Crouch, Milner, &Thomas, 2001; Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993; Kurtz, Gaudin, Howing,& Wodarski, 1993; Tremblay et al., 1999; Wolin & Wolin, 1993). Supportiverelationships from both inside the family (e.g., nonabusive parent, sibling,or extended family members) and outside of the family (e.g., friend of family,teacher, or agency staff) have been found to be a significant factor for resili-ency among youth (Bowlby, 1969, 1973; Garmezy & Rutter, 1983; Hunter &Kilstrom, 1979; Thomlinson, 1997; Wolin & Wolin, 1993). Research also hasfound that the availability of a caring individual in childhood reduces thelikelihood of parents who were child abuse survivors not to repeat this cycleof violence with their own children (Caliso & Milner, 1994; Conte & Sherman,1987; Crouch & Milner, 2001; Crouch et al., 2001; Egeland et al., 1993; Hunter& Kilstrom, 1979; Werner & Smith, 1992; Wolin & Wolin, 1993).

There is a dearth of research about the influence of social support onyouth who were exposed to family violence. However, preliminary resultsseem to suggest that both intrafamilial and extrafamilial sources of social sup-port reduce the negative impact of family violence on youth (Kashani &Allan, 1997; Kinard, 1995; Margolin, 1998; McCloskey, Figueredo, & Koss,1995; Wolak & Finkelhor, 1998; Wolin & Wolin, 1993). For example, a studyby McCloskey et al. (1995) found that a mother’s social support significantlyimproved mental health outcomes for youth who were exposed to violenceat home. Sources of social support outside the family have also been found tonurture resiliency among youth exposed to family violence (Jones, 1997;Kashani & Allan, 1997; Kinard, 1995; Margolin, 1998; Wolak & Finkelhor,1998; Wolin & Wolin, 1993). Wolin and Wolin (1993) found that the presenceof significant others outside the home assisted youth with overcoming theiradverse childhood experiences. External social support from persons such asteachers, mentors, or counselors appears to be an important ingredient inincreasing resiliency and decreasing delinquency in youth (Esposito & Clum,2002; Resnick et al., 1997; Thomlinson, 1997; Wolin & Wolin, 1993).

48 T. Maschi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Although a considerable amount of research has been conducted on theimpact of community violence on the psychological, emotional, and beha-vioral adjustment of youth (Bell & Jenkins, 1993; Cooley-Quille, Turner, &Beidel, 1995; Harden & Koblinsky, 1999; Jenkins & Bell, 1997; Margolin &Gordis, 2000; Martinez & Richters, 1993; Osofsky, 1995), the impact of socialsupport on youth exposed to community violence has been barely explored.Preliminary research suggests that social support exerts a buffering effect onexposure to community violence among youth (Berman, Kurtines, Silver-man, & Serafini, 1996; Gold et al., 2000; Gold, Milan, Mayall, & Johnson,1994; Hill, Levermore, Twaite, & Jones, 1996; Kliewer, Lepore, Oskin, & John-son, 1998; Muller, Goebel-Fabbri, Diamond, & Dinklage, 2000). For example,Muller et al. (2000) examined the influence of social support in a sample of65 adolescent psychiatric inpatients with histories of family or communityviolence. The study found that social support was a protective factor foryouth exposed to family violence but not for youth exposed to communityviolence.

Social support has also been found to buffer the relationship betweenstressful life events and violent delinquency. For example, Aseltine, Gore,and Gordon (2000) examined the moderating effects of personal and socialsupport on life stress, anger, anxiety, and delinquency. The study found thatanger and hostility in response to negative life events had a causal effect onaggressive delinquency (i.e., physically assaultive behavior) but was not sig-nificantly related to non-aggressive delinquency (i.e., stealing) or drug use(Aseltine et al., 2000).

In summary, the trauma literature emphasizes the importance of copingresources and social support in remediating the adverse effects of exposureto violence and other types of stressful life events (Albarracin, Repetto, &Albarracin, 1997; Caliso & Milner, 1994; Esposito & Clum, 2002; Fiering,Taska, & Lewis, 1998; Hiebert-Murphy, 1998; Hill et al., 1996; Jones, 1997;Muller & Lemieux, 2000; Runtz & Schallow, 1997; Tremblay et al., 1999; Werner& Smith, 1992). The support of a significant other, especially during times ofdistress, may help to resolve intense emotional response without youthhaving to resort to delinquency (Cullen & Wright, 1997; Cullen et al., 1999;Esposito & Clum, 2002; Glueck & Glueck, 1950; McCord, 1991; Sampson &Laub, 1993).

Sociodemographic and Contextual Factors

Youths’ exposure to trauma and subsequent delinquent behavior areexpected to be influenced by other individual or environmental factors, suchas age, social class, race=ethnicity, family structure, and geographic location.A youth’s age has been found to influence whether or not he engages indelinquent behavior. An age trend in juvenile delinquency rates that reachesits peak in mid-to-late adolescence, followed by a sharp decline has been

Trauma and Violent Delinquency 49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

shown (Jang, 1999; Krohn, Thornberry, Rivera, & LeBlanc, 2001; Laub &Sampson, 1993; Loeber & LeBlanc, 1990).

The socioeconomic (SES) background of youth has been found to havean inverse relationship both to being a victim of trauma and serious juveniledelinquency. Youth from a low SES background, specifically, those living inpoverty, are more likely to be victimized as well as engage in more seriousacts of delinquency than their higher class counterparts (Brownfield, 1986;Elliot & Ageton, 1980; Entner-Wright, Caspi, Moffitt, Micch, & Silva, 1999;Farnworth, Thornberry, Krohn, & Lizotte, 1994; Messner, Raffalovich, &McMillan, 2001; Tracy, Wolfgang, & Figlio, 1990).

The findings on the relationship between race=ethnicity and juveniledelinquency are mixed (Dorfman & Schiraldi, 2001). Minority youth havebeen shown to have higher frequency and seriousness of offending and thiswas found mainly in official record review studies and to a much lesser extentin self-report studies (Elliot & Ageton, 1980; Huizinga & Elliot, 1987; Lauritsen& Sampson, 1998). However, these variations may be produced by injustice inthe social system, not by any inherent tendency of any particular racial=ethnicyouth group (Hawkins, Laub, Lauritsen, & Cothern, 2000; Hsai & Hamparian,1998). African-American youth and other youth of color may appear to com-mit more delinquent acts because they are more likely to be apprehended bypolice and arrested (Youth Law Center, 2000).

The structure of a youth’s family is linked to juvenile delinquency(Couglin & Vuchinich, 1996; Juby & Farrington, 2001; Videon, 2002; Wells &Rankin, 1986, 1991). Children from ‘‘broken homes,’’ or single parent famil-ies, are also at an increased risk for being victims of family violence andengaging in delinquency compared to than children from intact homes inwhich both parents are present (Heck & Walsh, 2000; Sokol-Katz, Dunham,& Zimmerman, 1997; Thornberry, Smith, Rivera, Huizinga, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1999).

The geographic location in which youth live has been shown to influ-ence trauma victimization and juvenile delinquency (Bursik, 1988; Miller,1966; Shaw & McKay, 1969; Stark, 1987). Urban neighborhood characteris-tics, such as high population density and mobility, low attachment to com-munity, and high crime rates, are positively associated to increasedexposure to violence and juvenile participation in delinquent behavior(Bursik & Grasmick, 1993; Sampson, 1985).

