Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2, April 2007 ( 2006) DOI: 10.

1007/s10560-006-0071-8

Domestic Violence, Gun Ownership, and Parental Educational Attainment: How do They Affect the Aggressive Beliefs and Behaviors of Children?

Julie E. Sprinkle
ABSTRACT: This article explores the relationship between and effects of domestic violence, rates of gun ownership, and parental educational attainment on the aggressive beliefs and behaviors of elementary and middle school children in the state of South Carolina. The results of the current studys statistical analyses are interpreted using a multi-theoretical framework. Recommendations to decrease rates of domestic violence and rearm accessibility, as well as methods to increase educational attainment in this states unique environment and the nation as a whole, are presented. KEY WORDS: Aggressive Beliefs; Aggressive Behaviors; Domestic Violence; Gun Ownership; Educational Attainment.

Introduction The current study examines how exposure to domestic violence, rearms, and a family history of low-educational attainment impact the aggressive beliefs and behaviors of children and adolescents. Through a review of existing literature, the application of theoretical
Dr. J. E. Sprinkle is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology and Social Work, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, 28608, USA Address correspondence to J. E. Sprinkle, Department of Sociology and Social Work, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, 28608, USA; e-mail: sprinkleje@appstate.edu

133

2006 Springer ScienceBusiness Media, LLC

134

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL

paradigms, and an examination of the current studys ndings, a correlation between these three factors and the level of aggression present in school-aged children is established. Attention is also given to the mechanisms through which negative behaviors are learned and self-defeating realities constructed and accepted by our nations children. Domestic Violence Domestic violence exists across the social strata with male-tofemale battering comprising 8590% of all domestic violence incidents (Rennison, 2001). Although dened in numerous ways, the term domestic violence is used here to indicate the iniction of physical harm or injury on an intimate partner or family member (Wilson, 1997). It is estimated that more than one fourth of all families experience domestic violence within a given year. This statistic equates to one woman being battered every 3 minutes or more than three million women battered each year (Flitcraft, Hadley, Hendricks-Matthews, McLeer, Warshaw, 1992). In addition to being the leading cause of injury to women age 1540, domestic violence can adversely affect womens health by contributing to drug or alcohol use (Flitcraft et al., 1992; Kaplan, 1996; Wilson, 1997). Frequent attempts to escape the pain and turmoil of unstable environments can often lead abused women to engage in initial use of drugs or alcohol, escalating usage, and nally, dependency. In the most severe cases of domestic violence, escapism and suicide attempts are common, accounting for more than 25% of the total female suicide attempts in a calendar year (South Carolina Family Violence State Plan, 1997). Children from homes in which domestic violence occurs have a myriad of developmental, physical, and psychological difculties their counterparts from non-battering homes do not face. Children have a 50% greater chance of sustaining physical abuse at the hands of their mother or father gures in homes where intimate partner violence exists (American Bar Association, 2005). Similarly, female children in these homes have seven times the likelihood of being sexually abused than females in non-battering families (Walker, 1984; Bowker, Arbitell, & McFerron, 1988). Repeated exposure to violence, instability, and unpredictability lead children to expect and accept these occurrences as inevitable parts of their daily lives.

