A Non-Dichotomous Understanding of Violence e Resiliense IMPORTANTE PDF

Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Child Abuse & Neglect
Finding the way out: A non-dichotomous understanding of violence

and depression resilience of adolescents who are exposed to family
violence
Wassilis Kassis a, , Sibylle Artz b , Christian Scambor c , Elli Scambor c ,
Stephanie Moldenhauer a
a
b
c
School of Educational Sciences, University of Osnabrueck, Germany

School of Child and Youth Care, University of Victoria, Canada
Mens Counselling Center and Research Institute, Graz, Austria
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 1 December 2011
Received in revised form 2 November 2012
Accepted 12 November 2012
Available online 20 December 2012
Keywords:
Family violence
Aggression
Depression
Adolescence
Gender-differences
Resilience
a b s t r a c t
Objective: In this cross-sectional study on family violence and resilience in a random sample of 5,149 middle school students with a mean age of 14.5 years from four EU-countries
(Austria, Germany, Slovenia, and Spain) we examined the prevalence of exposure to family violence, and we worked from the premise that adolescent can be resilient to family
violence. We expanded the denition of resilience to include the absence of both physical
aggression and depression symptoms in adolescents who have been exposed to violence in
their families and extended our understanding of resilience to include three levels which
we describe as: resilient, near-resilient and non-resilient, thus responding to calls for
a more uid and paths-based understanding of resilience.
Methods: Data were collected via self-administered surveys consisting of a number of
subscales that investigate depression symptoms and physical aggression. The study was
analyzed with a three-stage strategy using logistic regression procedures, in which regression analyses were conducted separately for girls and boys using seven steps for modeling
the three resilience levels.
Results: More than 30% of our respondents reported experiencing family violence. Contrary to previous research ndings, our data showed that structural characteristics like
country, gender, socio-economic status and migration status were minimally predictive of
violence and depression resilience at any level. Overall, for both sexes, despite some small
but signicant sex differences, resilience is strongly linked to personal and relational characteristics and the absence of experiences that involved exposure to and direct experiences
with violence. Resilience supportive factors conrmed by this study are: higher emotional
self-control, talking with parents or friends about violence, seeking help to avoid violence,
and not endorsing aggression supportive beliefs. Also key to resilience are irrespective of
country, gender, and SES are lower levels of experience with: victimization by boys, engagement in physical altercation with boys, parental abuse, witnessing of physical spousal abuse,
exposure to an authoritarian (harsh) parenting style and verbal aggression from teachers.
This study (STAMINA: Formation of non-violent behavior in school and during leisure time among young adults from violent families) has been
funded 20092011 by the EC Daphne III Programme whose stated purpose is to combat all forms of violence against children, young people and women
(Project-number: JLS/2007/DAP-1/134 30-CE-02280 90/00-40). The STAMINA Project was additionally funded by the German Federal Ministry of Family
Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth and the Styrian Provincial Department for Social Affairs.
Corresponding author address: School of Educational Sciences, University of Osnabrueck, Heger-Tor-Wall 9, 49069 Osnabrueck, Germany.
0145-2134/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.11.001
182
W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199
Conclusion: From a content perspective this means that resilience is more than the absence
of one or two behavioral factors. This also means that positive changes in resilience levels
can be facilitated by supporting constructive personal and social relationships with family members, peers, and teachers. These results are discussed in terms of their practical
implications for policy and intervention.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
A large body of existing research persuasively indicates that witnessing violence or psychological aggression between
parents and experiencing child maltreatment are common experiences for adolescents in the European Union (EU) and
the United States (US; Eaton et al., 2008; Hussey, Chang, &, Kotch, 2006; Kassis et al., 2010). Almost 28% of adolescents in
the US-National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health reported physical abuse by caregivers during childhood (Hussey
et al., 2006). Research also shows that this exposure to violence is associated with a number of individual and family
characteristics: gender, family socioeconomic status, and substance misuse (Aisenberg & Herrenkohl, 2008; Gilbert et al.,
2009; Hagan, Kindlon, Buka, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1998). Moreover, it has been shown that those adolescents who experience
one kind of family violence often experience co-occurring forms of family violence (Herrenkohl et al., 2003; Sousa et al.,
2011; Yates, Dodds, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2003).
The investigation of the effects of violence in the family on the development of adolescents has emerged as a salient eld
in the social sciences (Hussey et al., 2006; Loeber, Farrington, Stouthamer-Loeber, & White, 2008; Prinzie, Hoeve, & Stams,
2008). As well, exposure to family violence during adolescence is an established risk factor for the development of violent
behavior in adolescence (Gilbert et al., 2009; Hussey et al., 2006; Kassis et al., 2010; Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003;
Yates et al., 2003). Depression in children and adolescents has also been linked with exposure to violence and with low
family attachment, as has the co-occurance of depression symptoms and aggression (Dunn et al., 2011; Kmett Danielson
et al., 2010; Stormshak et al., 2011; Zinzow et al., 2009), and can be observed in children in elementary school (Leadbeater
& Hoglund, 2009) and in adolescence and young adulthood (Leadbeater, Thompson, & Gruppuso, 2012).
The main types of family violence that have been linked with both adolescents depression symptoms and violent behavior
include physical maltreatment by parents (Gilbert et al., 2009; Hussey et al., 2006) and witnessing violence or psychological aggression between parents (Kitzmann et al., 2003; Yates et al., 2003). This research also shows that aggression and
depression symptoms are symptomatic not only of individualized issues but also of suboptimal socialization conditions
(Kassis et al., 2011), especially in families, and therefore, indicate the need for help not only at the individual, but also at the
family level (Pollack, 1999). In order to understand what kind of help should be offered, we need to understand both the
developmental pathways for depression symptoms and violence and the way out.
Although a large number of studies have established a signicant association between exposure to family violence and
the development of aggression and violence in adolescence (Hussey et al., 2006; Loeber, Farrington et al., 2008; Loeber, Slot,
& Stouthamer-Loeber, 2008; Prinzie et al., 2008), fewer studies have examined the development of depression symptoms
and the connection to experiencing violence in ones family (Browneld & Thompson, 2005; Leadbeater, Kupermine, Blatt, &
Hertzog, 1999). Additionally even fewer studies have examined resilience pathways out of the violence and depression cycle
& Hoeve, 2011). As a consequence, the specic socialization patterns for violence
(Van der Put, Van der Laan, Stams, Dekovic,
resilience are unclear. Thus we cannot say whether resilience among children and youth who are raised in violent families is
just the absence of these young peoples violence and/or depression symptoms or something more (Smith-Osborne, 2008).
Further, because we also know that both violent behavior and depression symptoms are linked to physical maltreatment
by parents (Artz, Nicholson, & Magnuson, 2008; Gilbert et al., 2009; Hussey et al., 2006) and witnessing violence or psychological aggression between parents (Kitzmann et al., 2003; Yates et al., 2003), we believe it makes sense to develop an
understanding of violence resilience that examines both aggression and depression symptoms.
A new theoretical framework for resilience: Resilience as a non-dichotomous concept
If we take seriously a broader understanding of resilience to the experience of family violence, we believe that we must
dene this concept more exibly to include a continuum of levels of the severity of use of violence and the tendency to
depression. Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker (2000) draw our attention to the multidimensional nature of resilience. Masten
(2001, p. 228) also argues for an expanded denition and urges us not to overlook resilience potentials that may be obscured
by a simple absent or present grasp of resilience. We take these notions into account and have therefore worked from the
premise that resilience should not be conceptualized only as a dichotomous variable based on the absence or presence of
youths use of violence and depression symptoms. We also acknowledge that any denition of resilience should incorporate
adolescents resistance to more severe forms of depression and aggression even if they exhibit involvement in less serious use
of violence and milder forms of depression (Liebenberg & Ungar, 2009). We therefore include the construct near resilience
in our continuum based denition and measured resilience in terms of three levels: non-resilience, near resilience and
resilience.
183
We argue that these levels are not just theoretical but also empirically veriable. We also suggest that these levels are
useful for prevention and clinical intervention (Hart, Blincow, & Thomas, 2008). Being able to identify adolescents at three
stages of risk for both violence and depression symptoms allows us to tailor our interventions to more directly take into
account the adolescents experiences and needs.
Predicting violence and depression resilience
A number of personal, relational, and structural factors have been identied as contributing to violence resilience. As
Browneld and Thompson (2005) have shown, young people who have a more internalized locus of control (that is they see
themselves as having a choice in how they behave and what their future holds) are likely to be more resilient to violence.
Thus, self-acceptance has been shown to contribute to protection against engaging in aggression and violence despite being
exposed to violence in the family (Leadbeater et al., 1999). The importance of self-concept and self-acceptance and locus
of control to depression resilience have also been noted. For example, Dumont and Provost (1999) have shown that high
self-esteem and self-condence with regard to problem solving contribute to depression resilience. Gaber, Robinson and
Valentiner (1997) have shown that positive sense of self-worth supports depression resilience even when parental style
(controlling), and the connection to parents (low maternal acceptance) is not optimal (Gaber et al., 1997). Additionally, Page
and Scalora (2004) in their extensive review of the literature found that an internal locus of control is strongly correlated to
treatment amenability in adolescents and is therefore also important to depression resilience.
Empathy has also been examined in relation to understanding self-concept and self-control, but the effects of empathy
on aggression remain quite unclear. While several studies claim empathy as a signicant mitigator of aggression (Bjrkqvist,
sterman, & Kaukiainen, 2000; Caravita, Di Blasio, & Salmivalli, 2009), other studies indicate a more complex (Mayberry &
Espelage, 2007), and gender specic (Lovett & Shefeld, 2007) relationship between physical aggression in adolescence and
emotional or cognitive empathy.
Recent research has highlighted the importance of structural family factors for resilience. Family strains like coercive
parenting (Cullen, Unnever, Hartman, Turner, & Agnew, 2008; Phythian, Keane, & Krull, 2008), low socioeconomic status
(SES) (Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, & Simons, 1994; Rebellon, Piquero, Piquero, & Thaxton, 2009) and migration (Connell, Beale
Spencer, & Aber, 1994; Murray, Farrington, & Eisner, 2009; Pauwels & Svensson, 2009) have all been shown to be connected
with higher violence rates in adolescence. As well, low SES has been shown to be an important determinant of depression
and obesity (Goodman, Slap, & Huang, 2002), while low SES and minority race status have been found to be signicantly
associated with chronic stress and depression (Goodman, McEwen, Dolan Schafer-Kalkhoff, & Adler, 2005).
Aside from direct exposure to violence in the family, parenting style (Leadbeater & Way, 2007) is a well-documented
indicator linked to youth engagement in violence and by extension to the absence of violence resilience (Eisenberg et al.,
1999; Hair, McGroder, Zaslow, Ahluwalia, & Moore, 2002; McCarthy & Hutz, 2006; Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984;
Patterson, Capaldi, & Bank, 1991). Especially detrimental to violence resilience is the combination of authoritarian and
inconsistent parenting with a low level of parental supervision (Barnes, Hoffman, Welte, Farrell, & Dintcheff, 2006; Lam
& McBride-Chang, 2007; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994). As well, parenting style is central to
understanding why adolescents stay violence-free despite experiencing family violence (Bates, Bader, & Mencken, 2003;
Phythian et al., 2008). These same factors also play a signicant role in adolescent depression. See for example, Vazsonyi
and Belliston (2006), who in their cross-national, cross-cultural study of 6,935 adolescents from Hungary, the Netherlands,
Switzerland, and the United States, found that low parental support and parental conict were consistently associated with
both anxiety and depression in every country.
Looking beyond personal and family relational and structural factors, educational researchers and criminologists have
provided school climate based explanations for violence resilience and argued that positive school climate (Artz & Nicholson,
2010; Hymel, Bowker, & Woody, 1993; Longshore, Chang, Hsieh, & Messina, 2004; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003) and a good
relationship with teachers (Byrne & Lurigio, 2008; Desjardins & Leadbeater, 2011; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010) are especially
helpful protective factors for adolescents from stressed and violent families. A positive school climate based on mastery,
promotion of autonomy, discussion, and teacher emotional support has also been found to negatively correlate with depression in middle school students (Virtanen et al., 2009; Wang, 2009). The central and shared nding of all these studies is that
school based social protective factors are core to exiting the family violence cycle. By contrast, verbal aggression by teachers
can create severe strain (Khoury-Kassabri, Benbenishty, Astor, & Zeira, 2004; Khoury-Kassabri, Benbenishty, & Astor, 2005),
and higher levels of verbal aggression by teachers have been found to be very closely linked to violence in adolescence
(Kassis, 2011; Kassis et al., 2011).
Also implicated in youth violence and depression are risks and experiences encountered outside the family context
(Murray et al., 2009) like violent experiences with peers (Pauwels & Svensson, 2009) and substance use (Link, 2008; MusherEizenman & Kulick, 2003; Musher-Eizenman, Holub, & Arnett, 2003). Victimization by peers is known to play a highly
signicant role in adolescent depression (Klomek, Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, & Gould, 2008) while depression can also
play a role in making adolescents vulnerable to victimization (Tran, Cole, & Weiss, 2012). Additionally, considerable evidence
implicates substance misuse (Chinet et al., 2006) in depression symptoms. We therefore chose to investigate the importance
and the prevalence of these additional risks and strains for explaining the various patterns of resilience. We believe that
including these indicators makes it possible for us to examine in a deeper way the existing associations between risk and
protective factors.
184
Resilience, previously dened by Luthar et al. (2000) as the ability to achieve positive adjustment despite adversity,
has more recently been dened by Ungar (2008) as a process that is dependent on a range of ecological factors like family,
school, peers, community responsibility and social justice. Our research tools (described below) take all the above-mentioned
resilience contributing and detracting factors into account.
Methods
The study
The research that we report on here is part of a larger study entitled, Formation of non-violent behavior in school and during
leisure time among young adults from violent families [The principal investigator on the team is Dr. Wassilis Kassis (University of
Osnabrueck, Germany); the co-investigators are: Dr. Sabine Bohne (University of Osnabrueck, Germany), Mag. Elli Scambor,
Dr. Christian Scambor and Mag. Lisa Mittischeck (Mens Counselling Centre and Research Institute, Graz, Austria), Dipl. pol
Mart Busche and Dr. Ralf Puchert (Dissens e.V., Berlin, Germany), Dr. Alfons Romero and Dr. Paco Abril (University of Girona,
Spain), Dr. Majda Hrzenjak and Dr. Ziva Humer (Peace Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia)], the STAMINA-project, funded from
2009 to 2011 by the European Commission Daphne III Programme, which has the stated purpose of combating all forms of
violence against children, young people and women. Our study examines the social (family, school and peers) and individual
(self-concept, attitudes and behavior) characteristics of adolescents who are violent free despite having a family history of
violence. In conducting the STAMINA study, we employed quantitative and qualitative methods. In this article we report
only on quantitative data that relates to violence resilience.
Participants
The data were collected in the spring of 2009 from a random sample of 8th grade students in 4 EU-countries (Austria,
Germany, Slovenia, and Spain) who completed a questionnaire anonymously. No incentives were given. Parent consent was
obtained for all participating youth (for a more detailed description of the data protection and code of ethics of the project
see: www.stamina-project.eu). On the day of the study, all students who were present at the participating schools received
a short oral information presentation about the survey and a hand out that provided further information about adolescentspecic local counseling resources on family violence. Students were given the option of participating or declining without
penalty. No one chose to decline. The questionnaire was adapted from a number of previously used instruments by the
STAMINA investigation team and is a 19 page survey consisting of 379 questions and space for comments. The rst 2 pages
are focussed to socio-demographic items. The questions related to understanding the use of physical aggression and the