Additionally, negative affect and delinquent peer exposure has beenlinked to both trauma and delinquency. Research has consistently shown thata short and long term response to trauma is negative affect (e.g., anger ordepression), maladaptive prosocial peer relations, or increased involvementwith delinquent peers. Additionally, youth who exhibit high levels of negativeaffect have a greater likelihood of engaging in serious delinquency (Agnew &White, 1992; Elliot & Menard, 1996; Matsueda & Anderson, 1998; Mazerolle& Maahs, 2000; Thornberry, Lizotte, Krohn, Farnworth, & Jang, 1994). While

50 T. Maschi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

social support may ameliorate the consequences of trauma on youth and thusreduce the risk of delinquency, delinquent peer exposure exacerbates thislink (Elliott & Menard, 1996; Matsueda & Anderson, 1998; Mazerolle & Maahs,2000; Thornberry et al., 1994). In fact, adverse life events have been found tohave the greatest effect on delinquency when the youth report having manydelinquent friends (Agnew & White, 1992; Eitle & Turner, 2002; Mazerolle &Maahs, 2000).

Given their potential for confounding the relationship between traumaand delinquency, the aforementioned risk factors (age, social class,race=ethnicity, family structure, geographic location, negative affect, anddelinquent peer exposure) will be included in the analyses as controlvariables.

HYPOTHESES

This article explores the relationships between trauma, social support, andviolent offending by using a nationally representative sample of male adoles-cents. It examines the extent to which social support moderates the relation-ship between trauma and the violent offending among adolescent males. Theanalysis focuses on answering the following questions: Are male youth whoexperience minor to severe types of trauma more likely to engage in violentoffending? Does social support moderate the relationship between traumaand violent offending? Based on a review of the literature it is hypothesizedthat: 1) Male youth who experienced trauma are more likely to engage inviolent offending than male youth who did not experience trauma; 2) Maleyouth who experienced trauma and high levels of social support are lesslikely to engage in violent offending than youth who experience traumaand low levels of social support; and 3) All relationships among variablesfound in hypothesis 1 and 2 will remain significant even after controllingfor the potentially confounding factors of age, race=ethnicity, socioeconomicstatus, family structure, geographic location, negative affect, and delinquentpeer exposure.

METHODS

Sample

The male adolescent sample, aged 12 to 17 (unweighted, N ¼ 2,018 andweighted N ¼ 2,065), was drawn from the 1995 National Survey of Adoles-cents (NSA). The 1995 NSA consists of a nationally representative sampleof 4,023 adolescents aged 12 to 17 of which approximately half are male.The sampling design used was a stratified random sample and the male

Trauma and Violent Delinquency 51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

population consisted of two subsamples, a national probability householdsample (n ¼ 1,599) and a probability oversample (n ¼ 419) from central cityareas in the United States (Kilpatrick & Saunders, 1995). The sample wasdesigned to reflect the general population of adolescents from the 1988 Uni-ted States Census Bureau statistics for geographic location, age, gender, andrace=ethnicity. The mean age of the male adolescents was 14.47 (SD ¼ .17).As shown in Table 1, the majority of the male youth was Caucasian (70%),followed by African American (15%), and Hispanic (8%). Most of the youthresided in two-parent families in non-urban settings.

TABLE 1 Characteristics of the Sample

Variable P N

Age12�14 50.6 104515�17 49.2 1017Unknown 0.2 3Total 100.0 2065

Race=EthnicityWhite 71.0 1466African American 14.2 293Hispanic 7.5 155Native American 3.4 70Asian 1.0 22Other Race 0.8 17Unknown 2.0 42Total 100.0 2065

Family StructureNon-intact 21.2 438Intact 78.6 1623Unknown 0.2 4Total 100.0 2065

Total Family IncomeLess than $20,000 16.1 332$20,000 to $50,000 42.8 884More than $50,000 35.1 725Unknown 6.0 124Total 100.0 2065

Parent=HH Education8th grade or less 2.2 45Some high school ed 7.4 153High school graduate 31.1 643Some college 27.6 570College degree 22.0 455Graduate degree 9.5 197Unknown 0.1 2Total 100.0 2065

Geographic LocationRural 65.0 1342Urban 34.8 719Unknown 0.2 3Total 100.0 2065

52 T. Maschi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Procedures

Self-report information was gathered in 1995 from adolescents and their par-ents=guardians during one-hour, structured telephone interviews. Dependingon the respondent’s preference, a telephone interview was conducted ineither English or Spanish. Permission was obtained first from a parent orguardian to interview the adolescent in the home. The interview was adminis-tered using computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI), which is con-sidered more advanced than standard interviewing for its ability to handlecomplex skip patterns and question ordering. The response rate for the tele-phone interviews was high. Ninety percent of parents=caretakers completedinterviews of which the majority (80%) gave permission for an adolescent inthe home to be interviewed. This resulted in a 75% response rate of adoles-cents from eligible households of which 95% had parental permission and83.2% had a completed parent interview (Kirkpatrick & Saunders, 1995).

Adolescents were asked about their prior experiences of direct andindirect violence, past year stressful life events, delinquent activity, emotional=psychological states, and peer relations. The adolescents’ self-report infor-mation for the variables under investigation was used in the analysis, exceptfor the information on family sociodemographic variables, which were basedon parent=guardian reporting.

Measures

VIOLENT DELINQUENCY

According to official statistics, violent delinquency is one of the mostcommon delinquent activities for which male youth are arrested (Snyder &Sickmund, 1999). The measure used in this study only asked respondentsto remember past year delinquent events, a time frame in which memoryrecall is much more dependable (Williams & Uchiyama, 1989).

To guarantee confidentiality, the survey was structured so that ado-lescent participants only had to respond with a yes or no answer. Therefore,if there were any other persons (such as parents or guardians) in listeningrange, the content of the interview would have remained confidential(Kirkpatrick & Saunders, 1995). This strategy was used to increase thereliability and validity of adolescents’ self-report information for trauma his-tories or illegal behaviors, especially when asked during a home telephoneinterview (Brown, 1999; Farrington, Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, VanKammen, & Schmidt, 1996).

A subscale of NSA’s Juvenile Delinquency Module was used as ameasure of violent delinquency for this study. A self-reporting delinquencymeasure, the subscale has four items: being involved in gang fights, usingforce or strong armed methods to get money or things from people, havingor attempting to have sexual relations with someone against his or her will,

Trauma and Violent Delinquency 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

and attacking someone with the idea of seriously hurting or killing them. Itwas coded as a binary variable (1 ¼ past year violent delinquency, 0 ¼ nopast year violent delinquency). Since each of the scale items was dichot-omous, Cochran chi-square was calculated and found to be significant(p < .01).

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE: TRAUMA

EXPOSURE TO VIOLENCE

The NSA’s 20-item multivictimization scale was used to measure lifetimeexposure to violence for youth aged 12 to 17. Respondents were asked ifthey had experienced any of the four types of differential exposure to viol-ence: physical abuse, physical assault, sexual assault, and witnessing viol-ence. Physical abuse was defined as an act in which a youth receivedphysical punishment from a caretaker, which consisted of spanking (result-ing in bad marks, bruises, cuts, or welts), burning, cutting, or being tiedup. Physical assault was defined as the youth being hit, attacked, or beatup either in the neighborhood, school, or home. Sexual assault included sex-ual acts in which a youth was forced to give or receive fondling, oral sex,and=or anal penetration. Witnessed violence was defined as having observedsomeone being shot, stabbed, sexually assaulted, mugged, robbed, or threa-tened with a weapon. Since each of the scale items was dichotomous, theCochran chi-square was calculated and found to be significant (p < .01) forboth the differential and cumulative scales of exposure to violence.