JULIE E. SPRINKLE

135

Gun Ownership, Control Laws, Accessibility, and Acceptability Closely related to incidents of domestic violence, are issues of gun ownership and gun control laws. There is a signicant correlation between gun possession among adolescents and adults and their involvement in antisocial, violent, or aggressive behaviors (Lizotte, Tesorio, Thornberry, & Krohn, 1994). Studies reveal that 8391% of homicides committed by juveniles are carried out using rearms (Cornell, 1993; Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), 1995; Sickmund, Snyder, and Poe-Yamagata, 1997; Cornell & Loper, 1998). Rates such as this raise the inevitable question of where youth are gaining access to these deadly weapons. Gun control laws do little to deter youth from possessing rearms, primarily because individuals under the age of 18 are prohibited from buying either shotguns or handguns. Blocked from legal avenues of gun procurement, children and adolescents secure weapons from parents, friends, and family members who leave guns in accessible areas or from street sellers where guns tend to be cheap, stolen, and increasingly difcult to trace. Additionally, parents can purchase guns for their children as gifts, methods of protection, or sporting accessories (Lizotte & Bordua, 1980). Although gun control laws have become more stringent in recent years, less than 3% of applicants for rearms have been rejected, the majority of which are convicted felons blocked from legal gun ownership by the passage of the Brady Bill (Department of Justice, 2003). With few adults prohibited from legally possessing a rearm, children and adolescents have ready access to a variety of guns. Although cultural, economic, and other social factors mediate the correlation between rearm accessibility and participation in violent and aggressive acts, it is undeniable that an association exists. This relationship is further underscored by the fact that the United States leads the world in gun ownership, as well as per capita homicides. The proliferation of guns in television, movies, video games, and on our nations streets indoctrinate children and adolescents into a culture of rearm acceptability. Studies indicate that roughly 715% of school-aged children carry guns to school, in the community, or both (Johnston, OMalley, & Bachman, 1996; Cornell & Loper, 1998). However, ndings from the Youth Behavior Risk Survey (Kann et al., 1995, 1996, 1998) suggest that gun possession is three to four times more common outside of, than on, school

136

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL

property. Explanations given for carrying guns include gang afliation, alcohol and/or drug use, protection, accessibility, and hailing from violent home, and community environments (Furlong, Flam, & Smith, 1996). Gun possession is also disproportionately more common among males than females of the same age, race, and geographic location. With regard to gang ties, gang members are ve times more likely to carry a gun than non-gang afliates (Coordinating Council, 1996; YBRS, 2003). Similarly, children and adolescents using drugs and/or alcohol are twice as likely to be in possession of a rearm, while 60% of students bringing a gun to school did so for protection or out of anger at another student (Furlong, Casas, Corral, Chung, & Bates, 1997). Finally, gun possession is greatest among children and adolescents who are exposed to guns in the home or community of origin (Kingery, Pruitt, & Heuberger, 1996), who reside in high-crime areas, witness domestic violence, or have experienced physical or sexual abuse (Furlong & Morrison, 1994).

Educational Attainment Like exposure to domestic violence and the availability of rearms, parental educational attainment profoundly impacts all areas of an individuals life, particularly socioeconomic status and participation in violent and/or aggressive acts (Dash, 1997). Persons without a high-school diploma are frequently employed in dead-end minimum wage jobs with little or no benets (Ehrenreich, 2001). Consequently, these individuals are much more likely to live in poverty than persons with a high-school diploma or college degree and frequently fall into the lowest socioeconomic strata. A vicious cycle then emergesconsumed with the struggle to survive, low-socioeconomic persons often place little importance on education, thus perpetuating the low-education poverty dyad in future generations. While domestic violence occurs across the social strata, it is more common among low-socioeconomic persons (Wilson, 1997). Due to the conuence of low-parental education, poverty, and an increased likelihood of exposure to domestic violence, children from low-socioeconomic areas have greater risk factors for engaging in violent and aggressive behaviors than children from high-socioeconomic areas (Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny, & Pardo, 1992; Astor, 1995; Gullotta & McElhaney, 1999; Bemak & Keys, 2000).

JULIE E. SPRINKLE

137

Theoretical Application Several theoretical paradigms are useful when exploring the relationship between domestic violence, gun ownership, parental educational attainment and levels of aggression present in school-aged children. Specically, social learning and social construction theories undergird the framework of the current study. The association between the incidents of domestic violence and the rates of aggressive beliefs and outwardly aggressive behaviors among school-aged children can be explained through social learning theory. This theoretical framework posits that violence and aggression are learned through a process of observation, behavioral rehearsal, and reinforcement (Bandura, 1968, 1969, 1986). Thus, internal and external processes combine to produce the resultant behavior. For instance, a child witnesses violent or aggressive behaviors in his/her home, such as in the case of domestic violence. As a by-product of this observation, the child cognitively realizes that violent and aggressive behaviors can result in obtaining needed or wanted goods. The child then reacts aggressively or violently with peers when they have something he/she wants (behavioral rehearsal). Finally, the child is rewarded with money, status, respect (positive reinforcement), and attention from teachers or other adults (typically negative reinforcement). Thus, modeled behavior from the home environment is internalized into the individuals action oriented and decision-making schemas and transferred to the social environment. Social construction provides a medium through which to view the relationship between rates of gun ownership, parental educational attainment, and the level of aggression present in children. Social construction purports that people are products of the very society they create (Ritzer, 1988, p. 227) or that self and society are each produced by the subjective process of interaction with others in ones social environment. Children however, often have their environments created for them by family, community, and the larger society. If children are socialized and raised in an environment where guns are prevalent, easily accessible, and used for status, violence, aggression, or other criminal activities, children will view gun ownership and usage for these purposes as legitimate and even ,normal given the context in which they were indoctrinated. Consequently, children from such families have increased levels of aggressive beliefs and outward displays of aggression due to a socially constructed

