Violent Victimization and Perpetration: Joint and Distinctive Implications for Adolescent Well-Being

Purpose: Violent victimization and perpetration have been identified as serious risk factors for healthy adolescent development (Barnow et al, 2005; Smith et al, 2003). Etiologically, victimization is implicated in the onset and continuance of perpetration, and aggressive behavior has been identified as one of the strongest predictors of polyvictimization (Finkelhor et al, 2007). Yet, rarely are victimization and perpetration examined simultaneously to discern points of overlap and difference in risk and protective factors that characterize violence-affected adolescents and hold critical implications for their development. The present study addresses this gap, drawing from a large sample of high-risk adolescents assessed on multi-level risk factors (emotional distress, substance use, life stress, risky behaviors) and protective factors (personal resources, social support, school engagement).

Methods: This previously described, NIMH-funded study surveyed a high-risk school-based sample of youth in two large metropolitan areas, using a sampling protocol based on school records and teacher reports (Nurius et al, 2008). An ethnically diverse, random sample (N=850) completed nurse-delivered surveys with established measurement scales across multiple sociodemographic, psychological, and interpersonal domains. All constructs demonstrated good to excellent psychometric properties. Victimization was defined as having experienced polyform violence exposure (2 or more of three direct and two witnessing forms), or a single type of exposure at a high frequency. Perpetration was established using a composite of fighting, property destruction, and emotionally or physically harming others.

Results: A four group typology was created: Victimization Only, Perpetration Only, Both (Victimized Perpetrators), or No History of either. Using MANOVA as a conservative test of group differences across multiple factors, robust and consistent differences were found for every domain. All violence-affected youth significantly varied from those with no violence histories. Overall, Victimized Perpetrators showed the greatest impairment and the least resiliency among the violence-affected youth. Inter-group tests indicated that, relative to Victimized Only, Victimized Perpetrators reported higher emotional distress, life stress, and risky behavior, but also lower social support and school engagement. Victimized Perpetrators and Perpetrators Only were comparable in lesser social supports, more negative school engagement indicators, and higher substance use, but Perpetrators Only were lower in anxiety, anger, suicide lethality, and engagement in high risk behaviors such as thrill seeking activities. Relative to violence histories, Victimized Perpetrators had higher levels of victimization across all forms than Victimized Only and higher levels of perpetration activities than Perpetration Only individuals.

Implications: These results demonstrate strong and coherent patterns across risk and protective factor domains for adolescents with differing histories of victimization and perpetration. Prevention efforts that seek to interrupt the etiology of aggression, target-hardening for violence prevention, and interventions aiming to attenuate the negative effects of violence on youth development need to be informed of the areas of joint and overlapping risk for these interrelated experiences. Results also apply to prevention programming targeting adolescent issues such as substance abuse and depression We draw on current theory and clinical findings regarding polyvictimization and victim-perpetration links to discuss specific implications of these results for research as well as prevention.