experiences of family violence are compiled in subscales on topics of the interests central to this study.
Table 1: sample descriptors, presents the characteristics of the respondents surveyed: 53% of the participants were male,
47% were female and approximately 29% came from migrant backgrounds. The mean age of the respondents was 14.4
years. Nearly 23% of the adolescents reported being physically abused by their parents and 17.3% reported having witnessed
Table 1
Sample descriptors by sex.
Girls
Migration
Without migration-background
With migration-background
Sex
Country
Germany
Austria
Slovenia
Spain
Physical abuse by parents
Yes
No
Witnessing spousal abuse
Yes
No
Depression symptoms
Yes
No
Physical aggression
Yes
No
N = 5,149; age, Av: 14.40, SD: 0.934.
Boys
71.3
28.7
47.0
1,723
695
2,418
71.1
28.9
53.0
1,943
788
2,731
54.7
13.5
16.0
15.9
1,322
326
386
384
55.3
14.6
12.4
17.7
1,510
398
340
483
21.8
78.2
526
1,892
24.1
75.9
658
2,073
17.5
82.5
422
1,996
17.2
82.8
470
2,261
33.3
66.6
806
1,612
21.5
78.5
588
2,143
22.5
77.5
544
1,874
45.7
54.3
1,249
1,482
185
physical violence between their parents. Approximately 27% indicated experiencing depression symptoms and nearly 35%
of the students reported engaging in physical violence against other adolescents. Missing values were entered with the
programme norm 2.03 by using an expectation and maximization algorithm (Schafer & Graham, 2002).
Data collection
All measures are based on mean-score scales of the adolescents self-reports. Self-report surveys as a means for generating reliable incidence rates have been extensively reviewed in the literature on self-reports (Alder & Worrall, 2004;
Doob & Cesaroni, 2004; Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weis, 1981; Sprott & Doob, 2004). We conducted back translations from the
questionnaires original language (English) to the new languages (German, Slovenian, and Spanish). In order to create our
survey we adapted and adopted scales as follows:
Socio-economic status. Following the Programme for International Student Assessment of the OECD (PISA) (Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik
& Geis, 2003) we computed socio-economic status using a composite variable build as a z-score of three items: Highest
educational level achieved by the mother, highest educational level achieved by the father, and the number of books in the
household.
Aggression experiences with peers subscales. Aggression experiences with peers were measured as follows: (1) respondents
use of physical aggression toward others was measured using an 8 item scale ( = .82) entitled, Use of physical aggression
against peers developed by Kassis (2003). The items on this scale inquire about the degree to which students reported injuring
their peers using questions like, During a brawl, I hurt a boy/a girl so much that he/she was in pain for several days and/or
had to go and see a doctor. (2) and (3) Respondents use of Indirect aggression against boys/girls were measured using a 3
item scale ( = .76) and ( = .69), respectively, with questions like, I picked on a boy/girl or upset him/her in one way or
another. The 2 indirect aggression scales were developed by Artz, Nicholson, and McNamara (2009), see also Artz et al.
(2008), and are based on Tremblays (2000) work on non-observable forms of aggression. (4) Respondents experiences with
victimization were measured by a 3 items scale ( = .73), the Victim of physical aggression by boys scale, developed by Kassis
(2003). This scale measured the degree to which respondents were injured and/or wounded by boys with questions like,
During a brawl, I was hurt by a boy so badly that I was in pain for several days and/or had to go and see a doctor. The 4
aggression experiences indicators were all measured on a 4-point Likert scale (range = never happened to more than once per
week).
Depression symptoms subscale. Depression symptoms were assessed using an adapted scale developed by Kassis et al. (2011)
that employed 5 items ( = .78) from the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck & Alford, 2009) (for example, Now and then I feel
that my life is not worth living.). The items were measured on a 4-point Likert scale (range = not true at all to completely
true). The adaptation of the items and of the rating scale was done in order to accommodate the 4 different languages in the
participating countries.
Self-concept subscales. To measure self-concept we adapted 3 subscales developed by Fend (2000) for his Youth Inventory
instrument: (1) The 4 item Emotional self-control subscale ( = .65) that investigated the control of respondents emotions and
their ability to deal with their own moods with statements like, I am one of those people who sometimes cannot control their
anger; (2) the 4 item Worrisome future subscale ( = .68) that speaks to a young persons assessment of his/her own future
opportunities as being limited by asking them to rate the statements I am afraid of everything that might happen in future;
and (3) the 4 item Self-acceptance subscale ( = .59) that measured respondents abilities to positively assess themselves with
statements like, I have quite a good opinion about myself. All 3 self-concept indicators were measured on a 4-point Likert
scale (range = not true at all to completely true).
Parenting style and parental support subscales. Parenting style and parenting support were measured as follows: (1) Inconsistent parenting was assessed with an adapted 5 item subscale ( = .83) developed by Kassis (2003) using the Parenting Style
Inventory designed by Krohne and Pulsack (1996). This subscale measured youths perceptions of their parents behavior
with questions like. My parents often scold me for no apparent reason. (2) Authoritarian parenting was assessed by adapting a 4 item ( = .61) subscale from the Youth Inventory (Fend, 2000) that measured parental attempts at controlling the
behavior of their children with questions like, My parents often do not tolerate any contradiction. (3) Parental supervision
was measured using a 4 item subscale for supervision of adolescents ( = .76) developed by Kassis (2003) by adapting a
scale developed by Loeber and Dishion (1984). This scale measured the parental supervision in terms of positive support
and guidance of their children (e.g., My parents know quite well if I have problems with other young persons at school.).
Subscales 13 were assessed on a 4-point Likert scale (range = not true at all to completely true). (4) A fourth subscale, Talking
with parents or friends about violence, was specically developed for this survey by the project-team (Kassis et al., 2011).
This 3 item subscale ( = .83) examined the frequency with which respondents discuss their use of violence with parents
and peers using a 4 point Likert scale (range = not once to several times. (5) Also specically developed by Kassis (2011)
for this survey was the 4 item subscale, Seeking help to avoid violence behavior ( = .76) that measured help seeking behavior
186
with questions like, I try to solve a problem by talking instead of lashing out on a 4-point Likert scale (range = not true at
all to completely true).
Family violence subscales. To measure respondents experiences with family violence we employed 3 subscales adapted
from the Family Violence Inventory developed by Mayer, Fuhrer, and Uslucan (2005): (1) the 5 item subscale Witnessing
physical spousal abuse ( = .88) investigated witnessing spousal abuse with questions like, I noticed one of my parents
forcefully shoving or pushing the other one around. (2) The 3 item subscale, Verbal abuse between their parents ( = .85),
posed questions like, I witnessed my parents shouting at each other very loudly, to examine exposure to verbal conict and
aggression. Both subscales were based a 6-point Likert scale (range = never to more than once a week). (3) The 5 item subscale
Physical abuse by parents ( = .83), measured to what degree respondents had been physically abused by their parents with
questions like People in my family beat me up so severely that I had bruises or scratches. These items were assessed on a
5-point Likert scale (range = never to very often).
Aggression related attitudes and beliefs subscales. In order to measure respondents aggression related attitudes and beliefs,
3 subscales were employed: (1) the 4 items subscale ( = .62), Control over ones life, adapted by Kassis (2003) from the
Self-acceptance Inventory developed by Schtz (2000), was used to gauge the degree to which respondents felt that they
had control over their own lives by asking questions like, I feel that I have a rm grip on life, rated on a 4-point Likert
scale (range = not true at all to completely true). (2) The 4 item subscale ( = .74), Lack of empathy, adapted by Kassis (2003)
from the Youth Inventory designed by Fend (2000), used questions like, Mostly I do not care too much about other peoples
unhappiness, to assess respondents lack of empathy levels on a 4-point Likert scale (range = not true at all to completely
true). (3) The 4 item subscale ( = .82), Aggression-supportive beliefs, adapted by Kassis (2003) from the Aggression Inventory
developed by Heitmeyer et al. (1995) used questions like Fighting is a good way of defending my friends, rated on a 4-point
Likert scale (range = not true at all to completely true) to gauge what extent respondents were willing to solve problems by
using violence.
School-based aggression and school-climate subscales. To measure experiences with school-based aggression and schoolclimate we developed 3 subscales: (1) The 4 item subscale ( = .69) Verbally aggressive teacher behavior, adapted (Kassis,
2003) from the Teacher Aggression Inventory developed by Krumm, Lamberger-Baumann, and Haider (1997), was used to
gauge teachers verbal aggression toward students with questions like, You were insulted or sworn at by a teacher, that
were rated on a 4-point Likert scale (range = not true at all to completely true). (2) The 4 item subscale ( = .78), Close relationship
with teachers assessed the quality of the relationship between students and teachers by using indicators developed by Fend
(2000), based on questions like, I quite like most of our teachers, rated on a 4-point Likert scale (range = not true at all to
completely true). (3) The 4 item subscale ( = .85), Acceptance by other students, a subscale developed as part of Youth Inventory
(Fend, 2000) assessed the quality of the student-to-student relationships with questions like,In my class, I sometimes feel
a bit like an outsider, rated on a 4-point Likert scale (range = not true at all to completely true).
Substance use subscales. Two subscales measured substance use: (1) The 6 item Alcohol consumption subscale ( = .85), specifically developed for this survey by the project-team (Kassis et al., 2011) used questions like, Drink beer rated on a 5-point
Likert scale (range = never to every day) to assess alcohol consumption. (2) The 8 item ( = .93) subscale, Usage of drugs,
specically developed for this survey (Kassis et al., 2011) used questions like, Smoke marijuana or hashish on a 4-point
Likert scale (range = never to often), to assess drugs consumption.
Analytic strategy
The statistical analyses for this study were conducted in three stages.
Analytic stage 1: Identifying family violence: The composite family-burden variable. To identify participants who had experienced physical family violence we initially dened the composite family-burden variable and tested the distribution for
possible national, socio-economic and gender differences. All respondents irrespective of the country of their location, who
indicated they were involved in some family violence (witnessing of physical abuse by parents and/or physical abuse by
parents) were included in the sample we entitled STAMINA-Burden (N = 1,644), for analysis stages 2, 3 and 4.
Analytic stage 2: Computing the composite variable resilience and trichotomization of the STAMINA-Burden (N = 1,644) sample
into resilient, near-resilient, and non-resilient groups. In order to investigate participants resilience to violence despite
their reporting experiences with family violence, we created 3 resilience conditions: The students who reported no use of
violence at all (answer 1 = never happened on the 4-point Likert scale) and who additionally had depression symptoms scores
below the middle of the scale depression (answers range 1 = Not true at all, 2 = Mostly not true, on the 4-point Likert scale)
were coded as resilient (n = 510, 31.0% of the adolescents in the STAMINA-Burden sample).
For the second condition, which we labeled non-resilient, we selected those participants who were situated in the
highest quartile for using violence and/or reporting depression symptoms on the highest level. The and/or-condition made
187
possible the consideration of the co-occurrence of high levels of physical aggression and depression symptoms for adolescents in violent families, n = 668, 40.6%. Participants in this and/or condition were coded as non-resilient.
For the third condition, all students who were not in the resilient or in the non-resilient group were coded as nearresilient (n = 466, 28.3% of the students in the STAMINA-Burden sample, N = 1,644). These students had mid-level scores for
using violence and/or for reporting depression symptoms (answer 3 = rather true, on the 4-point Likert scale). We did this
here, because a number of researchers (Dunn et al., 2011; Kmett Danielson et al., 2010; Leadbeater et al., 2012; Stormshak
et al., 2011; Zinzow et al., 2009) have shown that the connection between physical aggression and depression symptoms
for both genders is very similar (see also the identical 2 of girls and boys), and because family violence underpins a strong
relationship between depression symptoms and the use of physical aggression against peers (girls: F (736.20) = 2,314, p = .001,
2 = 5.9%, boys: F (864.22) = 2,806, p = .001, 2 = 6.7%).
Analytic stage 3: Identifying resilience patterns in the STAMINA-Burden sample. In the third stage, logistic regression analysis
with SPSS 19 was used to identify the resilience patterns of those exposed to family violence in the STAMINA-Burden sample.
An analysis of these logistic regressions could only be undertaken by aggregating all four sub-samples (Austria, n = 178;
Germany, n = 1,074; Slovenia, n = 175; Spain, n = 217) into one, the STAMINA-Burden sample (N = 1,644), otherwise it would
have been impossible to obtain a sufcient number (30) of girls or boys who could be designated as resilient according
to our scales, and to successfully perform a regression analyses (see Tables 2 and 3). The logistic regression analyses were
undertaken with the aim of exploring how far the groups of young people (resilient, near-resilient and non-resilient)
differed from one another in terms of the predictors.
Regression analyses were conducted separately for girls and for boys using the seven steps of modeling resilience. In
order to identify the specic effects of each model in a more differentiated manner, we looked closely at the changes in
R2 . Results are presented rstly, as a comparison between the resilient versus near-resilient groups and secondly, as a
comparison between the near-resilient versus non-resilient groups.
By rst testing the inter-correlations of all independent variables by sex we assured that no multi-collinearity problems
existed in our analysis.
Results
Analysis results of stage 1: Identifying family violence (gender-, SES-, migration-status-, and country-specic analyses)
Of the 5,149 young people who participated in our research, 1,644 (31.9%) had been affected by family violence (see
analytic strategy, stage 1, for the computation of the composite variable family violence). In these families, 3 kinds of
experiences with violence were found: (1) the young person was physically abused by his/her parents (752 young people or
14.6%); (2) the young person witnessed the parents physically abusing each other (460 young people or 8.9%); or (3) the young
person was physically abused by his/her parents and witnessed his/her parents physically abusing each other, that is, they had
experienced poly-victimization (432 young people or 8.4%). This means that in total, by the age of 14.5 years, almost every
fourth respondent (14.6% + 8.4% = 23.0%), had been physically abused by his/her parents and almost every sixth respondent
(8.9% + 8.4% = 17.3%) had witnessed physical spousal abuse.
The strategy of linking violence and depression symptoms with experiences of family violence was also chosen because
we found a strong relationship between these symptoms for both sexes by comparing students who had not been exposed to
family violence to those in the family burden group: For girls [girls violence: F (1, 2416) = 113.85, p < .001; girls depression:
F (1, 2416) = 192.36, p < .001], and for boys (boys violence: F (1, 2729) = 235.44, p < .001; boys depression: F (1, 2729) = 88.47,
p < .001). We found signicantly more violence and more depression symptoms for students in the family burden group.
Gender did not help us to distinguish among those who were affected by exposure to violence in the family. The separation
of girls and boys into these sub-groups of affected families did not prove to be signicant (Chi-square = 5.285, df = 3, N = 5,149,
p > .05). Although respondents within a lower socioeconomic group reported higher levels of family violence then adolescents
within a higher socioeconomic group (Chi-square = 41.724, df = 6, N = 5,149, p < .001), the Cramers V, as a post-test indicator,
shows that the value of this result is very low (Cramers V = 0.064) and therefore, not a clear and unequivocal measure for
differentiating among those who have experienced family violence. Similarly, when focussing on the connection between
migrant-status of the family and family violence, we found that adolescents whose parents were migrants reported higher
levels of family violence than non-migrant adolescents (Chi-square = 45.893, df = 3, N = 5,149, p < .001), but the Cramers
V again valued this difference as very low (Cramers V = 0.094). This suggests that the predictive value of family violence
by migration-status is, like socio economic status, weak. Finally, the country-specic differences for those being affected
by family violence while statistically signicant for girls (Chi-square = 99.555, df = 9, N = 2,418, p < .001), and for boys (Chisquare = 45.208, df = 9, N = 2,731, p < .001), also yielded low Cramers V scores (girls: Cramers V = 0.117; boys: Cramers
V = 0.074) and therefore suggest that these country differences should not be overly emphasized.
Based on our ndings, we note that the small statistically signicant correlations between gender, country, socioeconomic
and migration status, and the amount of family violence that we found are quite low, so the theoretical importance of these
correlations should be viewed with caution. The main purpose of Cramers V is to report the importance of a prediction of an
association between two nominal variables. If the proportion of variability is high it provides a high prediction by the model.
The measure and its interpretation are very similar to the Pearson correlation coefcient with ranges from 1 to +1, while
188
Table 2
Girls resilience versus near-resilience: gender-specic logistic regression analysis with STAMINA-Burden sample.
n = Girls 470, STAMINA: resilient versus near-resilient
Model 1
Self-concept
OR (95% CI)
.36*** (0.25, 0.52)
1.35 (0.95, 1.91)
.77 (0.54, 1.11)
9.9%
9.9%
13.3%
.36*** (0.24, 0.52)