138

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL

reality that accepts guns, violence, and aggressive behavior as valid. Similarly, children reared in environments with little emphasis placed upon educational attainment tend to have lower academic achievements than their peers due to a socially constructed reality that negates the importance of such achievements. Scholastic performance is consistently, negatively correlated with levels of violence and aggression in school-aged children (Valois, MacDonald, Bretous, Fischer, & Drane, 2002). As delineated above, domestic violence, gun ownership rates, and parental educational attainment each inuence the expression of violent to aggressive beliefs and behaviors in children and adolescents. This article expands upon a program evaluation study conducted in the state of South Carolina, which is ranked high nationally for rates of domestic violence, gun ownership, and school drop-outs. This unique environment allowed the researcher to examine the recorded beliefs and behaviors of study participants in conjunction with the above variables to ascertain their contribution to the aggressive beliefs and behaviors of South Carolinas school-aged children.

Research Questions and Hypotheses This study seeks to answer three primary research questions: (1) What is the relationship of South Carolinas domestic violence rates to levels of aggression in the states school-aged children? (2) What is the relationship of South Carolinas gun ownership rates to levels of aggression in the states school-aged children? (3) What is the relationship of South Carolina citizens educational attainment to levels of aggression in the states school-aged children? Based on the information presented above, the corresponding hypotheses for each research question are as follows: (1) There is a positive correlation between South Carolinas rates of domestic violence and the aggressive beliefs and behaviors of the states elementary and middle school-aged children. (2) There is a positive correlation between South Carolinas gun ownership rates and the aggressive beliefs and behaviors of the states elementary and middle school-aged children. (3) There is a negative correlation between South Carolina citizens level of educational attainment and the aggressive beliefs and behaviors of the states elementary and middle school-aged children.

JULIE E. SPRINKLE

139

The Study South Carolinas Environment South Carolinas rate of domestic violence is increasing. In 2003, 30 women were killed by their intimate partners, 4400 women and children sought refuge from abuse in South Carolina shelters, and 400 women were turned away from these shelters due to lack of space (South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault (SCCADVSA), 2003). Presently, South Carolina ranks sixth in the nation in the number of total women killed by their intimate partners and number one in the number of Caucasian women killed by their intimate partners (SCCADVSA, 2003). South Carolinas domestic violence laws only extend protection to individuals related by blood or marriage, those who have or who currently cohabitate, or those who have a biological child in common. This narrow denition leaves women involved in dating relationships and gay and lesbian couples vulnerable to continued abuse while the perpetrators are not held accountable for their actions. All fty states have some law in effect to aide and protect victims of domestic violence. However, the extent of protection and enforcement of such laws varies drastically from state to state. In California, three serious offenses will net an abuser a life sentence in prison. In South Carolina, a bill to protect roosters from the vicious world of cock ghting was initially passed while a bill to protect women from the vicious world of domestic violence was rejected. The domestic violence bill was revised and eventually accepted, but only due to the glaring spotlight of negative national media publicity and voter pressure. The reluctance of politicians to change their position on the bill ultimately sent the message that the welfare of the states farm animals was more important than the welfare of its female citizens. In 2004, the state repealed a 30 years old law making it illegal to purchase more than one gun per month (South Carolina Gun Control Laws, 2004). Now South Carolina citizens have no limit on the monthly arsenal they can amass. Further guns do not have to be registered in the state, making it impossible for law enforcement ofcials to know how many guns exist. Estimates however suggest that 1,660,000 South Carolina residents, out of a total state population of over 4 million, have at least one rearm, over 40,000 residents have registered concealed weapons permits (South Carolina