STRESSFUL LIFE EVENTS

The NSA Stressful Life Events Module was used to measure stressful life eventsduring the previous year. The differential effects of stressful life events weremeasured by two sub-categories, the loss of positively valued stimuli andthe blockage of positively valued goals, which, as described by general straintheory, are the two major categories of stressful life events that are linked tojuvenile delinquency (Agnew, 1985). The loss of positively valued stimuliwas represented by the following 11 items: parents separated or divorced,mother=father lost job, new stepmother or stepfather, death of a family mem-ber or close friend, loss of a close friend, move to a new home, change to anew school, and serious illness or injury of a family member, close friend,or self. Each of the 11 items equaled one point. The sum of points representedthe total loss of positively valued stimuli score for that year. The blockage ofpositively valued goals was measured by the following three items: repeateda school grade, suspended from school, and received at least onefailing grade.Each of the three items equaled one point. The sum of points represented thetotal blockage of positively valued goals score for that year. Since each scaleitem was dichotomous, the Cochran chi-square was calculated and found tobe significant (p < .01) for both subscales of stressful life events.

54 T. Maschi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

MODERATING VARIABLE: SOCIAL SUPPORT

Social support was defined as the presence of ‘‘anyone in childhood thatcould be counted on or depended on when needed.’’ It was operationa-lized by the following two items from the NSA survey: ‘‘Was there anyonein your childhood that you knew you could count on or depend on to bethere when you needed them?’’ and ‘‘Was this true throughout your wholechildhood?’’ These two items were added together to represent the youth’slevel of social support (2 ¼ always true, 1 ¼ sometimes true, 0 ¼ nevertrue). Cronbach’s alpha (.39) was low for this measure making its’ reliabilityquestionable.

CONTROL VARIABLES

The sociodemographic variables: age, socioeconomic status (total familyincome and parental=head of household education), race=ethnicity, familystructure, and geographic location were included as covariates in the modelbecause of their independent impact on trauma and delinquency (Agnew &White, 1992; Brezina, 1998; Brownfield, 1986; Bursik & Grasmick, 1993;Capowich, Mazerolle, & Piquero, 2001; Esposito & Clum, 2002; Heck &Walsh, 2000; Jang, 1999; Krohn, et al., 2001; Piquero & Sealock, 2000;Windle, 1992). Additionally, negative affect and delinquent peer exposurewere also controlled because they have been linked in the literature as med-iating or moderating factors in the link between trauma and delinquency.

Age was measured by the adolescent’s current age (between ages 12and 17) at the time of the interview. Race=Ethnicity was dichotomized intotwo groups based on perceived societal status (1 ¼ minority status;0 ¼ majority status). The ethnic majority group consisted of white=non-Hispanic and the ethnic minority group consisted of African-American,Hispanic, Native-American, and Asian youth. Social Class=SocioeconomicStatus was measured by total family income and parental education. Incomewas a binary variable categorized as above and below the estimated 1995poverty level (1 ¼ $20,000 and above; 0 ¼ under $20,000). ParentalEducation was measured by whether the person designated as the headof household had obtained a high school diploma or GED (1 ¼ yes;0 ¼ no). Family Structure was defined as either a married couple (two-parent biological or adoptive family or step-family) or a non-intact familywhich consisted of parents=caretakers who were separated, living as anunmarried couple, divorced, widowed, or single=never married (1 ¼ intactand 0 ¼ non-intact). Geographic Location consisted of urban (1 ¼ cityand city suburb) or rural (0 ¼ small town or rural) location of the familyresidences.

Negative Affect is represented by anger and depression. The anger vari-able was measured by the following two items: ‘‘Did you ever feel that little

Trauma and Violent Delinquency 55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

things bothered you a lot or could make you angry’’ and ‘‘When was the mostrecent time you felt that way?’’ It was coded as follows: 0 ¼ never angry;1 ¼ angry more than six months ago; 2 ¼ angry within the past 6 months;and 3 ¼ angry within the past month. The alpha coefficient for this measurewas .79.

The Depression variable was measured by the 12-item NSA DepressionModule. This scale is based on the DSM-IV criteria for depression andincludes items such as depressed most of the day for at least two weeks, feltworthless, had trouble=difficulty concentrating, and=or had thoughts of hurt-ing oneself. Each affirmative response was equal to one point with 1 ¼ yesand 0 ¼ no with a total score of 12. This scale consisted of dichotomousitems and the Cochran chi-square was significant (p < .01) for this sample.

Delinquent Peer Exposure was represented by the 13-item NSA Delin-quent Peer Exposure Module and was used to assess the proportion offriends who were reported as engaging in past year delinquency. These actsincluded: acts of theft or burglary, alcohol or drug use, alcohol or drug sales,and=or physical or sexual assault. Youth were first asked if they ever hadfriends who engaged in any of these activities. If the answer was yes, theyouth were asked what proportion of his friends engaged in that type ofactivity. A 5-item Likert scale determined the proportion of delinquent friendswho committed any of these delinquent acts, with responses ranging from4 ¼ all of them to 0 ¼ none of them. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was .88for this sample.

ANALYSIS

Sample Characteristics

The sociodemographic characteristics of the male adolescents in this sampleare shown in Table 1. The mean age of the adolescent sample was 14.57(SD ¼ .17). The majority of the male youth was Caucasian and resided intwo-parent families in non-urban settings. Violent offending (10.6 percent,n ¼ 219) was reported by about 1 out of every 10 adolescent males.

As shown in Table 2, a high prevalence of trauma was found, especiallyamong youth who reported engaging in violent offending in the past year.The adolescents had an average of about two incidents of exposure to vio-lence in their lifetime, as a victim and=or witness to violence (M ¼ 1.94,SD ¼ 1.98). Witnessing violence (76.3%), an indirect type of violence, was themost commonly reported type of exposure to violence. Direct victimizationexperiences also were reported. Male youth who were exposed to violencewere more likely to be a victim of physical assault (21.3%), compared tophysical abuse (8.5%) and sexual assault (5.2%). Past year stressful lifeevents were highly prevalent among the male adolescents. Particularly, situa-tions in which youth experienced some type of loss were more common

56 T. Maschi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

among the group (80.7%) compared to situations in which youth experi-enced goal blockage (51%).

All subtypes of trauma (i.e., being a victim of physical abuse, physicalassault, and sexual assault, witnessing violence, and experiencing the lossof positively valued stimuli, and the blockage of positively valued goals)were more common among the adolescents who reported committing pastyear violence than among those who did not report committing these acts.These differences were statistically significant for all subtypes of traumaamong those who reported engaging in a violent offense (See Table 2).The presence of social support was much more common among the non-violent group (84.5%) compared to the violent group (74.1%) and thisdifference was statistically significant (v2 ¼ 15.91, df ¼ 1, p < .01).

Moderation Analyses

BIVARIATE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE VARIABLES OF CENTRAL INTEREST

The first step of moderation analysis was to conduct an analysis of the bivari-ate relationships among the variables of central interest. As shown in Table 3,although all of the subtypes of trauma were negatively correlated with socialsupport, the bivariate relationships were significant for youth who werevictims of physical abuse (r¼ �.107, p < .01), physical assault (r¼ �.031,p < .01), sexual assault (r¼ �.031, p < .01), or who had experienced theloss of positively valued stimuli (r¼ �.101, p < .01) or blockage of positivelyvalued goals (r¼ �.101, p < .01).