1.21 (0.84, 1.73)
.79 (0.55, 1.14)
2.65** (1.43, 4.90)
.63** (0.47, 0.85)
13.7%
3.8%
18.3%
Note: Cox and Snell change in R2 is described only if the specic step is signicant.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
Model 3
+Family risk
OR (95% CI)
Model 4
+Parenting style
OR (95% CI)
.37*** (0.25, 0.54)

1.19 (0.82, 1.70)
.79 (0.54, 1.15)
2.54** (1.37, 4.71)
.63** (0.46, 0.86)
1.01 (0.54, 1.89)
1.13 (0.96, 1.34)
1.53 (0.87, 2.67)
.38*** (0.26, 0.57)

1.09 (0.75, 1.58)
.87 (0.59, 1.28)
2.65** (1.41, 4.94)
.65** (0.47, 0.89)
0.93 (0.49, 1.77)
1.05 (0.88, 1.25)
1.17 (0.65, 2.11)
2.27*** (1.43, 3.62)
.88 (0.59, 1.34)
1.28 (0.89, 1.84)
14.4%
19.4%
16.9%
3.2%
22.7%
Model 5
+Aggression
OR (95% CI)
.44*** (0.29, 0.67)
1.04 (0.69, 1.55)
.75 (0.49, 1.14)
2.08* (1.07, 4.00)
.82 (0.55, 1.20)
0.97 (0.48, 1.92)
1.09 (0.90, 1.32)
1.12 (0.61, 2.07)
2.12** (1.29, 3.45)
.96 (0.61, 1.50)
1.36 (0.91, 2.01)
2.74*** (1.50, 4.99)
1.39 (0.84, 2.28)
6.23** (1.28, 30.17)
1.12 (0.67, 1.85)
.62* (0.39, 0.97)
1.87*** (1.29, 2.68)
25.2%
8.3%
33.9%
Model 6
+School
OR (95% CI)
Model 7
+Substance misuse
OR (95% CI)
.45*** (0.29, 0.69)