140

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL

Firearms, 2004), and 23% of children and adolescents under the age of 18 own a rearm (South Carolina Youth Gun Ownership, 2003). With regard to educational attainment, South Carolinas graduation rate has remained unchanged for the past 5 years, earning the state a ranking of 49th among 50 states for the percentage of students who complete high school (Barnett, 2003). The state has a graduation rate of 57% compared to the national average of 70%, which translates to fewer than 6 of 10 South Carolina adolescents receiving a diploma. Roughly 70% of all drop-outs in South Carolina occur in ninth grade (SC School Board, 1998), presumably because students are a grade or two behind their classmates, struggle with basic reading, writing, and mathematics, have begun to use drugs, alcohol, engage in other criminal activity, and/or are teenage parents.

Methods The study population was comprised of fourth (57.1%), fth (12.3%), and sixth (30.6%) graders from four schools in three counties across the state of South Carolina, with 52.9% of participants Caucasian, 43.6% African American, and 3.5% classied as other ethnicities. Since research indicates there is a strong correlation between educational attainment and income, participants socioeconomic status was used as a proxy to measure parental educational attainment. Two schools in the study were classied as low income, while two additional schools were classied as high-income based on the amount of students receiving free or reduced price lunch. In school A 94.4% received free or reduced price lunch, in school B 79.8%, in school C 7.4%, and in school D 22.4% of students received free or reduced price lunches (www.myschools.com). Schools A and B were in counties that ranked in the top 3 of 46 counties for incidents of domestic violence and schools C and D were in a county that ranked outside of the top 10 for such incidents (SCCADVSA, 2003). The sample consisted of an almost equal number of males (154) and females (156). Participants were given a battery of tests; however only two are relevant here. The Normative Beliefs about Aggression Scale (NOBAGS) (Huesmann, Guerra, Miller, & Zelli, 1989) was administered to students and the Aggressive Behavior Teacher Checklist (ABTC) (Dodge & Coie, 1987) was administered to teachers by the researcher to ascertain

JULIE E. SPRINKLE

141

students beliefs about aggression and levels of aggressive behaviors actually displayed. The NOBAGS (Huesmann et al., 1989) is a 20 item standardized instrument designed to measure students normative beliefs about aggression. The instrument consists of 12-items that measure approval of retaliation aggression (a 0.80) and eight-items assessing approval of general aggression (a 0.82). The overall alpha for the NOBAGS is 0.86. Each item has a Likert-type 4-point response choice in which participants are asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statement presented. Response choices range from 1 = its perfectly ok, 2 = its sort of ok, 3 = its sort of wrong, and 4 = its really wrong. Negatively worded items reverse the order of the response choices so that 1 = its really wrong, 2 = its sort of wrong, 3 = its sort of ok, and 4 = its perfectly ok. A higher score indicates greater acceptance of total, general, and retaliation aggression. The second scale, the ABTC (Dodge & Coie, 1987), is a six item standardized instrument teachers complete to denote the amounts of aggressive behaviors manifested by their pupils. The ABTC has an internal consistency of 0.90 and consists of ve point Likert-type response categories ranging from 1 = never to 5 = almost. Therefore, a higher score is indicative of greater levels of aggressive behavior. Correlation analysis was used to determine the instruments correlations to one another and the demographic variables under examination. MANOVA analysis was used to determine the impact of exposure to domestic violence and level of parental education on the NOBAGS and ABTC.

Results Instrument Scores by Demographic Variable The instruments dimensions were strongly correlated with each other (Table 1) and the demographic variables under examination (Table 2). When students completed the NOBAGS, scores were generally divided along racial, gender, socioeconomic, and chronological lines. The overall mean score for the retaliation aggression dimension was 24 (SD = 7.6). However, the mean score for the retaliation dimension among Caucasian students was 20 (SD = 5.3), while the mean score among African American students was 28 (SD = 6.2).