TABLE 2 Prevalence of Trauma, Social Support, and Violent Offending in a RepresentativeSample of Male Adolescents

Total sample Violent subsample Non-violent subsample

Variables % n % n % n

Physical Abuse Victima 8.5 177 25.4 56 6.5 121Physical Assault Victimb 21.3 439 60.7 133 16.6 306Sexual Assault Victimc 5.2 72 13.2 29 2.3 43Witnessed Violenced 76.3 1,575 98.0 215 73.7 1360Loss of Positively Valued Stimulie 80.7 1,665 92.7 203 79.2 1462Loss of Positively Valued Goalsf 51.0 1,053 82.3 180 47.3 873High Social Supportg 83.4 1722 74.1 163 84.5 1559Past Year Violent Offense 10.6 219 100 219 0 0

av2 ¼ 89.56, df ¼ 1, p < .01.bv2 ¼ 227.64, df ¼ 1, p < .01.cv2 ¼ 68.45, df ¼ 1, p < .01.dv2 ¼ 64.79, df ¼ 1, p < .01.ev2 ¼ 22.72, df ¼ 1, p < .01.fv2 ¼ 95.28, df ¼ 1, p < .01.gv2 ¼ 15.91, df ¼ 1, p < .01.

Trauma and Violent Delinquency 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

HIERARCHICAL LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSES

Hierarchical logistic regression analysis was used to examine the role ofsocial support as a moderator. Baron and Kenny (1986) defined a moderatorvariable as a ‘‘qualitative or quantitative variable that affects the directionand=or strength of the relationship between an independent or predictorvariable and a dependent or criterion variable’’ (p. 1174). A variable is saidto moderate another variable if the effects of one variable depend on thelevel of another variable (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003).

The methods used were consistent with the procedures recommendedfor testing moderation (Aiken & West, 1991; Baron & Kenny, 1986; Cleary& Kessler, 1982; Cohen, et al., 2003). Interaction terms were constructedfor trauma and social support. First, social support was dichotomized atits’ median value. This method is the recommended approach for testinginteraction effects (Aiken & West, 1991; Jaccard, Turrisi, & Wan, 1990). Next,hierarchical logistic regression analyses were conducted using violentoffending as the outcome variable. The variables representing trauma werecentered on their mean scores. According to Jaccard et al. (1990), centeringthe variables on the mean reduces multicollinearity between the variablesand their product terms. The following variables were then multiplied to cre-ate their interaction terms. Interaction terms were constructed for (1) Physical

TABLE 3 Correlation Analysis for Variables of Central Interest

Variables PABV PASV SAV WV LPS LPG SS VO

Physical AbuseVictim

1.00 .267 .132 .161 .179 .112 �.107 .174

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000Physical Assault

Victim1.00 .236 .453 .294 .224 �.033 .394

.000 .000 .000 .000 .133 .000Sexual Assault

Victim1.00 .166 .124 .125 �.099 .199

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000Witnessed

Violence1.00 .376 .318 �.012 .412

.000 .000 .574 .000Loss � þStimuli 1.00 .265 �.101 .253

.000 .000 .000Loss � þGoals 1.00 �.101 .279

.000 .000Social Support 1.00 �.093

.000Violent Offending 1.00

Note: Weighted Sample, N ¼ 2,065; Interpretive Code: PABV ¼ Physical Abuse Victim; PASV ¼ Physical

Assault Victim; SA ¼ Sexual Assault Victim; WV ¼ Witnessing Violence; SS ¼ Social Support; VO ¼ Violent

Offending.

58 T. Maschi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Abuse� Social Support; (2) Physical Assault� Social Support; (3) SexualAssault� Social Support; (4) Witnessed Violence� Social Support; (5) Lossof Positively Valued Stimuli� Social Support; and (6) Loss of PositivelyValued Goals� Social Support.

Variables were entered into the equation in three steps. In step one, thecontrol variables (Age, Income, Parental Education, Race=Ethnicity, FamilyStructure, Geographic Location, Anger, Depression, and Delinquent PeerExposure) were entered into the model simultaneously. In step two, the maineffects for the six subtypes of trauma, anger, depression, and social supportwere entered into the equation as a block. In step three, a test of the moder-ating effect of social support was conducted. Each of the two-way interactionterms (Social Support�Physical Abuse; Social Support�Physical Assault;Social Support� Sexual Assault; Social Support�Witnessed Violence; SocialSupport� Loss of Positively Valued Stimuli; and Social Support�Blockage ofPositively Valued Goals) were entered into the model independently. Thepresence of significant interaction terms signified the presence of hypothe-sized moderator effects (Baron & Kenny, 1986; McClelland & Judd, 1993)between variables. Next, significant interactions were calculated by usingthe standard regression equation, DV ¼ b0þb1 (VAR1)þb2 (VAR2)þb3

(VAR1�VAR2), to plot the slopes of the significant interaction effects (Aiken& West, 1991).

Table 4 presents the results of the moderation analysis for the impact ofsocial support on the relationship between trauma and violent delinquency.As shown in Table 4, Model 2, the entry of the main effects variables signifi-cantly improved the fit of the model (v2 ¼ 102.59, p < .01). Among the vari-ables in the model, positive and significant main effects were found for beinga victim of physical assault (b ¼ 0.34, Expb ¼ 1.40, p < .01), witnessing viol-ence (b ¼ 0.39, Expb ¼ 1.49, p < .01), and the loss of positively valued goals(b ¼ 0.36, Expb ¼ 1.43, p < .01), among those who reported engaging inviolent offending. Additionally, social support (b ¼ �0.47, Expb ¼ 0.62,p < .05) exerted a significant negative association.

Two significant interaction effects were found that could explain theboys’ violent offending behavior: Social Support�Physical Abuse andSocial Support�Witnessed Violence (see Table 4). For brevity’s sake, onlysignificant interaction terms were included in Table 4 (see Models 3 and 4).The entry of Social Support�Physical Abuse resulted in a chi-squarechange of 11.23 (p < .01), and revealed a significant improvement of theoverall fit of the model. The interaction effect for Social Support�PhysicalPhysical Abuse was negative and significant (Table 4, Model 3, b¼�1.79,Expb¼0.16, p< .01). In Model 4, the entry of Social Support�WitnessedViolence also showed an improvement of the overall fit of the model(v2¼5.50, p< .01) and witnessing violence (Table 4, Model 4, b¼�3.71,Expb¼1.45, p< .05). The interaction effect for Social Support�WitnessedViolence was negative and significant (Table 4, Model 4, b¼�4.27,

Trauma and Violent Delinquency 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

TA

BL

E4

Sum

mar

yofH

iera

rchic

alLi

near

Regre

ssio

nExam

inin

gth

eIn

tera

ctio

nEffect

sofSo

cial

Support

on

Vio

lentD

elinquency

Mo

del

1M

od

el2

Mo

del

3M

od

el4

bE

xp

bC

I(9

5%

)b

Ex

pb

CI

(95%

)b

Ex

pb

CI

(95%

)b

Ex

pb

CI

(95%

)

Ag

e�

0.0

50

.96

(0.8

5,

1.0

7)

0.0

11

.01

(0.8

9,

1.1

5)

0.0

31

.02

(0.9

1,

1.1

6)

0.0

11

.01

(0.8

9,

1.1

4)

Inco

me

0.4

81

.61

(0.9

6,

2.6

8)

0.6

11

.84

(1.0

6,

3.1

6)

0.6

21

.85�

(1.0

7,

3.2

1)