1.02 (0.67, 1.54)
.78 (0.51, 1.20)
2.02* (1.04, 3.91)
.83 (0.56, 1.23)
0.97 (0.48, 1.95)
1.10 (0.91, 1.33)
1.09 (0.59, 2.02)
2.05** (1.25, 3.39)
.98 (0.62, 1.55)
1.39 (0.93, 2.09)
2.79*** (1.50, 5.19)
1.40 (0.85, 2.32)
4.91* (0.98, 24.49)
1.14 (0.68, 1.91)
.62* (0.40, 0.98)
1.77** (1.22, 2.57)
1.25 (0.73, 2.16)
1.02 (0.66, 1.57)
1.28 (0.87, 1.87)
.45*** (0.29, 0.70)

1.02 (0.67, 1.55)
.78 (0.50, 1.19)
2.02* (1.09, 4.22)
.83 (0.55, 1.20)
0.97 (0.50, 2.05)
1.10 (0.90, 1.31)
1.09 (0.55, 1.91)
2.05** (1.21, 3.36)
.98 (0.61, 1.55)
1.39 (0.94, 2.12)
2.69** (1.44, 5.04)
1.38 (0.83, 2.29)
4.22 (0.81, 21.82)
1.17 (0.69, 1.97)
.63* (0.40, 0.99)
1.72** (1.18, 2.51)
1.15 (0.73, 2.16)
.99 (0.64, 2.05)
1.35 (0.64, 1.53)
1.17 (0.91, 1.99)
5.44* (1.33, 22.18)
26.9%
1.7%
36.1%
25.6%
34.4%
Emotional self-control
Worrisome future
Self-acceptance
Talk about violence
Seeks help
Witnessing physical spousal abuse
Witnessing verbal spousal abuse
Inconsistent parenting style
Authoritarian parenting
Parental supervision
Indirect aggr. against boys
Indirect aggr. against girls
Victim of physical aggression by boys
Control over ones life
Lack of empathy
Aggression-supportive beliefs
Verbally aggr. teachers
Close relationship with teachers
Acceptance by other students
Alcohol
Drugs
Cox and Snell R2
Cox and Snell, change in R2
Nagelkerkes R2
Model 2
+Activities
OR (95% CI)
Table 3
Boys resilience versus near-resilience: Gender-specic logistic regression analysis with STAMINA-Burden-sample.
n = Boys 506, STAMINA: resilient versus near-resilient
Model 1
Self-concept
OR (95% CI)
.49*** (0.36, 0.68)
1.36 (0.97, 1.91)
1.00 (0.70, 1.43)
5.5%
5.5%
7.4%
.48*** (0.35, 0.66)

1.39 (0.98, 1.96)
1.09 (0.76, 1.57)
3.14** (1.63, 6.04)
.73* (0.57, 0.94)
9.2%
3.7%
12.2%
Model 3
+Family risk
OR (95% CI)
Model 4
+Parenting style
OR (95% CI)
Model 5
+Aggression
OR (95% CI)
Model 6
+School
OR (95% CI)
Model 7
+Substance misuse
OR (95% CI)
.49*** (0.35, 0.66)

1.35 (0.95, 1.92)
1.11 (0.77, 1.60)
3.04** (1.57, 5.90)
.76* (0.59, 0.98)
1.85* (1.02, 3.35)
.93 (0.76, 1.13)
1.23 (0.72, 2.09)
.48*** (0.35, 0.67)

1.36 (0.95, 1.93)
1.18 (0.81, 1.73)
2.89** (1.47, 5.64)
.84 (0.64, 1.10)
1.82 (0.99, 3.33)
.87 (0.70, 1.07)
1.18 (0.68, 2.05)
1.53 (0.98, 2.39)
.63* (0.42, .94)
.77 (0.55, 1.08
.66*** (0.45, 0.95)

1.27 (0.87, 1.84)
1.06 (0.70, 1.60)
2.48** (1.24, 4.97)
.83 (0.59, 1.17)
1.84* (1.00, 3.40)
.78* (0.62, 0.93)
1.20 (0.68, 2.13)
1.47 (0.93, 2.34)
.63* (0.42, .96)
.78 (0.55, 1.10
2.29*** (1.48, 3.54)
1.21 (0.66, 2.22)
1.99 (0.81, 4.93)
.92 (0.61, 1.38)
1.02 (0.71, 1.49)
1.41* (1.05, 1.89)
.67* (0.46, 0.97)

1.25 (0.85, 1.83)
1.13 (0.72, 1.71)
2.42* (1.20, 4.87)
.82 (0.58, 1.15)
1.84 (0.99, 3.43)
.77* (0.61, 0.97)
1.17 (0.65, 2.13)
1.35 (0.84, 2.18)
.65 (0.43, 1.00)
.78 (0.55, 1.12
2.15** (1.38, 3.34)
1.12 (0.61, 2.07)
1.63 (0.65, 4.05)
.91 (0.61, 1.37)
1.04 (0.71, 1.51)
1.41* (1.05, 1.90)
2.00** (1.19, 3.37)
1.12 (0.79, 1.59)
1.12 (0.78, 1.60
.77 (0.52, 1.14)

1.27 (0.86, 1.87)
1.02 (0.65, 1.58)
2.00 (1.00, 4.02)
.82 (0.57, 1.17)
1.93* (1.02, 3.65)
.72** (0.57, 0.91)
1.15 (0.63, 2.12)
1.40 (0.86, 2.28)
.70 (0.45, 1.08)
.81 (0.56, 1.17
1.95** (1.25, 3.04)
1.06 (0.57, 1.97)
1.43 (0.57, 3.56)
1.01 (0.66, 1.54)
1.07 (0.73, 1.57)
1.41* (1.03, 1.92)
1.85* (1.09, 3.15)
1.25 (0.87, 1.78)
1.28 (0.89, 1.83)
1.93*** (1.39, 2.68)
2.83 (0.85, 9.42)
22.7%
4.0%
30.2%
10.0%
0.8%
13.4%
12.0%
2.0%
15.9%
17.5%
5.5%
23.3%
18.7%
1.2%
24.9%
Worrisome future
Self-acceptance
Talk about violence
Seeks help
Lack of empathy
Alcohol
Drugs
Cox and Snell R2
Nagelkerkes R2
Model 2
+Activities
OR (95% CI)
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
189
190
0 indicates no relationship. Coefcients higher than 0.30 are counted as fairly predictive for the analyses made. Chi-square
values are directly proportional to the sample size. And as Knoke, Bohrnstedt, and Potter Mee (2002, p. 147) are stating:
This sensitivity of x2 to sample size in a crosstab underscores the important difference between statistical signicance and
substantive importance.
The statistical differences that our data generated are likely mostly due to our large samples sizes and the contingency
of Chi-square statistics to that sample size. Overall, regardless of sex, country, socioeconomic and migration status, family
violence seems to be a very well distributed burden for a large number of the adolescents in our sample.
Analysis results of stage 2: Identifying resilience in the STAMINA-Burden sample (gender, SES-, migration-status-, and
country-specic analyses)
As noted above, three resilience conditions: resilient, near-resilient, and non-resilient (see analytic strategy, stage
2, for the computation and the trichotomization of the composite variable resilience) were created in order to classify
respondents who were exposed to family violence (STAMINA-Burden sample, N = 1,644). Of the total N, 510 (31.0%) students
were coded as resilient, 466 (28.3%) as near-resilient, and 668 (40.6%) as non-resilient.
We tested possible gender, SES, migration-status, and country-specic differences on resilience level. Girls (35.3%) were
more likely than boys (27.4%) to be in the resilient group (Chi-square = 11.877, df = 1, n = 1,644, p < .01). Because of the low
Cramers V = 0.085 this gender difference should not, however, be considered to be a robust predictor of the resilience-status.
Adolescents with a high SES appeared to be somewhat more resilient (30.7% resilient) then their peers with a low SES (28.0%
resilient) (Chi-square = 9.988, df = 3, N = 1,644, p < .05). There appeared to be a tendency (p = .041, Cramers V = 0.055) in the
distribution of the various resiliency groups. Additionally, the categorization as migrant or non-migrant appeared to
have no bearing on resilience level (Chi-square = 1.426, df = 2, N = 1,644, p > .05). Similarly, country status was not signicant
for resilience level (Chi-square = 10.130, df = 6, n = 1,644, p > .05). When we add these results to our nding of the almost
equal distribution of family violence over the 4 countries, we concluded that migrant status and country-specic differences
were of little or no importance to resilience in our sample.
Analysis results of stage 3: Identifying resilience patterns
In stage 3, logistic regression models with the STAMINA-Burden sample were used to estimate the association between
resilience-status and the predictors included in these models.
Predictors for the groups resilient versus near-resilient. Table 2 (for girls) and Table 3 (for boys) include the ndings from the
rst step in the logistic regression analysis. Self-concept, regression step 1, was found to be a relevant predictive variable for
both sexes. Further examination showed the results that for both sexes, only the control of emotions was responsible for
these effects.
The second step of the analysis, Using actions to avoid violence, produced virtually the same results for both sexes. Of the
actions to avoid violence queried, young peoples conversations with their parents and peers about their own experiences
of violence and their own actions in an attempt to avoid violence emerged as relevant variables with respect of resilience to
violence.
However, in Model 3 Family risk, it was only for boys that the extent of the violence experienced in the family contributed
to explaining the differences between the two groups resilient versus near-resilient. For boys, the predictor physical spousal
violence was found to be signicant. Here verbal spousal violence did not help us to distinguish between resilience and near
resilience either for girls or for boys.
For both boys and girls, we found that Parenting style, the fourth step of the analysis, signicantly contributed to differentiating for resilience and near-resilience despite experiencing family violence. But what must be emphasized here is the
fact that different parenting factors specically apply to each gender: an Inconsistent parenting style was signicant only for
girls and an authoritarian parenting style was signicant only for boys.
The variables that comprise Model 5, Experiences of physical victimization, Indirect aggression against peers and Aggression
supportive beliefs, were indicative for both genders for differentiating between resilience and near-resilience. In particular,
using Indirect aggression against boys and holding Aggression supportive beliefs, were signicant for both genders. Additionally,
two variables were found that were specically relevant for girls: the experience of having been a Victim of physical aggression
by boys and a Lack of empathy.
Experiences at school (regression Model 6) made only minor contributions in differentiating between resilience and nearresilience. Only Verbal abuse from teachers yielded a signicant result, and that only for boys.
The additional predictive value of Model 7, which explored the contribution of experiences with Alcohol and Drugs to the
differentiation between resilience and near resilience, appeared relevant specically for sex difference. Alcohol misuse was
signicant only for the boys and the Misuse of drugs was signicant only for girls.
Overall, we found that we were able to unequivocally establish the differences between the resilience and near-resilience
groups by means of the analysis models adopted. For resilience versus near-resilience the overall predictive strength for
both the girls and the boys was as high to very high, based on Cox and Snell R2 and Nagelkerkes R2 . In combination with
the high classication reliability for girls (81.3% for resilient, 66.0% for near-resilient and 74.7% across both groups) and boys
191
(68.7% for resilient, 68.4% for near-resilient and 68.6% across both groups) this provided the necessary empirical reliability
of having developed a very good predictive model.
Our results here show that higher levels of indirect aggression experiences, and higher aggression-supporting beliefs can
help us to distinguish for near resilience versus resilience for both sexes. As well, higher emotional self-control and talking
with parents or friends about violence and activities against violence can be effective resilience resources for both genders.
Additionally, higher levels of inconsistent parenting, lack of empathy, and drug abuse are indicated as risk factors specically
for near-resilient girls, while higher levels of witnessing physical or verbal spousal abuse, are indicated as risk factors
specically for near-resilience for boys. Finally, near resilient boys appear to have more exposure to verbally aggressive
teachers and consume more alcohol than resilient boys. Interestingly, in the absence of other contributing factors, the
amount of family violence experienced by both sexes emerged as only a weak predictor for distinguishing between these
two resilience conditions.
Predictors for the groups near-resilient versus non-resilient. The analysis for the groups resilient versus near-resilient was
conducted by employing the same analysis strategy employed with the groups near-resilient versus non-resilient (see
Table 4 for girls and Table 5 for boys). Regression Model 1, which examined Self-concept, showed that for both girls and boys,
self-concept was important to resilience, but appeared to be more pronounced for girls. For both boys and girls, control of
their emotions and self-acceptance provided us with further clarication about the signicant differences between the two
groups near-resilient and non-resilient. Beyond that, a worrisome future was also signicant for girls.
Regression Model 2, which focused on Actions to avoid violence when confronting their families and/or friends violent
behavior was signicant for both sexes, when differentiating between near-resilience and non-resilience, especially for
boys.
The predictor Family risk, explored in Model 3, which signicantly contributed to our understanding of what differentiated
near-resilient from non-resilient youth, was non-gender specic. For both girls and boys, experiences of violence within the
family (physical abuse by their parents) were highly signicant. The witnessing of physical violence, but not verbal violence,
between the parents also generated signicant values for both sexes. We therefore concluded that the amount of physical
family violence was highly indicative in determining near- and non-resilience in adolescents.
Interestingly enough, regression Model 4, Parenting style, appeared to play no part in differentiating near-resilient and
non-resilient young people (see Tables 4 and 5).
Regression Model 5, Experiences of and attitudes towards violence, yielded clear sex differences. While employing indirect
aggression against other adolescents (boys and girls) played no role for the girls, it emerged as a signicant predictor for boys.
Additionally for girls, experiencing physical violence from boys provided a signicant but weak contribution to explaining
the differences between near resilience and non-resilience, while for boys, it was highly signicant. At the same time, lack
of empathy provided a further explanatory factor for girls, but not for boys.
Regression Model 6, Experiences at school, appeared to play hardly any role in distinguishing membership in the near
resilient or non-resilient group. It was only for girls that verbal aggression by teachers made a weak signicant contribution
to explaining the differences.
Regression Model 7, which examined Misuse of alcohol and drugs, did not further contribute to an explanation of the
differentiation between the near-resilient and non-resilient group membership for boys or for girls. This small only-forgirls differentiation also held for the misuse of drugs.
Still, despite some of the small effects for some of the variables, the overall predictive strength of the model based on Cox
and Snell R2 and Nagelkerkes R2 was high (see Tables 4 and 5), for girls, and for boys. An examination of the reliability of
the classications conrmed our initial results (girls: near-resilient 62.1%, non-resilient 81.2%, and girls overall 73.3%; boys:
near-resilient 68.8%, non-resilient 79.3%, and boys overall 75.0%).
Discussion
It is well-known that exposure to family violence harms the development of adolescents (Sousa et al., 2011; Spano, Rivera,
& Bolland, 2010). We therefore begin our discussion by stressing the inordinate level of exposure to family violence and
therefore risk for harm that we found in our sample: More than 30% of the adolescents who responded to our survey reported
experiencing family violence: By the age of 14.5, every fourth respondent had been physically abused by his/her parents
and almost every sixth respondent had witnessed physical spousal abuse. These results, which are consistent with existing
prevalence studies (Eaton et al., 2008; Hussey et al., 2006; Kassis et al., 2010), are remarkable and alarming for so called
civilized societies and high-income countries (Gilbert et al., 2009), countries that have signed the UN Convention of the Rights
of the Child (1989) and see child safety in the family as a human right (Bohne, 2011). The levels of exposure to family violence
that we discovered in our data suggest that there needs to be a pan-European strategy for family violence prevention. Such
work has been taken up by Hagemann-White, Kavemann, Kindler, Meysen, and Puchert (2010) in their extensive study on
Factors at play in the perpetration of violence against women, violence against children and sexual orientation violence developed
for the European Commission as part of the Feasibility study to assess the possibilities, opportunities and needs to standardize
national legislation on gender violence and violence against children. This work notwithstanding, there still needs to be a
wide-ranging implementation and cross-jurisdictional implementation of Hagemann-White et al.s recommendations. At
the moment, conducting an analysis the economic cost of violence in order to make the case for prevention and implementing
192
Table 4
Girls near-resilience versus non-resilience: gender-specic logistic regression analysis with STAMINA-Burden sample.
n = Girls 490, STAMINA-Burden: near-resilient versus non-resilient
Model 1
Self-concept
OR (95% CI)
.47*** (0.33, 0.65)
1.47** (1.10, 1.97)
.59** (0.43, 0.80)
10.4%
10.4%
14.0%
.49*** (0.35, 0.69)

