Katherine Little, F. Christy McFarland, Deborah Land, Jennifer Haynes, & Joseph Allen

1. Katherine Little, F. Christy McFarland, Deborah Land, Jennifer Haynes, & Joseph Allen Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development, Atlanta, GA, April 2005. The authors can be reached at the Department of Psychology, PO Box 400400, 102 Gilmer Hall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4400 or, kcl5v@Virginia.edu

2. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the National Institute of Mental Health for funding awarded to Joseph P. Allen, Principal Investigator, (Grant # R01 MH58066-07) to conduct and write-up this project. We also extend our gratitude to the KLIFF lab graduate students, project coordinators, and undergraduate assistants. For copies of this poster and other articles and reprints please go to: http://www.teenresearch.org

3. Abstract This set of studies examines the influence of parental conflict on adolescent aggression with peers over three waves of data collection. Adolescents’ mothers reported on fathers’ level of verbal aggression within the parental relationship. This index of parental conflict was used to predict adolescents’ responses to hypothetical situations in which a peer was aggressive toward the adolescent. These hypothetical responses were then used to predict actual adolescent aggressive responses one year later. Results were analyzed separately for male and female adolescents. A significant interaction effect for gender and parental conflict was found for the change in aggressive responses from time one to time two, as well as for change in actual aggressive behavior from time two to time three. Females’ rate of aggressive responses decreased as parental conflict increased, whereas males’ rate of aggressive responses increased with increasing parental conflict. Males with more aggressive responses at time two showed more actual aggression at time three than did females.

4. Introduction • Previous research has focused primarily on the influence of parental conflict on adolescent internalizing symptoms, noting female adolescents’ tendency to be more attuned to stressful events in their close social network, to experience higher levels of communion with parents, and to become more involved in parental conflict than males (Davies & Lindsay, 2004; Kessler & McLeod, 1984) • Each of these behaviors is linked to an increase in depressive symptoms in females, but not males (Crawford, Cohen, Midlarsky, & Brook, 2001; Davies & Lindsay, 2004; Kessler & McLeod, 1984) • Social learning models are often employed to explain the intergenerational transmission of aggression, and this is primarily true for male adolescents.

5. Introduction • Capaldi and Clark (1998) found that men whose parents reported high levels of partner aggression were more likely to perpetuate partner aggression if they had also developed antisocial behavior during adolescence. • Other research has linked parental conflict to female adolescent internalizing and male adolescent externalizing symptoms via mediating variables, such as self-blame and perceived threat, respectively (Grych, Harold, & Miles, 2003). • Little research has emerged comparing adolescent male and female aggressive attitudes and behaviors in the context of parental conflict. • The focus of this study is to identify a model for the transmission of interparental conflict to male and female adolescent aggressive behavior.

6. Hypotheses • Study 1: • Father hostility toward mother at time one will predict an increase in the aggressiveness of male adolescent responses to hypothetical peer interactions and a decrease in aggressiveness of female responses at time two. • Study 2: • More aggressive responses to hypothetical peer interactions at time two will predict greater peer-reported aggression at time three, especially for males.

7. Method Participants • A sub sample of drawn from a multi-method, multi-reporter, longitudinalstudy of185 adolescents. • Study 1: 100 adolescents and their mothers • Study 2: 124 adolescents and their closest same-sex peer • Age time 1: mean = 13.35, SD = .64 • Age time 2: mean = 14.27, SD =.77 • Age time 3: mean = 15.21, SD = .82 • 53% female • 38% minority • Median family income $40-60K

8. Method Measures • Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979) Mothers reported about their relationship with a partner. The negative relatedness scale (α = .75), adapted from the verbal/ psychological abuse scale (Davis, 1996), was used to assess male partner’s hostility toward mother. • The Adolescent Problem Inventory was developed for this study, based on the API for boys (Freedman, Rosenthal, Donahoe, Schlundt, & McFall, 1978) and the PIAG for girls (Gaffney & McFall, 1981). Hypothetical vignettes involving peer interactions were read to participants, whose responses were recorded on audio tapes. A subset of vignettes in which a hypothetical peer approached the teen in an aggressive manner were combined into a subscale measuring adolescent response to peer aggression (Wave 1 α = .49, Wave 2 α = .55).