0.6

11

.85�

(1.0

7,

3.1

9)

Pa

ren

tal

Ed

uca

tio

n�

0.6

30

.53�

(0.3

1,

0.9

1)�

0.4

60

.62

(0.3

6,

1.1

2)�

0.3

70

.69

(0.3

8,

1.2

5)�

0.4

00

.67

(0.3

8,

1.1

9)

Ra

ce=E

thn

icit

y1

.29

3.6

3���

(2.4

9,

5.2

9)

0.8

02

.22���

(1.4

5,

3.4

0)

0.8

52

.33���

(1.5

1,

3.5

9)

0.7

62

.17���

(1.4

2,

3.3

3)

Fa

mil

yS

tru

ctu

re�

0.6

10

.54��

(0.3

6,

0.8

2)�

0.5

00

.61�

(0.3

9,

0.9

4)�

0.5

00

.61

(0.3

9,

0.9

5)�

0.4

90

.61�

(0.3

9,

0.9

5)

Geo

.L

oca

tio

n0

.06

1.0

6(0

.73

,1

.53

)0

.17

1.1

9(0

.79

,1

.77

)0

.13

1.1

4(0

.76

,1

.71

)0

.16

1.1

8(0

.79

,1

.76

)A

ng

er0

.29

1.3

4���

(1.1

5,

1.5

6)

0.2

51

.28��

(1.0

8,

1.5

1)

0.2

71

.30��

(1.1

1,

1.5

4)

0.2

51

.28��

(1.0

8,

1.5

1)

Dep

ress

ion

0.0

71

.08�

(1.0

1,

1.1

5)

0.0

11

.01

(0.9

3,

1.0

8)

0.0

11

.01

(0.9

3,

1.0

9)

0.0

11

.01

(0.9

3,

1.0

9)

Del

inq

uen

tP

eers

0.1

61

.17���

(1.1

4,

1.2

0)

0.1

11

.12���

(1.0

8,

1.1

4)

0.1

11

.17���

(1.0

9,

1.1

5)

0.1

11

.12���

(1.0

9,

1.1

5)

Ph

ysi

cal

Ab

use

0.4

11

.51

(0.9

4,

2.4

2)

1.7

05

.49���

(2.2

6,

13

.37

)0

.43

1.5

4(0

.96

,2

.46

)P

hy

sica

lA

ssa

ult

0.3

41

.40���

(1.1

6,

1.6

9)

0.3

71

.45���

(1.2

0,

1.7

5)

0.3

41

.40���

(1.1

6,

1.7

0)

Sex

ua

lA

ssa

ult

0.1

71

.19

(0.8

,1

.59

)0

.13

1.1

3(0

.82

,1

.57

)0

.20

1.2

2(0

.91

,1

.64

)W

itn

esse

dV

iole

nce

0.3

91

.49���

(1.2

5,

1.7

5)

0.3

91

.47���

(1.2

4,

1.7

5)

0.1

11

.12

(0.8

3,

1.5

1)

Lo

sso

fþ

Sti

mu

li0

.09

1.0

9(0

.97

,1

.21

)0

.08

1.0

8(0

.96

,1

.21

)0

.08

1.0

8(0

.97

,1

.21

)L

oss

ofþ

Go

als

0.3

61

.43��

(1.1

4,

1.8

1)

0.3

51

.40��

(1.1

1,

1.7

7)

0.3

61

.43��

(1.1

4,

1.8

0)

So

cia

lS

up

po

rt(S

S)

�0

.47

0.6

2�

(0.3

0,

1.0

0)�1

.73

0.8

4(0

.48

,1

.45

)�

0.7

70

.46��

(0.2

8,

0.7

9)

SS� P

hy

sica

lA

bu

se�1

.79

0.1

6���

(0.0

5,

0.4

8)

SS� W

itn

ess

Vio

len

ce�

0.3

71

.45�

(1.0

4,

2.0

3)

Co

nst

an

t�3

.23

0.0

4���

�4.8

80

.01���

�5.5

8.0

04���

�4.2

7.0

14���

Init

ial

-2L

L1

26

1.6

48

70

.62

76

8.0

47

68

.04

En

din

g-2

LL

87

0.6

27

68

.04

75

6.8

07

63

.51

Ch

i-S

qu

are

39

1.0

11

02

.59

11

.23

5.5

0S

ign

ific

an

ce.0

00

.00

0.0

01

.00

0

Note

:O

nly

signific

antin

tera

ctio

nte

rms

(Soci

alSu

pport�

Physi

calAbuse

and

Soci

alSu

pport�

Witness

ing

Vio

lence

)w

ere

incl

uded

inth

ista

ble

.� p<

.05,��

p<

.01,��� p<

.001.

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Expb¼ .014, p< .01). As Figure 1 illustrates, boys who were victims ofphysical abuse were protected from engaging in violent offending by thepresence of social support in their childhood. In contrast, boys who werevictims of physical abuse were at risk of violent offending when socialsupport was low. Similarly, as Figure 2 illustrates, social support exerts aprotective influence against violent delinquency for youth who havewitnessed violence.

In conclusion, the results of the analyses are as follows: social supportexerted some influence on the relationship between being a victim of physi-cal abuse and violent offending and witnessing violence and violent offend-ing. However, with a low reliability coefficient and low coefficients ofdetermination (less than 1% of the variance in social support), it can notbe concluded with confidence that social support in the form of having ‘‘any-one to count on’’ exerted a significant moderating effect on the relationshipbetween trauma and violent offending.

FIGURE 1 The interaction effect of social support�physical abuse on violent offending.(Plot for the interaction effect of social support�physical on the predicted log odds for vio-lent delinquency (Table 4, Model 3)).

Trauma and Violent Delinquency 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

DISCUSSION

This investigation explored whether there is a link between differing typesof trauma and violent delinquency and to the extent to which this relation-ship would be tempered by social support. Results indicated a high preva-lence of minor to severe stressors that disproportionately impact youth whoengage in violence compared to youth who do not engage in violence.Having a high level of social support showed statistically significant differ-ences between violent and nonviolent youth. Social support in the formof ‘having anybody to count on or depend on when needed’ exerted asignificant effect on physical abuse victimization and witnessing violence.Male youth who had experienced physical abuse or witnessed violencewere found to be at a much lower risk of violent offending when reportinga high level of social support. These findings are consistent with the priorliterature in which it was shown that supportive relationships from indivi-duals inside or outside of the family were found to significantly increaseresiliency among youth (e.g., Crouch et al., 2001; Egeland et al., 1993;Hunter & Kilstrom, 1979; Thomlinson, 1997).

These findings suggest to target interventions in schools, social service,and juvenile justice settings to assist youth with the processing of stressfullife events. Interventions should include comprehensive trauma assessment

FIGURE 2 The interaction effect of social support�witnessing violence on violent offend-ing. (Plot for the interaction effect of social support�witnessing violence on the predicted logodds for violent delinquency (Table 4, Model 3)).

62 T. Maschi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

for both minor to severe stressors. Currently, child maltreatment (physicaland sexual abuse and neglect) is the only type of trauma that is mandatedto be reported and subsequently may be treated. Other types of trauma,such as parents divorcing or losing a loved one, are often unidentified,or if identified, left untreated. These results also suggest that for an inter-vention to be most effective, youth need to feel that they can consistentlycount on or depend on supportive others. Staff and services, in the form ofreadily available counselors and=or 24-hour crisis hotlines, would need tobe addressed.