1.48** (1.10, 1.99)
.54*** (0.40, 0.75)
1.55* (1.01, 2.39)
1.17 (0.88, 1.55)
11.4%
1.0%
15.3%
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
Model 3
+Family risk
OR (95% CI)
Model 4
+Parenting style
OR (95% CI)
Model 5
+Aggression
OR (95% CI)
.51*** (0.36, 0.73)

1.41* (1.03, 1.92)
.52*** (0.37, 0.73)
1.45 (0.92, 2.28)
1.29 (0.95, 1.74)
2.69*** (1.63, 4.46)
1.02 (0.87, 1.19)
2.15** (1.36, 3.41)
.50*** (0.34, 0.72)

1.41* (1.03, 1.94)
.52*** (0.37, 0.73)
1.48 (0.94, 2.33)
1.35 (0.99, 1.85)
2.61*** (1.57, 4.34)
1.01 (0.86, 1.19)
2.10** (1.32, 3.32)
1.10 (0.74, 1.65)
.73 (0.48, 1.10)
.78 (0.56, 1.09)
.47*** (0.32, 0.69)

1.38 (0.99, 1.91)
.53** (0.36, 0.77)
1.10 (0.67, 1.80)
1.05 (0.73, 1.52)
2.44** (1.46, 4.08)
0.98 (0.82, 1.16)
1.83** (1.15, 2.92)
1.02 (0.67, 1.56)
.72 (0.47, 1.10)
.67* (0.47, 0.95)
1.03 (0.65, 1.63)
1.31 (0.86, 1.99)
2.96* (1.20, 7.32)
.79 (0.52, 1.21)
1.89** (1.26, 2.83)
1.28 (0.94, 1.75)
18.7%
7.3%
25.2%
19.3%
26.0%
23.1%
4.4%
31.0%
Model 6
+School
OR (95% CI)
.44*** (0.30, 0.66)
1.37 (0.98, 1.91)
.55** (0.38, 0.81)
1.01 (0.61, 1.68)
1.05 (0.72, 1.52)
2.46** (1.45, 4.17)
0.97 (0.81, 1.15)
1.83* (1.14, 2.93)
.99 (0.65, 1.51)
.70 (0.45, 1.08)
.66* (0.46, 0.96)
1.07 (0.66, 1.72)
1.27 (0.83, 1.95)
2.52 (0.98, 6.46)
.73 (0.47, 1.14)
1.89** (1.26, 2.84)
1.26 (0.92, 1.74)
1.68* (1.02, 2.76)
1.42 (0.97, 2.08)
1.26 (0.92, 1.72)
24.2%
1.1%
32.6%
Model 7
+Substance misuse
OR (95% CI)
.44*** (0.29, 0.65)
1.41* (1.01, 1.98)
.55** (0.37, 0.81)
0.98 (0.59, 1.62)
1.02 (0.70, 1.48)
2.55** (1.50, 4.34)
0.96 (0.81, 1.15)
1.82* (1.13, 2.91)
.94 (0.61, 1.45)
.71 (0.45, 1.10)
.64* (0.44, 0.93)
1.06 (0.65, 1.72)
1.26 (0.82, 1.93)
2.36 (0.93, 5.97)
.71 (0.46, 1.12)
1.98** (1.32, 2.99)
1.23 (0.89, 1.70)
1.50 (0.89, 2.51)
1.43 (0.98, 2.09)
1.27 (0.92, 1.75)
1.05 (0.75, 1.47)
2.17* (1.08, 4.35)
25.2%
1.0%
34.0%
Worrisome future
Self-acceptance
Talk about violence
Seeks help
Lack of empathy
Alcohol
Drugs
Cox and Snell R2
Nagelkerkes R2
Model 2
+Activities
OR (95% CI)
Table 5
Boys near-resilience versus non-resilience: Gender-specic logistic regression analysis with STAMINA-Burden-sample.
n = Boys 644, STAMINA-Burden: near-resilient versus non-resilient
Model 1
Self-concept
OR (95% CI)
.65** (0.51, 0.83)
1.25 (0.95, 1.64)
.59*** (0.44, 0.79)
6.3%
6.3%
8.5%
.64** (0.49, 0.82)

1.27 (0.96, 1.69)
.59** (0.44, 0.80)
3.05*** (2.06, 4.51)
.76* (0.61, 0.95)
12.2%
5.9%
16.5%
Model 3
+Family risk
OR (95% CI)
Model 4
+Parenting style
OR (95% CI)
Model 5
+Aggression
OR (95% CI)
.56*** (0.42, 0.74)

1.13 (0.83, 1.54)
.62** (0.45, 0.85)
2.85*** (1.86, 4.38)
.75* (0.59, 0.95)
1.54* (1.06, 2.22)
1.14 (0.96, 1.36)
3.08*** (2.09, 4.52)
.56*** (0.42, 0.75)

1.13 (0.83, 1.54)
.62** (0.45, 0.85)
2.85*** (1.86, 4.38)
.75* (0.59, 0.96)
1.54* (1.06, 2.22)
1.15 (0.96, 1.38)
3.07*** (2.07, 4.56)
.86 (0.58, 1.28)
1.13 (0.78, 1.63)
.99 (0.75, 1.30)
.53*** (0.38, 0.74)

1.16 (0.82, 1.62)
.53** (0.37, 0.78)
2.26** (1.42, 3.58)
.73 (0.54, 1.00)
1.32 (0.90, 1.95)
1.10 (0.90, 1.34)
2.03** (1.34, 3.09)
.73 (0.48, 1.13)
1.34 (0.89, 2.00)
.98 (0.73, 1.32)
1.96*** (1.41, 2.73)
1.76** (1.17, 2.64)
3.38*** (1.87, 6.09)
.85 (0.58, 1.23)
1.14 (0.83, 1.58)
1.02 (0.80, 1.31)
21.3%
9.1%
28.8%
21.4%
28.9%
29.9%
8.6%
40.4%
Model 6
+School
OR (95% CI)
.55** (0.39, 0.77)
1.16 (0.83, 1.63)
.57** (0.38, 0.85)
2.34*** (1.46, 3.74)
.72 (0.53, 0.99)
1.34 (0.91, 1.98)
1.10 (0.90, 1.34)
1.95** (1.27, 3.00)
.72 (0.47, 1.12)
1.34 (0.89, 2.01)
.97 (0.71, 1.31)
2.05*** (1.45, 2.90)
1.77** (1.17, 2.66)
3.25*** (1.80, 5.88)
.84 (0.57, 1.22)
1.16 (0.84, 1.61)
1.03 (0.80, 1.33)
.90 (0.62, 1.32)
.97 (0.71, 1.33)
1.18 (0.87, 1.61)
Model 7
+Substance misuse
OR (95% CI)
30.1%
.55** (0.39, 0.77)