142

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL

TABLE 1 Correlations Between Instruments

Retaliation Retaliation aggression General aggression Total aggression ABTC total 1* 0.69* 0.94* 0.48*

General 0.69* 1* 0.90* 0.43*

Total 0.94* 0.90* 1* 0.50*

ABTC total 0.48* 0.43* 0.50* 1*

*Pearsons correlation is signicant at the p < 0.1 level (two-tailed).

TABLE 2 Correlations Between Instruments and Demographic Variables

Retaliation General Total Gender (Male = 1; Female = 2) Socioeconomic Grade Ethnicity (African American = 1; Caucasian = 2) County 1 County 2 County 3 )0.11 )0.30* 0.31* )0.22* )0.11 )0.24* 0.29* )0.21* )0.12* )0.30* 0.33* )0.25*

ABTC total )0.11 0.22* 0.38* )0.19*

0.10* 0.42* 0.43*

0.09 0.41* 0.41*

0.10* 0.44* 0.43*

0.11* 0.40* 0.41*

*Pearsons correlation is signicant at the p < 0.1 level (two-tailed).

Similarly, the mean score on this measure for females was 23 (SD = 6) while the mean for males was slightly higher at 26 (SD = 8). The mean for participants in the high-socioeconomic schools was also 22 (SD = 6), while the mean for participants in the low-socioeconomic schools was 26 (SD = 8). Fourth grade students

JULIE E. SPRINKLE

143

received an average score of 22 (SD = 6), fth graders 26 (SD = 7.1), and sixth graders 29 (SD = 6.8). Finally, the average score of county one mirrors the scores of the fourth grade cohort, while the mean scores of counties 2 and 3 correspond to the scores of the studys fth and sixth grade participants, respectively (Table 3). This occurrence is consistent throughout the results section and will not be reiterated. The trend displayed above continued in an examination of other NOBAGS dimensions. Specically, the total mean score on the general aggression dimension was 14 (SD = 5.7), while the mean for Caucasian participants was 12 (SD = 5) and the mean for African American participants was 18 (SD = 6). Likewise, the mean score on this measure was 13 (SD = 5) for females and 17.5 (SD = 6.3) for males, while the mean score was 12 (SD = 5.2) for high-socioeconomic participants and 17 (SD = 6.1) for low-socioeconomic participants. Finally, fourth grade participants averaged 12 (SD = 4), fth graders averaged 14 (SD = 5), and sixth graders scored an average of 18 (SD = 4) (Table 3). On the total aggression dimension, the mean score was 40 (SD = 12.2), while Caucasians averaged 35 (SD = 10.2) and African Americans scored an average of 45 (SD = 12). Similarly, the mean score for females was 38 (SD = 10) and the mean male score was 43 (SD = 12.5), while high-socioeconomic students scored an average of 37 (SD = 11) and low-socioeconomic students averaged 46 (SD = 12.1). Lastly, fourth graders scored an average of 38 (SD = 11), fth graders scored an average of 41 (SD = 11.2), and sixth graders averaged 47 (SD = 12.6) (Table 3). An analysis of participant scores on the ABTC in conjunction with the demographic variables revealed similar ndings. The total overall ABTC mean score was 13 (SD = 7), while Caucasians scored an average of 10 (SD = 5) and African Americans scored an average of 17 (SD = 6.6). Similarly, females scored an average of 13 (SD = 6.4) and males scored 16 (SD = 6.8), while high-socioeconomic students scored 11 (SD = 6.2) and low-socioeconomic students scored an average of 16 (SD = 6.2). Finally, fourth graders averaged 9 (SD = 6.1), fth graders averaged 11 (SD = 4.8), and sixth graders scored an average of 16 (SD = 6.9) (Table 3).