The importance of social support for traumatized and delinquent youthis a particularly important finding to the field of counseling psychology andsocial work, which are two helping professions dedicated to providing theperson or place in which ‘‘anyone to count on whenever needed.’’ Of thevarious roles that counselors and social workers assume, the role of mentoris particularly important in lieu of these findings. Mentoring often consists ofa ‘‘one-on-one relationship between a pair of unrelated individuals, oneadult and one juvenile, which takes place on a regular basis over anextended period of time’’ (Grossman & Garry, 1997, p. 2). This type ofrelationship allows youth someone to count on or depend on. Mentoringprograms have been found to improve prevention or treatment outcomesfor traumatized youth (Blechman, 1992; Grossman & Garry, 1997; Keating,Tomishima, Foster, & Alessandri, 2002; OJJDP, 1998). Studies have shownthat youth who participate in mentoring programs compared to youth whodo not are less likely to engage in antisocial activities, such as substanceuse and violence as well as increase their academic performance (Grossman& Garry, 1997).

In summary, this investigation explored the moderating influence ofsocial support on the relationship between trauma and delinquency by usinga comprehensive measure of trauma, while controlling for potential con-founding factors. It was shown that social support moderated the relation-ship between being a victim of physical abuse and=or witness to violenceand violent offending. Therefore, mental health, social service, and criminaljustice professionals must recognize and address the differing types of traumathat impact youth as well as the important support functions that adults bothin and out of the family serve for youth. While some of these negative lifeevents may be unavoidable in the lives of youth, increasing the level of socialsupport may be an important avenue for prevention and intervention effortsgeared towards at-risk youth.

Study Limitations and Implications for Future Research

Several limitations of the research design warrant discussion. First, althoughself-report studies are generally considered more reliable than official reportsfor capturing undetected cases of trauma and delinquency, they are also

Trauma and Violent Delinquency 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

subject to recall bias, error, or validity issues (Brown, 1999; Finkelhor et al.,1990). The validity of adolescent self-reports over stigmatizing behaviors,such as delinquency, is questionable, and especially with informationgathered during telephone interviews (Huizinga & Elliot, 1986). Second,despite the successful telephone response rate among study participants,there were groups of youth missing from the sample. Omitted from thesample were youth in: 1) psychiatric or juvenile justice settings; 2) house-holds where the parent=guardian was unavailable to grant permission fortheir child to be interviewed; 3) households where parents=guardiansrefused to give permission for their child to be interviewed; 4) householdsin which parents=guardians did give permission and the youth refused orwas unavailable for an interview; and 5) one of the 5% of United Stateshouseholds without telephones in 1995 (Kilpatrick & Saunders, 1995).The exclusion of these youth from the sample limits the generalizability toparticular groups of youth results and may influence these research findings.For instance, the 5% of households without telephones might be mostreflective of lower-income families that were not included in the sample.Therefore, at best, this sample reflects only those youth and parents whowere reachable, available, and agreeable to telephone survey interviews.Additionally, the majority of the sample were Caucasian, thus limitingits reliability to males in other racial=ethnic groups. Third, is the lowinternal consistency of the measure of social support, restricting its reliabilityand validity. Fourth, another limitation concerns the temporal sequencingof the variables and the establishment of causality. Evidence for a causalpathway between trauma and delinquency was based on a cross-sectional,retrospective design; therefore, any interpretations of the data shouldbe regarded as inconclusive. Despite these limitations, the significantassociations found between trauma and delinquency warrant futurelongitudinal investigations into a causal pathway model linking traumaand delinquency.

In conclusion, this investigation found a link between differing typesof trauma and violent delinquent behavior among male youth. Social sup-port (i.e., ‘‘anyone to count on whenever needed’’) was found to explainpart of the moderating influence that links trauma to adolescent male viol-ence. More research is needed to identify all of the factors that ameliorateor exacerbate the link between trauma and youth violence. Future studiesthat would help to achieve this goal would (a) use a comprehensive mea-sure of trauma and be longitudinal so that we could be more confident thatthe relationships are causal and not just correlational; and (b) be bothquantitative and qualitative, so we would not only have the robust findingsof quantitative research but also the thick description found in qualitativeresearch. These studies would also be theory-driven and include a compre-hensive measure of social support in order to inform best practices andsound policies.

64 T. Maschi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

REFERENCES

Agnew, R. (1985). A revised theory of strain theory of delinquency. Social Forces, 64,151�167.

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency.Criminology, 30, 47�87.

Agnew, R. & White, H. R. (1992). An empirical test of general strain theory. Crimi-nology, 30, 475�499.

Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpretinginteractions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Albarracin, D., Repetto, M. J., & Albarracin, M. (1997). Social support in child abuseand neglect: Support functions, sources, and contexts. Child Abuse and Neglect,21(7), 607�627.

Alfaro, J. D. (1981). Report on the relationship between child abuse and neglect andlater socially deviant behavior. In R. J. Hunner & Y. E. Walker (Eds.), Exploringthe relationship between child abuse and delinquency (pp. 175�219).Montclair, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun & Co.

Aseltine, R. H., Gore, S., & Gordon, J. (2000). Life stress, anger and anxiety, anddelinquency: An empirical test of general strain theory. Journal of Health andSocial Behavior, 41, 256�275.

Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction insocial psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considera-tions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173�1182.

Barrera, M. & Li, S. A. (1996). The relation of family support to adolescents’ psycho-logical distress and behavior problems. In G. R. Pierce, B. R.. Sarason, & I. G.Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of social support and the family (pp. 313�344).New York: Plenum Press.

Bell, C. C. & Jenkins, E. J. (1993). Community violence and children on Chicago’ssouth side. Psychiatry, 56, 46�54.

Berman, S. L., Kurtines, W. M., Silverman, W. K., & Serafini, L. T. (1996). The impactof exposure to crime and violence on urban youth. American Journal ofOrthopsychiatry, 66, 329�336.

Blechman, E. A. (1992). Mentors for high-risk minority youth: From effective com-munication to bicultural competence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,21(2), 160�169.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment (Vol. 1). New York: BasicBooks.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation, anxiety, and anger (Vol. 2).New York: Basic Books.

Brezina, T. (1998). Adolescentmaltreatment and delinquency: The questionof interven-ing processes. The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 71�99.

Brown, R. A. (1999). Assessing attitudes and behaviors of high-risk adolescents: Anevaluation of the self-report method. Adolescence, 34, 25�32.

Brownfield, D. (1986). Social class and violent behavior. Criminology, 24, 421�438.Bursik, R. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency.

Criminology, 26, 519�551.

Trauma and Violent Delinquency 65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Caliso, J. A. & Milner, J. S. (1994). Childhood physical abuse, childhood social sup-port, and adult child abuse potential. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9,27�44.

Capowich, G. E., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (2001). General strain theory, situa-tional anger, and social networks: An assessment of conditioning influences.Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 445�461.

Cleary, P. D. & Kessler, R. C. (1982). The estimation and interpretation of modifiereffects. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 23, 159�169.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression=correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Conte, J. & Sherman, J. (1987). Factors associated with an increased impact of childsexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 11, 201�211.

Cooley-Quille, M. R., Turner, S. M., & Beidel, D. C. (1995). Emotional impact ofchildren’s exposure to community violence: A preliminary study. Journal ofthe American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 1362�1367.

Coughlin, C. & Vuchinich, S. (1996). Family experience in preadolescence and thedevelopment of male delinquency. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58,491�501.