1.16 (0.83, 1.64)
.57** (0.38, 0.85)
2.32*** (1.45, 3.72)
.73* (0.53, 0.99)
1.34 (0.91, 1.98)
1.10 (0.90, 1.34)
1.94** (1.26, 2.99)
.73 (0.47, 1.12)
1.33 (0.89, 2.00)
.97 (0.71, 1.31)
2.06*** (1.45, 2.93)
1.76** (1.17, 2.65)
3.21*** (1.75, 5.87)
.84 (0.57, 1.23)
1.17 (0.84, 1.62)
1.03 (0.80, 1.34)
.90 (0.62, 1.31)
.97 (0.71, 1.34)
1.18 (0.87, 1.61)
.98 (0.76, 1.26)
1.09 (0.68, 1.76)
30.1%
40.6%
40.6%
Worrisome future
Self-acceptance
Talk about violence
Seeks help
Lack of empathy
Alcohol
Drugs
Cox and Snell R2
Nagelkerkes R2
Model 2
+Activities
OR (95% CI)
Note: Cox and Snell change in R is described only if the specic step is signicant.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
193
194
programmes that prevent family violence is voluntary and therefore not systematically undertaken. Until family violence
prevention becomes a public health issue on the order to smoking cessation, it is likely that only minimal inroads to curtail
this behavior will be made. We recognize of course that we are engaging in a kind of circular reasoning here because we are
proposing the prevention of family violence, the very condition for which resilience is necessary. We trust however, that
readers will understand that it is, in the end, it is as important to create conditions that obviate the need for resilience, as it
is to create conditions that promote resilience. As with smoking and lung cancer, while we continually seek to improve the
treatment for this disease, prevention makes much more sense in the long run.
Also remarkable is our nding that the relationship between family violence and the socio-demographic indicators (country, gender, SES, and migration-status) did not have much substantive importance for violence and depression symptoms
resilience in our sample. We highlight this nding because it disputes that of Zinzow et al. (2009), who in their American
study of the prevalence of witnessed parental violence and witnessed community violence found that the exposure to violence varied according to gender, race/ethnicity, and income. We note instead that in the European countries where we
conducted our studies, family violence seems to be a very well distributed burden. This begs the question: If structural risk
factors are of less importance in sorting out violence and depression resilience in adolescents who have been exposed to
family violence, how then do we proceed? Our data suggest that (1) social and personal characteristics may have more to
offer us in this regard than structural factors do and (2) a levels based understanding of violence resilience has the potential
for assisting the development of resilience supportive policies and intervention strategies.
Consistent with the theoretical implications of Masten (2001, 2004) our results indicate that resilience can be categorized
on different levels and that these levels which we term resilient, near-resilient, and non-resilient, are not just theoretical
settings but also empirically veriable. We found, as did, Van der Put et al. (2011) that for adolescent respondents like those
who participated in our study, personal characteristics, and particularly social characteristics (Ungar, 2011) play an important
role in determining resilience levels. We also found evidence of the importance of a pathways approach to understanding
resilience (Ungar, 2005), in that we were able to show that resilience is not an either or condition, but one that can be
seen to build on a continuum where higher levels of exposure to family violence play a signicant role in distinguishing
between resilience, near resilience and non-resilience and where the interplay of personal and social circumstances found
in the families, schools, and peer context of the adolescents with higher resilience differ substantially from those with lower
resilience for both sexes albeit in somewhat different ways.
Our expanded understanding of levels based resilience takes seriously Luthars et al. (2000, p. 548) and supports the call
for a more in-depth understanding of violence resilience. Additionally, our enlarged denition of resilience which includes
physical aggression and depression symptoms supports the ndings of Leadbeater and Hoglund (2009) that aggression and
depression are closely linked. This elaborated understanding appears to be more useful to a pathways model for resilience
as described by Liebenberg and Ungar (2009) and could be useful for the purposes of prevention, clinical intervention, and
scientic understanding of resilience in the face of family violence, in that support for resilience can be designed to focus
multi-dimensionally on depression symptoms and aggression prevention and linked to existing mental health and violence
prevention strategies which themselves, can be expanded to include primary, secondary and tertiary strategies.
In employing our 7 step model, our ndings conrmed previous research on aggression and depression (Browneld, 2005;
Dumont & Provost, 1999; Gaber et al., 1997; Leadbeater et al., 1999; Page & Scalora, 2004) that resilience and in our case,
near resilience, are supported by a higher self-concept, specically by higher emotional self-control, which is an effective
resilience resource for both sexes, but especially for girls. Resilience and near resilience are also supported by higher levels of
talking with parents or friends about violence and higher levels of seeking help to avoid violence, especially where boys are
concerned. Interestingly, despite the existing research on the positive effects of collaborative and cooperative school climates
and good relationships with teachers (Artz & Nicholson, 2010; Longshore et al., 2004; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003) on the
prevention of aggression and depression in (Virtanen et al., 2009; Wang, 2009), our ndings that neither close relationships
with teachers nor acceptance by other students are noticeable predictors of the differentiation between the three resilience
levels require further explanation: We suggest that this is because overall, the non-supportive and negative conditions
(the detrimental/risk factors) that we examined in our large sample appeared to have a greater impact on resilience than
the supportive conditions. Where school conditions are concerned, one school-based negative experience, the exposure
to higher levels of verbally aggressive teachers, did help us to distinguish between resilient and near resilient boys and
between near resilient and non-resilient girls. Yeung and Leadbeater (2010) have noted that teachers can and should make
positive contributions toward the prevention of violence and depression symptoms. Notwithstanding the possibility that
some of these young people and their teachers may be engaging in evocative transactions (Lyman, 2002), where the teachers
may well be raising their voices and even shouting at students in response to unacceptable student behaviors, our ndings
suggest that where school-based violence and depression symptoms prevention are concerned, refraining from all forms of
verbal aggression against students would be a good place to begin.
Aggressive behavior by teachers is however, not the only adult behavior that has a negative effect on resilience and near
resilience that we found. In our data, parental behavior plays a highly signicant role, although in different ways and at
different levels for girls and for boys: For girls, the higher the level of physical abuse by parents the lower the resilience
level, with the chances for non-resilience increasing with witnessing higher levels of spousal verbal and physical abuse
and experiencing inconsistent parenting. For boys, higher levels of parental abuse and witnessing physical spousal abuse
also play a signicant role, especially for non-resilience, and parenting style, specically an authoritarian parenting style,
works against resilience but still allows for near resilience. With these ndings we conrm the reports in the literature on
195
parental behavior and violence and depression symptoms in children and youth to which we refer in our introduction (Artz
et al., 2008; Gilbert et al., 2009; Hussey et al., 2006; Kitzmann et al., 2003; Loeber, Farrington et al., 2008; Loeber, Slot et al.,
2008; Prinzie et al., 2008; Vazsonyi & Belliston, 2006; Yates et al., 2003) and we show the importance of parental behavior
to resilience. Working with parents to reduce and eliminate their use of physical violence against their children and their
verbal and physical abuse toward each other and on developing effective parenting styles makes immediate good sense as
a central resilience building strategy.
Also important to resilience at all levels are the behaviors and attitudes of the adolescents themselves. As we noted
earlier in our paper, the literature that we reviewed showed that victimization plays a signicant role for aggression (c.f.
Pauwels & Svensson, 2009) and depression (c.f. Klomek et al., 2008), Our ndings conrmed this in that our data showed that
especially being a victim of indirect aggression by boys (not girls, however) signicantly predicts near and non-resilience
in girls and non-resilience in boys. This nding that victimization by boys plays a signicant role in violence perpetration
by both girls and boys, conrms that of Artz, Nicholson, and McNamara (2009) but not their nding that victimization by
females plays an even more signicant role. We believe that our ndings are different than those of Artz, Nicholson, and
McNamara because we included a measure of depression symptoms in our resilience denition while they conned their
analysis to an examination of the use (or not) of aggression and violence. Our data emphasizes the importance of the role
victimization by males and suggests therefore that for resilience to violence and depression symptoms, experiences with
violence at the hands of males, is of particular importance. This suggests that when both depression symptoms and violence
resilience are of concern, special attention should be paid to victimization by males and to victim support for both sexes.
The importance of gender was further highlighted in our data by our nding that girls and boys who engage in indirect
aggression toward boys are likely to be near resilient rather than resilient, with the added effect that the higher the level
of indirect aggression in boys toward boys the higher the chances that these boys will be non-resilient. If boys also use of
indirect aggression against girls, their risk of non-resilience increases signicantly. This suggests that indirect aggression
is implicated in direct aggression and in depression symptoms for both sexes and gender crossing, selecting victims of the
opposite sex (Artz, Kassis, & Moldenhauer, in press), signals violence and depression resilience issues.
Attitudes and aggression supportive beliefs in combination with using aggression against others and being victimized
especially by boys contribute signicantly to all three levels of resilience, but in somewhat different ways for girls and for
boys. For girls, the higher the endorsement of aggression supportive beliefs and the higher their lack of empathy, the lower
their level of resilience. For boys, high aggression supportive beliefs come into play only for distinguishing between near
resilience and non-resilience and empathy plays no role. We suggest that these results speak to male and female socialization
in that previous research has shown that even in non-aggressive, non-violent groups, adolescent males endorse aggression
supportive beliefs at signicantly higher levels and empathy at signicantly lower levels than adolescent females, while
adolescent females report lower levels of endorsement of aggression supportive beliefs and higher levels of empathy than
adolescent males (Artz, 1998; Artz et al., 2009). It seems plausible therefore, to suggest that for girls, a deviation from a
more general female norm (that is the endorsement of aggression supportive beliefs and lower empathy) can be expected
to play a role with regard to their resilience levels. At the same time, given boys generally lower endorsement of empathy
and higher endorsement of aggression supportive beliefs, these factors are likely to play a smaller role in differentiating for
resilience in boys. Together, these ndings suggest that resilience interventions that focus on attitudes and beliefs need to be
gender specic in their design and content. Helping boys to endorse and practice empathy and shift away from aggression
supportive beliefs and thereby change their socialized gender scripts may be a greater challenge than that of working with
girls to help them accept an already well-established script for being female.
Finally, two behaviors that are known for the predictive values for adolescent violence and depression, alcohol consumption and the use of drugs (Barnes et al., 2006; Chinet et al., 2006; Lam & McBride-Chang, 2007), contributed rather weakly
as predictors of membership in our three resilience categories. The use of drugs was helpful only for predicting membership
in the near resilient group for girls, but not for boys, and the use of alcohol was helpful only in predicting membership
in the non-resilient group for boys. These ndings, along with our ndings regarding school climate and teachers and our
ndings about victimization, suggest that our resilience model and likely resilience models in general, cannot and should
not be premised on mirror images of models that explain youth violence and the mere absence of factors that contribute
to these behaviors. Resiliencethat is the combined absence or near absence of the use of violence against others and of
depression symptoms, is, as we have already stated, a condition that must be understood on its own merits. Protective individual and social factors have pronounced statistically signicant differential effects on adolescents capacity to overcome
