PURPOSE: The study investigated protective factors (school commitment/importance, parent/peer disapproval of antisocial behavior, positive future orientation, and religion) hypothesized to lower risk for antisocial behavior among adolescents who, as children, had been physically abused. Protective factors also were investigated for comparison, nonabused children, and for children at risk on abuse and other factors: low socioeconomic status and early antisocial behavior. METHODS: Analyses used a two-step hierarchical regression approach. In step 1, age, gender, and early antisocial behavior were entered as controls. In step 2, each protective factor was entered separately as a predictor. A final regression model in each case examined the additive (combined) effect of all protective factors on a given outcome. Tests of predictor-by-group interactions were used to examine group differences. RESULTS: Among abused and nonabused children, having a strong commitment to school, having parents and peers who disapprove of antisocial behavior, and being involved in a religious community lowered rates of lifetime violence, delinquency, and status offenses. Having a positive future orientation appeared less powerful as a protective influence. Exposure to an increasing number of protective factors was for each outcome associated with a diminution in risk for antisocial behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Protective factors represent targets for preventive intervention that are viable for children as they enter adolescence. The fact that protective factors were predictive of lower antisocial behavior in both the abuse and comparison groups suggests that protective effects are more universal than they are unique to a given group of children.
PURPOSE: The study investigated protective factors (school commitment/importance, parent/peer disapproval of antisocial behavior, positive future orientation, and religion) hypothesized to lower risk for antisocial behavior among adolescents who, as children, had been physically abused. Protective factors also were investigated for comparison, nonabused children, and for children at risk on abuse and other factors: low socioeconomic status and early antisocial behavior. METHODS: Analyses used a two-step hierarchical regression approach. In step 1, age, gender, and early antisocial behavior were entered as controls. In step 2, each protective factor was entered separately as a predictor. A final regression model in each case examined the additive (combined) effect of all protective factors on a given outcome. Tests of predictor-by-group interactions were used to examine group differences. RESULTS: Among abused and nonabused children, having a strong commitment to school, having parents and peers who disapprove of antisocial behavior, and being involved in a religious community lowered rates of lifetime violence, delinquency, and status offenses. Having a positive future orientation appeared less powerful as a protective influence. Exposure to an increasing number of protective factors was for each outcome associated with a diminution in risk for antisocial behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Protective factors represent targets for preventive intervention that are viable for children as they enter adolescence. The fact that protective factors were predictive of lower antisocial behavior in both the abuse and comparison groups suggests that protective effects are more universal than they are unique to a given group of children.
Authors: Cindy Sousa; Todd I Herrenkohl; Carrie A Moylan; Emiko A Tajima; J Bart Klika; Roy C Herrenkohl; M Jean Russo Journal: J Interpers Violence Date: 2010-05-10