Life Course Associations between Victimization & Aggression: Distinctive & Cumulative Contributions

Below:  Path analysis of lifetime victimization and aggression. ** p ≤ 0.01. R2 values: adolescent victimization = 0.44, adulthood victimization = 0.47, adolescent aggression = 0.56, adulthood aggression = 0.30 (all significant at p < 0.01). Model controls for effects of sex and race/ethnicity.

The connections between early maltreatment and later aggression are well established in the literature, however gaps remain in our understanding of developmental processes. This study investigates the cascading life course linkages between victimization experiences from childhood through early adulthood and later aggressive behavior. The diverse, at-risk sample is of particular importance to child and adolescent specialists, as it represents highly vulnerable youth accessible through conventional school settings. In addition to direct pathways from proximal life periods, path analysis revealed significant indirect mediated pathways through which earlier life victimization contributes to aggressive behaviors in later life periods as well as revictimization. 

Multivariate regressions support theorized cumulative effects of multi-form victimization as well as distinct contributions of victimization domains (emotional, witnessing, physical, property, and sexual) in explaining aggressive behavior. Consistent with theorizing about the developmental impact of early maltreatment, results bolster the importance of interrupting pathways from victimization to revictimization and later aggression. Findings are evaluated in light of implications for early identification and prevention programming.

Read more at:  http://ht.ly/RXxDR

By: Patricia Logan-Greene, Paula S. Nurius, Carole Hooven, and Elaine Adams Thompson

University at Buffalo;

Tracking the When, Where, and With Whom of Alcohol Use: Integrating Ecological Momentary Assessment and Geospatial Data to Examine Risk for Alcohol-Related Problems

Below:  Social–ecological framework of drinking contexts and alcohol-related problems.

NOTES: 1 The characteristics listed in each box are provided as an example. They are not an exhaustive list of variables one might include in social–ecological models.

2 Macro- (e.g., alcohol outlet density) and micro-level drinking contexts (e.g., drinking location) are included in the model above, but we focus primarily on micro-level drinking contexts here.

Prevention researchers have found that drinking in different contexts is related to different alcohol problems. Where and with whom people drink affects the types of alcohol-related problems they experience. Consequently, identifying those contexts that result in the greatest number of problems provides a novel opportunity to target new prevention efforts aimed at those contexts. However, identifying these contexts poses methodological challenges to prevention research. To overcome these challenges, researchers need tools that allow them to gather detailed information about when and where people choose to drink and how contextual factors influence drinking risks. New data collection and analysis techniques, such as activity-space analysis, which examines movement through different contexts, and ecological momentary assessment, which captures microlevel contextual changes as individuals move through their days, can advance the field of alcohol studies by providing detailed information on the use of drinking contexts, particularly when combined. Data acquired through these methods allow researchers to better identify those contexts where and conditions under which drinking and problems related to drinking occur. Use of these methods will allow prevention practitioners to target prevention efforts to those contexts that place most drinkers at risk and tailor prevention efforts to each context for specific outcomes.

Via:   ht.ly/PfPwW HT @UCLALuskin