Pathways to aggression and violence among African American adolescent males: the influence of normative beliefs, neighborhood, and depressive symptomatology.
ABSTRACT Youth violence continues to present a serious public health challenge in the United States, particularly so for African American adolescent males. The present study utilized a multilevel approach to predict aggression within a community sample of low-income, urban African American adolescent males (n = 80). Participants' self-report data on normative beliefs about aggression, exposure to community violence, and depressive symptoms were used in multiple regression equations to predict (a) self-reported interpersonal aggression and (b) self-reported aggressive response style when angered. Results of this study indicate that all three of the independent variables contributed significantly to the prediction of interpersonal aggression and aggressive response style when angered. The findings are important for increasing our understanding of pathways to various types of youth aggression and guiding the development of evidence-based approaches to violence prevention among African American adolescent males.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study examined the relationships between personality and aggression using the general aggression (GAM, Anderson and Bushman  Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51) and five factor models (FFMs) (Costa and McCrae  Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources). Specifically, it examined Ferguson and Dyck's (Ferguson and Dyck  Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 220-228) criticisms that the GAM has questionable validity in clinical populations and disproportionately focuses on aggression-related knowledge structures to the detriment of other inputs, specifically personality variables. Fifty-five male offenders attending a community forensic mental health service for pre-sentence psychiatric and/or psychological evaluation were assessed for aggressive script rehearsal, aggression-supportive normative beliefs, FFM personality traits, trait anger and past aggressive behavior. With regard to relationships between five factor variables and aggression, results suggested that only agreeableness and conscientiousness were related to aggression. However, these relationships were: (1) weak in comparison with those between script rehearsal, normative beliefs and trait anger with aggression and (2) were not significant predictors in hierarchical regression analysis when all of the significant univariate predictors, including GAM-specified variables were regressed onto life history of aggression; normative beliefs supporting aggression, aggressive script rehearsal, and trait anger were significantly related to aggression in this regression analysis. These results provide further support for the application of the GAM to aggressive populations. Aggr. Behav. 40:189-196, 2014. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Aggressive Behavior 03/2014; 40(2):189-96. DOI:10.1002/ab.21510 · 2.27 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite focused efforts toward the prevention of youth violence within the United States, it continues to adversely affect the lives of children and families within our communities and society at large. The articles in this issue address risk and protective factors that affect violence among urban youth to inform prevention and treatment. Pathways to youth violence are complex and may begin early. Prevention efforts in school, family, and community settings that address risk and protective factors within a socially, culturally, and ecologically valid context early in human development are crucial. While challenges remain for the prevention of youth violence, research suggests opportunities to improve our efforts. Federal agency initiatives in partnership with communities are currently underway to increase the knowledge base and advance prevention of youth violence among diverse populations.Journal of Prevention & Intervention Community 04/2011; 39(2):93-7. DOI:10.1080/10852352.2011.556554