9. Method • The Adolescent Problem Inventory Coding System was developed for this study based on the competence coding system set out by Freedman, Rosenthal, Donahoe, Schlundt, & McFall, (1978) and Gaffney & McFall (1981). • Responses were blind and double- or triple-coded. • Intraclass correlations (Wave 1) (N = 160) = .84 • Intraclass correlations (Wave 2) (N = 156) = .85 • Adolescent Aggression Scale • Close peers reported on target adolescents using items created for this study and administered in the format of the Adolescent Self-Perception Profile (Harter, 1988). • Ex: Some teens DO physically push other kids around BUT Some teens DON=T physically push other kids around. • Wave 2: α = .77 • Wave 3: α = .76

10. Table 1 Predicting change in adolescent aggressive responses from time 1 to time 2 from the interaction of father hostility and gender

11. Figure 1 The interaction of father hostility and adolescent gender predicting adolescent aggressive response at time 2

12. Table 2 Predicting change in close peer report of adolescent aggression from time 2 to time 3 from the interaction of aggressive response at time 2 and gender

13. Figure 2 The interaction of adolescent aggressive response at time 2 and gender predicting adolescent aggressive behavior at time 3

14. Results • A significant interaction effect for father hostility by gender accounted for an additional 7 % of the variance in adolescent aggressive response at time 2 over and above the effects of aggressive response at time 1 (see Table 1). • A significant interaction effect for aggressive response at time 2 and gender accounted for an additional 14% of the variance in close peer report of adolescent aggression at time 3 over and above close peer report of aggression at time 2 (see Table 2).

15. Discussion • Study 1 • Adolescent males whose mother figures report higher partner hostility are more likely to give aggressive responses at age 14, even while controlling for responses at age 13. • Adolescent females whose mother figures report higher partner hostility are less likely to give aggressive responses at age 14, even while controlling for responses at age 13. • Study 2 • Adolescent males who give more aggressive responses to the API at age 14 are likely to be very aggressive at age 15, even when controlling for aggression at age 14. • Adolescent females’ responses to the API at age 14 have little predictive value for female aggression at age 15.

16. Discussion • A model of intergenerational transmission of parental conflict to adolescent aggression is proposed in which: • Male adolescents mentally rehearse aggressive responses to peer aggression, and later model them. • Female adolescents, in contrast, appear to learn prosocial skills in the face of parental conflict, perhaps through attempting to mediate the conflict. • It is notable that due to the small sub sample of mothers reporting on a partner, there was a subsequently low N for Study 1. • These studies could be extended by predicting susceptibility to peer pressure (and potential gender differences) from parental conflict.

17. References • Capaldi, D.M., & Clark, S. (1998). Prospective family predictors of aggression toward female partners for at-risk young men. Developmental Psychology, 34(6), 1175-1188. • Crawford, T.N.; Cohen, P.; Midlarsky, E.; & Brook, J.S. (2001). Internalizing symptoms in adolescents: Gender differences in vulnerability to parental distress and discord. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11(1), 95-118. • Davies, P.T., & Lindsay, L.L. (2004). Interparental conflict and adolescent adjustment: Why does gender moderate early adolescent vulnerability? Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 160-170. • Davis, S.M. (1996) The relevance of autonomy and relatedness to the relationship between harsh punishment and juvenile delinquency. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(10-B), 6611. • Freedman, B. J.; Rosenthal, L.; Donahoe, C.P.; Schlundt, D. G.; & McFall, R. M. (1978). A social-behavioral analysis of skill deficits in delinquent and non-delinquent boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 1448-1462. • Gaffney, L. R., & McFall, R. M. (1981). A comparison of social skills in delinquent and nondelinquent adolescent girls using a behavioral role-playing inventory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 959-967. • Grych, J.H.; Harold, G.T.; & Miles, C.J. (2003). A prospective investigation of appraisals as mediators of the link between interparental conflict and child adjustment. Child Development, 74(4), 1176-1193. • Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents. Unpublished manuscript. • Kessler, R.C., & McLeod, J.D. (1984). Sex differences in vulnerability to undesirable life events. American Sociological Review, 49, 620-631. • Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-85.