the deleterious effects of exposure to family violence and must be worked with in a way that reects these differences.
We conclude that the theoretical model that we offer here can, to a large extent, explain the differences between
resilient, near-resilient, and non-resilient young people. Around 75% of all the adolescents who participated in the
analyses can be correctly classied using the predictors applied. This means that it really matters that we differentiate
between the 3 resilience levels that we have identied, and that we recognize that resilience is not simply a dichotomous
condition. From a content perspective, this suggests that the resilience level can be inuenced in a focussed way by locating
young people along a resilience continuum and then moderating their living environments accordingly by minimizing risk
factors and supporting protective factors in their everyday lives. In this way, a large proportion of young people who are negatively affected by their family environment could be sufciently supported on their respective resilience pathways. Working
from a levels based perspective and one that is not premised only on individual characteristics for building resilience, would
196
help us to avoid blaming adolescents, if a pure state of resilience is not immediately achieved (Aisenberg & Herrenkohl,
2008) and would offer these adolescents and those who work with them, a much more hopeful long term outlook.
Methodological limitations
A limitation of our study is the fact that we have only one information source, the adolescents who were the respondents
to our survey. Personality traits could have inuenced their perceptions and reporting of violence experiences and their
assessment of their interactions with parents and teachers, and without triangulation we were not able to control for this
possibility. However, recent research (Desjardins & Leadbeater, 2011; Evans, Davies, & DiLillo, 2008) shows that youth selfreports are generally quite valid, so we believe that we can safely assume the problems due to an absence of other data
sources are minor.
A further limitation was the quite low but still acceptable Cronbachs alpha of a few of our subscales. This is a common
problem in international studies with questionnaires in different languages (Enzmann et al., 2010; Junger-Tas et al., 2010).
To succeed in the specic sub-scale computations of the three different languages of our study (German, Slovenian, and
Spanish), in four countries (Austria, Germany, Slovenia, and Spain) and in the overall reliability computations was still a
remarkable result for most of the subscales.
Country specic modeling of resilience characteristics was not possible because of the sample sizes. Executing logistic
models as a multi-factorial analysis of personal and social risk and protective characteristics requires much larger country
samples than we were able to obtain. None-the-less, we were able to detect noteworthy similarities between the country
samples on the distribution of family violence and resilience.
The cross-sectional character of this study implies that we make no conclusions about causalities, and that are results
speak only to resilience factors. While not engaging in the on-going methodological and philosophical discussion about
whether causality really exists in social sciences (Mackie, 1974, 1993 [1965]; Maruyama, 1997; Waldmann & Hagmayer,
2006) we still note that longitudinal studies (Sousa et al., 2011; Spano et al., 2010) have concluded that there is a reciprocal relationship between violence in adolescents and parental physical abuse. These coercive cycles (Leadbeater, Boone,
Sangster, & Mathieson, 2006) seem to be well established and our work conrms that and adds to the discussion the notion
that different forms of family abuse can also have different effects on the resilience level of the adolescents who are subjected
to such abuse.
Because of the sample size, we decided not to work at the subsample level, so the specic role of poly-victimization
(Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2007) could not be examined. From a theoretical point of view, the research also provides us
with information about high co-occurrence (Bohne, 2011; Hammen, 2009; Spano et al., 2010; Zinzow et al., 2009) of the various family violence forms (physical abuse by parents, physical spousal abuse) that we included in our study. More research
on co-occurrence and how this relates to the resilience continuum would be of great use to expanding our understanding of
resilience and our new model. As well, a deeper qualitative understanding of the specic family situations in which violence
occurs that examines the levels of resilience that we suggest would be extremely relevant. These kind of insights are likely
best achieved through case studies (Artz, 1998). Finally, we believe that we need to replicate our model across several more
EU countries and in the English speaking industrialized world in order to test its validity, and hope that in the meantime,
we have made a good beginning with our revision of existing approaches to understanding resilience.
References
Aisenberg, E., & Herrenkohl, T. (2008). Community violence in context. Risk and resilience in children and families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23,
296315.
Alder, C., & Worrall, A. (2004). A contemporary crisis? In C. Alder, & A. Worrall (Eds.), Girls violence: Myths and realities (pp. 120). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Artz, S. (1998). Sex, power, and the violent school girl. Toronto: Trifolium Books.
Artz, S., & Nicholson, D. (2010). Reducing aggressive behavior in adolescent girls by attending to school climate. In M. Chesney-Lind, & R. Immarigeon (Eds.),
Fighting for girls (pp. 149174). New York: St. Univ. of New York.
Artz, S., Nicholson, D., & Magnuson, D. (2008). Examining sex differences in the use of direct and indirect aggression. Gender Issues, 25, 267288.
Artz, S., Nicholson, D., & McNamara, J. (2009). Violence in the schoolyard: Using self-report surveys to understand school-based aggression and violence.
Journal of Child and Youth Care Work, 22, 2036.
Artz, S., Kassis, W., & Moldenhauer, S. (2013, in press). Rethinking indirect aggression: The end of the mean girl myth. Victims and Offenders.
Barnes, G. M., Hoffman, J. H., Welte, J. W., Farrell, M. P., & Dintcheff, B. A. (2006). Effects of parental monitoring and peer deviance on substance use and
delinquency. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 10841104.
Bates, K., Bader, C., & Mencken, C. (2003). Family structure, power-control theory, and deviance. Western Criminology Review, 4, 170190.
Beck, A. T., & Alford, B. A. (2009). Depression: Causes and treatments (2nd ed.). Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bjrkqvist, K., sterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (2000). Social intelligence empathy = aggression? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 191200.
Bohne, S. (2011). Gewalt gegen Frauen und Mdchen: Interventions- und Prventionsmglichkeiten des Gesundheitswesens durch multi-professionelle
Kooperation. E-Dissertation. Retrieved from http://repositorium.ub.uni-osnabrueck.de/bitstream/urn:nbn:de:gbv:700-201107138185/4/thesis
bohne.pdf
Browneld, D., & Thompson, K. (2005). Self-concept and delinquency. Western Criminology Review, 6, 2229.
Byrne, J. M., & Lurigio, A. (2008). Victimization and criminal behavior in adolescence and adulthood. Victims and Offenders, 3, 319330.
Caravita, S., Di Blasio, P., & Salmivalli, Ch. (2009). Unique and interactive effects of empathy and social status on involvement in bullying. Social Development,
18, 140163.
Chinet, L., Plancherel, B., Bolognini, M., Bernard, M., Laget, J., Daniele, G., & Halfon, O. (2006). Substance use and depression. Comparative Courses in Adolescents,
European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 15, 149155.
197
Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents.
Child Development, 65, 541561.
Connell, J. P., Beale Spencer, M., & Aber, L. J. (1994). Educational risk and resilience in African-American youth: Context, self, action, and outcomes in school.
Cullen, F., Unnever, J., Hartman, J., Turner, M., & Agnew, R. (2008). Gender, bullying victimization, and juvenile delinquency: A test of general strain theory.
Victims and Offenders, 3, 346364.
Desjardins, T. L., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2011). Relational victimization and depressive symptoms in adolescence: Moderating effects of mother, father, and
peer emotional support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 531544.
Doob, A., & Cesaroni, C. (2004). Responding to youth crime in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Dumont, M., & Provost, M. (1999). Resilience in adolescence, protective role of social support, coping strategies, self-esteem, and social activities on
experience of stress and depression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 8, 343363.
Dunn, V., Abbott, R., Croudace, T., Wilkinson, P., Jones, P., Herbert, J., & Goodyer, I. (2011). Proles of family-focused adverse experiences through childhood
and early adolescence: The ROOTS project, a community investigation of adolescent mental health. BMC Psychiatry, 11, 109.
Eaton, D. K., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S., Ross, J., & Hawkins, J. (2008). Youth risk behavior surveillanceUnited States 2007. MMWR Surveillance
Summaries, 57, 1131.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B., & Reiser, M. (1999). Parental reactions to childrens negative emotions: Longitudinal
relations to quality of childrens social functioning. Chid Development, 70, 513534.
Enzmann, D., Marshall Ineke, H., Martin, K., Junger-Tas, J., Steketee, M., & Gruszczynska, B. (2010). Self-reported youth delinquency in Europe and beyond:
First results of the Second International Self-Report Delinquency Study in the context of police and victimization data. European Journal of Criminology,
7, 159183.
Evans, S. E., Davies, C., & DiLillo, D. (2008). Exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent outcomes. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
13, 131140.
Fend, H. (2000). Entwicklungspsychologie des Jugendalters. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.
Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., & Turner, H. A. (2007). Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 726.
Gaber, J., Robinson, N., & Valentiner, D. (1997). The relation between parenting and adolescent depression. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 1233.
Gilbert, R., Widom, C. S., Browne, K., Fergusson, D., Webb, E., & Janson, S. (2009). Burden and consequences of child maltreatment in high-income countries.
Lancet, 373, 6881.
Goodman, E., Slap, G., & Huang, B. (2002). How much does socioeconomic status matter to adolescent health? Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 102.
Goodman, E., McEwen, B., Dolan Schafer-Kalkhoff, T., & Adler, N. (2005). Social disadvantage and adolescent stress. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, 484492.
Hagemann-White, C., Kavemann, B., Kindler, H., Meysen, T., & Puchert, R. (2010). Factors at play in the perpetration of violence against women, violence against
children and sexual orientation violence. A multi-level interactive model. Osnabrueck: European Commission.
Hair, E. C., McGroder, S. M., Zaslow, M. J., Ahluwalia, S. K., & Moore, K. A. (2002). How do maternal risk factors affect children in low-income families? Further
evidence of two-generational implications. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 23
Hammen, C. (2009). Adolescent depression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 200.
Hart, A., Blincow, D., & Thomas, H. (2008). Resilient therapy: Strategic therapeutic engagement with children in crisis. Child Care in Practice, 14, 131145.
Heitmeyer, W., Collmann, B., Conrads, J., Matuschek, I., Kraul, D., Kuhnel, W., Mller, R., & Ulbrich-Hermann, M. (1995). Gewalt. Schattenseiten der Individualisierung bei Jugendlichen aus unterschiedlichen Milieus. Weinheim: Juventa.
Herrenkohl, T. I., Hill, K. G., Chung, I.-J., Guo, J., Abbott, R. D., & Hawkins, J. D. (2003). Protective factors against serious violent behavior in adolescence: A
prospective study of aggressive children. Social Work Research, 27, 179191.
Hindelang, M., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, J. H. P., & Geis, A. J. (2003). Berufsklassikation und Messung des beruichen Status/Prestige. ZUMA-Nachrichten, 52, 125138.
Hussey, J. M., Chang, J. J., & Kotch, J. B. (2006). Child maltreatment in the United States: Prevalence, risk factors, and adolescent health consequences.
Pediatrics, 118, 933942.
Hymel, S., Bowker, A., & Woody, E. (1993). Aggressive versus withdrawn unpopular children: Variations in peer and self-perceptions in multiple domains.
Junger-Tas, J., Marshall, I., Enzmann, D., Killias, M., Steketee, M., & Gruszczynska, B. (Eds.). (2010). Juvenile delinquency in Europe and beyond: Results of the
second international self-report delinquency study. Berlin: Springer.
Kassis, W. (2003). Wie kommt die Gewalt in die Jungen? Soziale und personale Faktoren der Gewaltentwicklung bei mnnlichen Jugendlichen im Schulkontext.
Bern: Haupt.
Kassis, W. (2011). Prdiktoren des Einsatzes physischer Gewalt bei (mnnlichen) Jugendlichen. In G. Deegener, & W. Krner (Eds.), Gewalt und Aggression
im Kindes- und Jugendalter (pp. 146162). Weinheim: Juventa.
Kassis, W., Abril, P., Bohne, S., Busche, M., Hrzenjak, M., Humer, Z., Puchert, R., Romero, A., Scambor, C., & Scambor, E. (2010). Parents and teachers as violence
risk-indicators. Psychotherapie-Forum, 18, 8088.
