Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence

Abstract

The Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence scale is a specialized assessment tool designed to measure the orientation of youth toward conflict. Specifically, it assesses whether a student possesses a passive or violent Attitude concerning physical fights, which are explicitly defined as interactions involving pushing and hitting, separate from mere arguments. Furthermore, the instrument evaluates the respondent’s knowledge and skill level regarding the effective use of nonviolent conflict resolution strategies. Respondents indicate their opinions and feelings across a series of items related to fighting and managing anger.

Keywords

Violence Prevention, Bullying, Adolescent Behavior, Attitude Assessment, Peer Relationships, Conflict Resolution Skills, Delinquency, Antisocial Behavior.

Authors

Robert G. Slaby (1989), Adapted by Houston Community Demonstration Project (1993).

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the scale is to quantitatively assess the predisposition of middle school students toward physical aggression in peer interactions. By measuring both pro-violence attitudes and the perceived efficacy of nonviolent conflict resolution techniques, the scale serves as a critical diagnostic tool for violence prevention programs.

The results generated by this instrument help educators and program administrators identify students who may hold normative beliefs supportive of aggression or who lack the requisite skills to handle disagreements constructively. This information is vital for tailoring intervention strategies and evaluating the effectiveness of programs aimed at reducing interpersonal peer violence among youth.

Construct

The scale measures the psychological construct of Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence, which is conceptualized as a dual-component latent variable. The first component assesses the degree of acceptance or endorsement of physical fighting—a violent attitude orientation. The second, and often inversely related, component measures the perceived competence and readiness to utilize non-aggressive behavioral responses and problem-solving skills when faced with peer conflict.

This construct is essential in understanding the link between cognitive schemas (beliefs about fighting) and behavioral intentions. Items are designed to capture beliefs regarding the social consequences of non-fighting (e.g., being a “coward”) versus the positive outcomes associated with proactive, non-aggressive management of stressful peer interactions.

Validity

Specific detailed psychometric data regarding formal validity studies (such as construct, criterion, or convergent validity coefficients) were not provided in the original source material. However, the instrument’s development was rooted in the context of a violence prevention program evaluation, suggesting implicit content validity—the items appear relevant to the domain of attitudes toward fighting and Conflict Resolution skills among youth.

The scale’s utility relies on its face validity, ensuring that the items directly address student opinions about physical fighting (defined as pushing and hitting), peer pressure related to violence, and the ability to manage anger without resorting to aggression.

Reliability

Formal reports of internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s Alpha) or test-retest reliability estimates were not explicitly noted in the provided source documentation. Typically, instruments used in large-scale demonstration projects like the Houston Community Demonstration Project undergo rigorous reliability testing to ensure stable and consistent measurement across different administrations and samples.

Researchers intending to use the Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence scale should conduct preliminary analyses to establish acceptable levels of reliability within their specific target population, particularly given the scale’s adaptation from the 1989 original by Slaby.

Factor Analysis

Details concerning the factor structure of the scale, including any exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis results, were not present in the source material. It is hypothesized, based on the scale’s scoring and item content (which includes both pro-violence and anti-violence items), that the scale measures a singular, underlying factor related to overall orientation toward conflict, or potentially two correlated factors representing violent attitudes versus non-violent skills.

The presence of reverse-coded items (1, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 12) supports the idea that the instrument is designed to capture variance along a continuum, moving from a highly aggressive orientation (low scores) to a highly non-violent orientation (high scores) after summation and averaging.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-Report Questionnaire

Format: Pencil and paper administration utilizing a 4-point Likert scale response format.

Language Available: English (as presented in the source content).

Population Group: Youth; specifically, middle school students.

Age Group: Typically utilized with students in grades 6 through 8 in previous research.

Population Details: The adaptation was performed by the Houston Community Demonstration Project, suggesting initial use within an urban youth population participating in a health or violence prevention initiative.

Test Methodology: The scale uses a summated rating system. Point values are assigned as follows:

• Disagree a lot = 1
• Disagree a little = 2
• Agree a little = 3
• Agree a lot = 4

Items 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 12 are reverse coded. The scale is scored by summing the point values of the responses and dividing by the total number of responses. Blank items are not counted. Higher mean scores (ranging from 1 to 4) indicate higher levels of knowledge and skills in resolving conflict non-violently.

Keywords

Adolescent Psychology, Violence Assessment, Peer Conflict, Aggression, Social Norms, Youth Intervention, School-based Programs, Slaby Scale.

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not available in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not available in source material.

Correspondence Address: Correspondence related to the 1993 adaptation would typically be directed to the City of Houston Health and Human Services Department.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Fees and Requirements: None noted in the source material.

Test Year (Original): 1989 (Slaby)

Test Year (Adaptation): 1993 (Houston Community Demonstration Project)

Availability: The instrument can be found on pages 29-30 of “Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, and Influences Among Youths: A Compendium of Assessment Tools.” The original PDF can be downloaded here: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/YV_Compendium.pdf. The scale is also available via the ERIC database: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED486261.pdf.

Reference’s

• Houston Community Demonstration Project. (1993). Peer Leader Survey. Houston, TX: City of Houston Health and Human Services Department. (Unpublished)
• Slaby RG. An evaluation of a violence prevention program. Health program for urban youth. Newton, MA: Education Development Center, Inc., 1989. (Unpublished)

[quads id=5]

Items of the Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. If I walked away from a fight‚ I’d be a coward (“chicken”).
2. The best way to stop a fight before it starts is to stop the argument (problem) that caused it.
3. Anyone who won’t fight is going to be “picked on” even more.
4. I don’t need to fight because there are other ways to deal with being mad.
5. It’s OK to hit someone who hits you first.
6. If my friends want to go someplace where a fight might happen‚ I find it easy to say I don’t want to go with them.
7. When actions of others make me angry‚ I can usually deal with it without getting into a physical fight.
8. If a kid teases me or “disses” me‚ I usually cannot get them to stop unless I hit them.
9. If a kid at school hits me‚ it is harder to report them to a teacher or other adult than it is to just hit them back.
10. If I really want to‚ I can usually talk someone out of trying to fight with me.
11. My family would be mad at me if I got in a fight with another student‚ no matter what the reason.
12. If a student hits me first‚ my family would want me to hit them back.
13. I usually can tell when things are bothering me or getting on my nerves.
14. If things are bothering me or getting on my nerves‚ I do things to relax.