Crouch, J. L. & Milner, J. S. (2001). Child physical abuse, early social support, andrisk for maltreatment: Current social support as a mediator of risk for childphysical abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25(1), 93�108.

Crouch, J. L., Milner, J. S., & Thomas, C. (2001). Childhood physical abuse, earlysocial support, and risk for maltreatment: Current social support as mediatorsof consequences in child sexual abuse victims. Child Abuse and Neglect,23(9), 929�935.

Cullen, F. T. & Wright, J. P. (1997). Liberating the anomie-strain paradigm: Implica-tions from social support theory. In N. Passas & R. Agnew (Eds.), The future ofanomie theory (pp. 187�206). Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Cullen, F. T., Wright, J. P., & Chamlin, M. B. (1999). Social support and social reform:A progressive crime control agenda. Crime and Delinquency, 45(2), 188�207.

Dorfman, L. & Schiraldi, V. (2001). Off balance: Youth, race and crime and thenews. Available at http:==www.buildingblocksforyouth.org=media=media.html(Retrieved September 1, 2001)

Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience and process. Developmentand Psychopathology, 5, 517�528.

Eitle, D. & Turner, R. J. (2002). Exposure to community violence and young adultcrime: The effects of witnessing violence, traumatic victimization, and otherstressful life events. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 39(2),214�238.

Elliot, D. S. & Ageton, S. S. (1980). Reconciling race and class differences in self-reported and official estimates of delinquency. American Sociological Review,45, 95�110.

Elliot, D. S. & Menard, S. (1996). Delinquent friends & delinquent behavior: Tem-poral and developmental patterns. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency andcrime: Current theories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

66 T. Maschi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Entner-Wright, B. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Micch, R. A., & Silva, P. A. (1999).Reconsidering the relationship between SES and delinquency: Causation butnot correlation. Criminology, 37, 175�194.

Erwin, B. A., Newman, E., McMackin, R. A., Morrissey, C., & Kaloupek, D. G. (2000).PTSD, malevolent environment, and criminality among criminally involvedmale adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 196�215.

Esposito, C. L. & Clum, G. A. (2002). Social support and problem solving as modera-tors of the relationship between childhood abuse and suicidality applications toa delinquent population. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15(2), 137�146.

Falshaw, L., Browne, K. D., & Hollin, C. R. (1996). Victim to offender: A review.Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 389�404.

Farnworth, M., Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., & Lizotte, A. J. (1994). Measurementin the study of class and delinquency: Integrating theory and research. Journalof Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31, 32�61.

Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Van Kammen, W. B., &Schmidt, L. (1996). Self-reported delinquency and a combined delinquencyseriousness scale based on boys, mothers, and teachers: Concurrent and predic-tive validity for African-Americans and Caucasians. Criminology, 34, 493�517.

Fiering, C., Taska, S., & Lewis, M. (1998). Social support and children’s and adoles-cent’s adaption to sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(2),240�261.

Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., Lewis, I. A., & Smith, C. (1990). Sexual abuse in anational survey of adult men and women: Prevalence, characteristics, and riskfactors. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14, 19�28.

Garmezy, N. & Rutter, M. (Eds.). (1983). Stress, coping, and development in children.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gold, P. B., Engdahl, B. E., Eberly, R. E. Blake, R. J., Page, W. F., & Frueh, B. C.(2000). Trauma exposure, resilience, social support, and PTSD construct validityamong former prisoners of war. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemio-logy, 35(17), 36�42.

Gold, S., Milan, L., Mayall, A., & Johnson, A. (1994). A cross-validation study of theTrauma symptom checklist: The role of mediating variables. Journal of Interper-sonal Violence, 9, 12�26.

Grossman, J. B. & Garry, E. M. (1997, April). Mentoring—a proven delinquencyprevention strategy. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Deliquency Prevention.

Harden, B. J. & Koblinsky, S. A. (1999). Double exposure: Children affected by fam-ily and community violence. In R. L. Hampton (Ed.), Family violence: Preven-tion and treatment (2nd ed; pp. 66�102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hawkins, D. F., Laub, J. H., Lauritsen, J. L., & Cothern, L. (2000, June). Race, eth-nicity, and serious and violent juvenile offending. Juvenile Justice Bulletin.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Heck, C. & Walsh, A. (2000). The effects of maltreatment and family structure onminor and serious delinquency. International Journal of Offender Therapyand Comparative Criminology, 44, 178�193.

Trauma and Violent Delinquency 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Hiebert-Murphy, D. (1998). Emotional distress among mothers whose children havebeen sexually abused: The role of a history of child sexual abuse, social sup-port, and coping. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22(5), 423�444.

Hill, H. M., Levermore, M., Twaite, J., & Jones, L. P. (1996). Exposure to communityviolence and social support as predictors of anxiety and social and emotionalbehavior among African American children. Journal of Child and FamilyStudies, 5, 399�424.

Hoffman, J. P. & Cerbone, F. G. (1999). Stressful life events and delinquency escala-tion in early adolescence. Criminology, 37, 343�373.

Hoffman, J. P. & Su, S. (1997). The conditional effects of stress on delinquency anddrug use: A strain theory assessment of sex differences. The Journal of Researchin Crime and Delinquency, 34, 46�78.

Hsai, H. M. & Hamparian, D. (1998, September). Disproportionate minority confine-ment: 1997 update. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Huizinga, D. & Elliot, D. S. (1986). Reassessing the reliability and validity of self-report delinquency measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2, 293�327.

Huizinga, D. & Elliot, D. S. (1987). Juvenile offenders: Prevalence, offender inci-dence, and arrest rates by race. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 206�223.

Hunter, R. S. & Kilstrom, N. (1979). Breaking the cycle in abusive families. AmericanJournal of Psychiatry, 136, 1320�1322.

Ireland, T. O., Smith, C. A., & Thornberry, T. P. (2002). Developmental issues in theimpact of child maltreatment on later delinquency and drug use. Criminology,40(2), 359�392.

Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D., Wilson, S., & Zak, I. (1986). Similarities in behavioral and socialmaladjustment among child victims and witnesses to family violence. AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry, 56, 142�146.

Jang, S. J. (1999). Age-varying effects of family, school, and peers on delinquency:A multilevel modeling test of interactional theory. Criminology, 37, 643�685.

Jenkins, E. V. & Bell, C. C. (1997). Exposure to response to community violenceamong children and adolescents. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Children in a violentsociety (pp. 9�31). New York: Guilford.

Jones, D. P. (1997). Social support and coping strategies as mediators of the effects ofchild abuse and neglect. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21, 207�209.

Juby, H. & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Disentangling the link between disrupted fam-ilies and delinquency. British Journal of Criminology, 41(1), 22�41.

Kashani, J. H. & Allan, W. D. (1997). The impact of family violence on children andadolescents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Keating, L. M., Tomishima, M. A., Foster, S., & Alessandri, M. (2002). The effects of amentoring program on at-risk youth. Adolescence, 37(148), 717�734.

Kilpatrick, D. G. & Saunders, B. E. (1995). National survey of adolescents in theUnited States, 1995. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. (ICSPR 2833).

68 T. Maschi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Kim, T. E. & Goto, S. G. (2000). Peer delinquency and parental social support aspredictors of Asian American adolescent delinquency. Deviant Behavior: AnInterdisciplinary Journal, 21, 331�347.

Kinard, E. M. (1995). Perceived social support and competence in abused children: Alongitudinal perspective. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 73�98.