Kassis, W., Abril, P., Bohne, S., Busche, M., Hrzenjak, M., Humer, Z., Puchert, R., Romero, A., Scambor, C., & Scambor, E. (2011). Formation of non-violent
behaviour in school and during leisure time among young adults from violent families: An EC Daphne III Programme. Osnabrck: Universitt Osnabrck.
Khoury-Kassabri, M., Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). The effects of school climate, socioeconomics, and cultural factors on student victimization in
Israel. Social Work Research, 29, 165180.
Khoury-Kassabri, M., Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A., & Zeira, A. (2004). The contributions of community, family, and school variables to student victimization.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 187204.
Kitzmann, K. M., Gaylord, N. K., Holt, A. R., & Kenny, E. D. (2003). Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 71, 339352.
Klomek, A. B., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I. S., & Gould, M. S. (2008). Peer victimization, depression, and suicidiality in adolescents. Suicide and
Life-Threatening Behavior, 38, 166180.
Kmett Danielson, C., Macdonald, A., Amstadter, A. B., Hanson, R., de Arellano, M. A., Saunders, B. E., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (2010). Risky behaviors and depression
in conjunction withor in the absence oflifetime history of PTSD among sexually abused adolescents. Child Maltreatment, 15, 101.
Knoke, D., Bohrnstedt, G., & Potter Mee, A. (2002). Statistics for social data analysis (4th ed.). Itasca: F.E. Peacock Publishers.
Krohne, H. W., & Pulsack, A. (1996). Das Erziehungsstil-Inventar: ESI: Manual. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Krumm, V., Lamberger-Baumann, B., & Haider, G. (1997). Gewalt in der Schule-auch von Lehrern. Empirische Pdagogik, 11, 257274.
Lam, C., & McBride-Chang, C. (2007). Resilience in young adulthood: The moderating inuences of gender-related personality traits and coping exibility.
Sex Roles, 56, 159172.
Leadbeater, B., Boone, E., Sangster, N., & Mathieson, L. (2006). Sex differences in the personal costs and benets of relational and physical aggression in high
school. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 409419.
Leadbeater, B., & Hoglund, W. (2009). The effects of peer victimization and physical aggression on changes in internalizing from rst to third grade. Child
Development, 80, 843859.
Leadbeater, B., Kupermine, G., Blatt, S., & Hertzog, C. (1999). A multivariate model of gender differences in adolescents internalizing and externalizing
problems. Developmental Psychology, 35, 12681282.
Leadbeater, B., Thompson, K., & Gruppuso, V. (2012). Co-occurring trajectories of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and oppositional deance from
adolescence to young adulthood. Journal Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 41, 719730.
Leadbeater, B., & Way, N. (Eds.). (2007). Urban girls revisited: Building strengths. New York: New York University Press.
198
Liebenberg, L., & Ungar, M. (2009). Researching resilience. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Link, T. (2008). Adolescent substance use in Germany and the United States: A cross-cultural test of the applicability and generalizability of theoretical
indicators. European Journal of Criminology, 5, 453480.
Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1984). Boys who ght at home and school: Family conditions inuencing cross-setting consistency. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 52, 759768.
Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & White, H. R. (2008). Violence and serious theft: Development and prediction from childhood to adulthood.
New York: Routledge.
Loeber, R., Slot, W., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2008). A cumulative developmental model of risk and promotive factors. In R. Loeber, H. M. Koot, N. W. Slot,
P. H. Van der Laan, & M. Hoeve (Eds.), Tomorrows criminals: The development of child delinquency and effective interventions (pp. 133161). Hampshire,
UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Longshore, D., Chang, E., Hsieh, S., & Messina, N. (2004). Self-control and social bonds: A combined control perspective on deviance. Crime & Delinquency,
50, 542.
Lovett, B., & Shefeld, R. (2007). Affective empathy decits in aggressive children and adolescents: A critical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 113.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543562.
Lyman, D. R. (2002). Fledgling psychopathy: A view of personality theory. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 255259.
Mackie, J. L. (1974). The cement of the universe. A study of causation. Clarendon Press: Oxford.
Mackie, J. L. (1993 (1965)). Causes and conditions. In E. Sosa, & M. Tooley (Eds.), Causation (pp. 3355). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maruyama, G. M. (1997). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic. American Psychologist, 56, 227238.
Masten, A. S. (2004). Regulatory processes, risk, and resilience in adolescent development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1021, 310319.
Mayberry, M., & Espelage, D. (2007). Associations among empathy, social competence, & reactive/proactive aggression subtypes. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 36, 787798.
Mayer, S., Fuhrer, U., & Uslucan, H.-H. (2005). Akkulturation und intergenerationale Transmission von Gewalt in Familien trkischer Herkunft. Zeitschrift
fr Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 168185.
McCarthy, S. N., & Hutz, C. S. (2006). Preventing teen violence: A guide for parents and professionals. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., & Eisner, M. (2009). Drawing conclusions about causes from systematic reviews of risk factors. Journal of Experimental Criminology,
5, 123.
Musher-Eizenman, D., Holub, S., & Arnett, M. (2003). Attitude and peer inuences on adolescent substance use: The moderating effect of age, sex, and
substance. Journal of Drug Education, 33, 123.
Musher-Eizenman, D., & Kulick, A. (2003). An alcohol expectancy-challenge prevention program for at-risk college women* 1. Psychology of Addictive
Behaviors, 17, 163166.
Page, G., & Scalora, M. (2004). The utility of locus of control for assessing juvenile amenability to treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 523534.
Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D., & Bank, L. (1991). An early starter model for predicting delinquency. In D. P. Pepler, & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and
treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 139168). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family management practices and delinquency. Child Development, 55, 12991307.
Pauwels, L., & Svensson, R. (2009). Adolescent lifestyle risk by gender and ethnic background. European Journal of Criminology, 6, 524.
Phythian, K., Keane, C., & Krull, C. (2008). Family structure and parental behavior: Identifying the sources of adolescent self-control. Western Criminology
Review, 9, 7387.
Pollack, W. S. (1999). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. New York: Owl Books.
Prinstein, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2003). Forms and functions of adolescent peer aggression associated with high levels of peer status. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 49, 310342.
Prinzie, P., Hoeve, M., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2008). Family processes, parent and child personality characteristics. In R. Loeber, H. M. Koot, N. W. Slot, P. H. Van
der Laan, & M. Hoeve (Eds.), Tomorrows criminals: The development of child delinquency and effective interventions (pp. 91102). Hampshire, UK: Ashgate
Publishing Ltd.
Rebellon, C., Piquero, N., Piquero, A., & Thaxton, S. (2009). Do frustrated economic expectations and objective economic inequity promote crime? European
Journal of Criminology, 6, 4772.
Schafer, J., & Graham, J. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147177.
Schtz, A. (2000). Psychologie des Selbstwertgefhls. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Selner-OHagan, M. B., Kindlon, D. J., Buka, S. L., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. J. (1998). Assessing exposure to violence in urban youth. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 215224.
Smith-Osborne, A. (2008). Use of meta-analysis to study resilience factors: An exemplar. In L. Liebenberg, & M. Ungar (Eds.), Resilience in action (pp. 180200).
Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Sousa, C., Herrenkohl, T. I., Moylan, C. A., Tajima, E. A., Klika, J. B., Herrenkohl, R. C., & Russo, M. J. (2011). Longitudinal study on the effects of child abuse and
childrens exposure to domestic violence, parent-child attachments, and antisocial behavior in adolescence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 111.
Spano, R., Rivera, C., & Bolland, J. M. (2010). Are chronic exposure to violence and chronic violent behavior closely related developmental processes during
adolescence? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 11601179.
Sprott, J., & Doob, A. (2004). Youth justice in Canada. In M. Tonry, & A. Doob (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of the research (pp. 185242). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents
from authorative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754770.
Stormshak, E. A., Connell, A. M., Veronneau, M. H., Myers, M. W., Dishion, T. J., Kavanagh, K., & Caruthers, A. S. (2011). An ecological approach to promoting
early adolescent mental health and social adaptation: Family centered intervention in public middle schools. Child Development, 82, 209225.
Tran, C. V., Cole, D. A., & Weiss, B. (2012). Testing reciprocal longitudinal relations between peer victimization and depressive symptoms in young adolescents.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 41, 353360.
Tremblay, R. E. (2000). The origins of youth violence (ISUMA). Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 1, 1924.
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989).
Ungar, M. (2005). Pathways to resilience among children in child welfare, corrections, mental health and educational settings: Navigation and negotiation.
Child and Youth Care Forum, 34, 423444.
Ungar, M. (2008). Putting resilience theory into action: Five principles for intervention. In L. Liebenberg, & M. Ungar (Eds.), Resilience in action (pp. 1736).
Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Ungar, M. (2011). The social ecology of resilience. Addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity of a nascent construct. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
81, 117.
M., & Hoeve, M. (2011). Promotive factors during adolescence: Are there changes in impact and
Van der Put, C., Van der Laan, P., Stams, G.-J., Dekovic,
prevalence during adolescence and how does this relate to risk factors? International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 1 and 2, 119141.
Vazsonyi, A., & Belliston, L. (2006). Processes in adolescent anxiety and depression symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 491505.
Virtanen, M., Kivimki, M., Luopa, P., Vahtera, J., Elovainio, M., Jokela, J., & Pietikinen, M. (2009). Staff reports of psychosocial climate at school and
adolescents health, truancy and health education in Finland. European Journal of Public Health, 19, 554560.
Waldmann, M. R., & Hagmayer, Y. (2006). Categories and causality: The neglected direction. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 2758.
199
Wang, M.-T. (2009). School climate support for behavioral and psychological adjustment: Testing the mediating effect of social competence. School
Psychology Quarterly, 24, 240251.
Yates, T. M., Dodds, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2003). Exposure to partner violence and child behavior problems: A prospective study controlling for
child physical abuse and neglect, child cognitive ability, socioeconomic status, and life stress. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 199218.
Yeung, R., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2010). Adults make a difference: The protective effects of parent and teacher emotional support on emotional and behavioral
problems of peer victimized adolescents. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 8098.
Zinzow, H. M., Ruggiero, K. J., Resnick, H., Hanson, R., Smith, D., Saunders, B., & Kilpatrick, D. (2009). Prevalence and mental health correlates of witnessed
parental and community violence in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 441450.

A Non-Dichotomous Understanding of Violence e Resiliense IMPORTANTE PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Non-Dichotomous Understanding of Violence e Resiliense IMPORTANTE PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Child Abuse & Neglect

Finding the way out: A non-dichotomous understanding of violence

School of Educational Sciences, University of Osnabrueck, Germany

W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

.36*** (0.24, 0.52)

.37*** (0.25, 0.54)

.38*** (0.26, 0.57)

.45*** (0.29, 0.69)

.45*** (0.29, 0.70)

W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

.48*** (0.35, 0.66)

.49*** (0.35, 0.66)

.48*** (0.35, 0.67)

.66*** (0.45, 0.95)

.67* (0.46, 0.97)

.77 (0.52, 1.14)

W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

.49*** (0.35, 0.69)

.51*** (0.36, 0.73)

.50*** (0.34, 0.72)

.47*** (0.32, 0.69)

W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

.64** (0.49, 0.82)

.56*** (0.42, 0.74)

.56*** (0.42, 0.75)

.53*** (0.38, 0.74)

.55** (0.39, 0.77)

W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

W. Kassis et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 181199

Você também pode gostar