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

Krohn, M. D., Thornberry, T. P., Rivera, C., & LeBlanc, M. (2001). Later delinquencycareers. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Child delinquents: Development,intervention, and service needs (pp. 67�94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kruttschnitt, C. & Dornfeld, M. (1993). Exposure to family violence: A partial expla-nation for initial and subsequent levels of delinquency. Criminal Behavior andMental Health, 3, 61�75.

Kurtz, P. D., Gaudin, J. M., Howing, P. T., & Wodarski, J. S. (1993). The con-sequences of physical abuse and neglect on the school age child: Mediatingfactors. Children and Youth and Services Review, 15, 85�104.

Laub, J. H. & Sampson, R. J. (1993). Turning points in the life course: Why changematters to the study of crime. Criminology, 3, 301�325.

Lauritsen, J. L. & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Minorities, crime, and criminal justice. InMichael Tonry (Ed.), The handbook of crime and delinquency (pp. 58�84).New York: Oxford University Press.

Lemmon, J. H. (1999). How child maltreatment affects dimensions of juvenile delin-quency in a cohort of low-income urban youths. Justice Quarterly, 16, 357�376.

Loeber, R. & Le Blanc, M. (1990). Toward a developmental criminology. In M. Tonry,& N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 12, pp.375�473). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Margolin, G. (1998). Effects of domestic violence on children. In P. K. Trickett & C. J.Schellenbach (Eds.), Violence against children in the family and the com-munity (pp. 57�102). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Margolin, G. & Gordis, E. B. (2000). The effects of family and community violence onchildren. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 445�479.

Martin, S. L., Sigda, K. B., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1998). Family and neighborhood viol-ence: Predictors of depressive symptomatology among incarcerated youth. ThePrison Journal, 78, 423�438.

Martinez, P. & Richters, J. E. (1993). The NIMH Community Violence Project: II.Children’s distress symptoms associated with violence exposure. Psychiatry,56, 22�35.

Maschi, T. (in press). Unraveling the link between trauma and delinquency: Thecumulative versus differential risk perspectives. Social Work.

Matsueda, R. L. & Anderson, K. (1998). The dynamics of delinquent peers and delin-quent behavior. Criminology, 36(2), 269�299.

Mazerolle, P. & Maahs, J. (2000). General strain and delinquency: An alternativeexamination of conditioning influences. Justice Quarterly, 17, 753�773.

McClelland, G. H. & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactionsand moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376�390.

Trauma and Violent Delinquency 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

McCloskey, L. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Koss, M. P. (1995). The effects of systemic fam-ily violence on children’s mental health. Child Development, 66, 1230�1261.

Messner, S. F., Raffalovich, L. E., & McMillan, R. (2001). Economic deprivation andchanges in homicide arrest rates for white and black youth, 1967�1998.Criminology, 39(30), 591�615.

Miller, W. B. (1966). Violent crimes in city gangs. Annals of American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science, 364, 96�112.

Muller, R. T. & Lemieux, K. E. (2000). Social support, attachment, and psychopatho-logy in high risk formerly maltreated adults. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(7),883�900.

Muller, R. T., Goebel-Fabbri, A. E., Diamond, T., & Dinklage, D. (2000). Social sup-port and the relationship between family and community violence exposureand psychopathology among high-risk adolescents. Child Abuse and Neglect,24(4), 449�464.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). (1998, December).1998 Report to Congress: Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP). Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

OJJDP (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention). (1998, December).1998 Report to Congress: Juvenile mentoring program (JUMP). Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

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

Perez, D. M. (2001). Ethnic differences in property, violent, and sex offending forabused and nonabused adolescents. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 407�417.

Piquero, N. L. & Sealock, M. D. (2000). Generalizing strain theory: An examination ofan offending population. Justice Quarterly, 17, 449�484.

Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J.,Tabor, J., Beurhing, T., Sieving, R. E., Shew, M., Ireland, M., & Bearinger, L. H.(1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the national longitudi-nal study on adolescent health. JAMA, 278, 823�832.

Rosenthal, B. S. (2000). Exposure to community violence in adolescence: Traumasymptoms. Adolescence, 35, 271�284.

Runtz, M. G. & Schallow, J. R. (1997). Social support and coping strategies as med-iators of adult adjustment following childhood maltreatment. Child Abuse andNeglect, 21, 211�226.

Sampson, R. J. (1985). Neighborhood and crime: The structural determinants of per-sonal victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 7�40.

Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turningpoints through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Shaw, C. R. & McKay, H. D. (1969). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Sim, H. (2000). Relationship of daily hassles and social support to depression andantisocial behavior among early adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,29(6), 647�659.

70 T. Maschi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Smith, C. & Thornberry, T. P. (1995). The relationship between childhood maltreat-ment and adolescent involvement in delinquency. Criminology, 33, 451�461.

Snyder, H. N. (2000). Juvenile arrests 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Snyder, H. N. & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 nationalreport. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Sokol-Katz, J., Dunham, R., & Zimmerman, R. (1997). Family structure versus par-ental attachment in controlling adolescent deviant behavior: A social controlmodel. Criminology, 125, 199�215.

Stark, R. (1987). Deviant Places: A theory of ecology of crime. Criminology, 25,893�909.

Thomlinson, B. (1997). Risk and protective factors in child maltreatment. In M. W.Fraser (Ed.), Risk and resilience in childhood (pp. 50�72). Washington, DC:NASW Press.

Thornberry, T. P., Smith, C. A., Rivera, C., Huizinga, D., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M.(1999, September). Family disruption and delinquency. Juvenile Justice Bulletin.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Tracy, P. E., Wolfgang, M. E., & Figlio, R. M. (1990). Delinquency careers in two birthcohorts. New York: Plenum.

Tremblay, C., Hebert, M., & Piche, C. (1999). Coping strategies and social support asmediators of consequences in child sexual abuse victims. Child Abuse andNeglect, 23(9), 929�945.

Vaux, A. (1988). Social support: Theory, research, and intervention. New York:Praeger.

Videon, T. M. (2002). The effects of parent-adolescent relationships and parentalseparation on adolescent well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64,489�503.

Wells, E. & Rankin, J. (1986). The broken homes model of delinquency: Analyticissues. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23(1), 68�105.

Wells, E. & Rankin, J. (1991). Families and delinquency: A meta-analysis of theimpact of broken homes. Social Problems, 38, 71�90.

Werner, E. E. & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children frombirth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Widom, C. (1989a). Child abuse, neglect, and violent criminal behavior. Crimi-nology, 27, 251�271.

Widom, C. (1989b). Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of theliterature. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 3�28.

Williams, C. L. & Uchiyama, C. (1989). Assessment of life events during adolescence.The use of self-report inventories. Adolescence, 24, 95�118.

Windle, M. (1992). Temperament and social support in adolescence: Interrelationswith depressive symptoms and delinquent behaviors. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 21(1), 1�21.

Wolak, J. & Finkelhor, D. (1998). Children exposed to partner violence. In J. L.Jasinski & L. Williams (Eds.), Partner violence: A comprehensive review of 20years of research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Trauma and Violent Delinquency 71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012

Wolin, S. J. & Wolin, S. (1993). The resilient self: How survivors of troubled familiesrise above adversity. New York: Random House.

Youth Law Center. (2000). Building blocks for youth: And justice for some. Availableat http:==www.buildingblocksforyouth.org (Retrieved September 1, 2001)

Zingraff, M. T., Leiter, J., Myers, K. A., & Johnsen, M. C. (1993). Child maltreatmentand youthful problem behavior. Criminology, 31, 173�202.

72 T. Maschi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] a

t 10:

22 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

012