TABLE 3
Dimension Means by Demographic Variable

144

Dimension mean Female: 23 (SD = 6) Male: 26 (SD = 8) Female: 13 (SD = 5) Male: 17.5 (SD = 6.3) Female: 38 (SD = 10) Male: 43 (SD = 12.5) Female: 13 (SD = 6.4) Male: 16 (SD = 6.8) Low: 16 (SD = 6.2) High: 11 (SD = 6.2) Low: 46 (SD = 12.1) High: 37 (SD = 11) Low: 17 (SD = 6.1) High: 12 (SD = 5.2) Low: 26 (SD = 8) High: 22 (SD = 6)

Ethnicity

Gender

Socioeconomic

Grade

County

Retaliation aggression 24 (SD = 7.6)

African American: 28 (SD = 6.2) Caucasian: 20 (SD = 5.3)

General aggression 14 (SD = 5.7)

African American: 18 (SD = 6) Caucasian: 12 (SD = 5)

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL

Total aggression 40 (SD = 12.2)

African American: 45 (SD = 12) Caucasian: 35 (SD = 10.2)

ABTC total 13 (SD = 7)

African American: 17 (SD = 6.6) Caucasian: 13 (SD = 5)

Fourth: 22 (SD = 6) Fifth: 26 (SD = 7.1) Sixth: 29 (SD = 6.8) Fourth: 12 (SD = 4) Fifth: 14 (SD = 5) Sixth: 18 (SD = 4) Fourth: 38 (SD = 11) Fifth: 41 (SD = 11.2) Sixth: 47 (SD = 12.6) Fourth: 9 (SD = 6.1) Fifth: 11 (SD = 4.8) Sixth: 16 (SD = 6.9)

One: 22 (SD = 6) Two: 26 (SD = 7.1) Three: 29 (SD = 6.8) One: 12 (SD = 4) Two: 14 (SD = 5) Three: 18 (SD = 4) One: 38 (SD = 11) Two: 41 (SD = 11.2) Three: 47 (SD = 12.6) One: 9 (SD = 6.1) Two: 11 (SD = 4.8) Three: 16 (SD = 6.9)

JULIE E. SPRINKLE

145

MANOVA Analysis A MANOVA statistical analysis was conducted to determine the effects of exposure to domestic violence and parental educational attainment, respectively, on participants instrument scores. MANOVA results indicate that domestic violence (Wilks lambda = 0.80, F = 8.01, p = 0.000) and student socioeconomic status, used as a proxy for parental educational attainment (Wilks lambda = 0.88, F = 8.22, p = 0.000), signicantly inuence scores on the NOBAGS and ABTC and thus levels of aggression detected in the study population (Table 4).

Discussion As the results of the NOBAGS and ABTC indicate, South Carolinas public school children have moderate levels of aggressive beliefs and outwardly displayed aggressive behaviors, with some notable differences among ethnic, gender, chronological, and socioeconomic groupings. The correlations between each instrument dimension and the demographic variables was signicant at the p < 0.01 level, with the exception of gender and two dimensions of the NOBAGS, retaliation and general aggression, and the ABTC, which all barely missed signicance at the p < 0.05 level (0.055). Similarly, MANOVA results established a signicant relationship between domestic violence, parental educational attainment, and the levels of aggression present in study participants. Specically, study results indicate white, high-socioeconomic, young females scored the lowest across all testing dimensions while African American, low-socioeconomic, older males attained the highest scores. However, since the low-socioeconomic status schools were over 98% African American, it is likely that socioeconomic status, and thus parental educational attainment, mediates the connection between ethnicity and study outcomes. A multi-theoretical framework will be used to further explain the relationship between the studys ndings and the states rates of domestic violence, gun ownership, and educational attainment. Research documents that children raised in homes where domestic violence is present are far more likely to replicate the cycle of violence in their own relationships. One study found that 90% of adult men who batter were abused themselves or witnessed a parent being abused in childhood (Marcus, 1994). The link between expo-

146

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL

sure to domestic violence in childhood and criminal behavior in adulthood is also demarcated by the fact that over 85% of men incarcerated in our nations prisons witnessed abuse or were abused by older relatives during the formative years of personality and psychological development (Flitcraft et al., 1992; Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), 1998). In effect, these children learn that violence is an acceptable way of expressing needs and obtaining wants. According to social learning theory, children in South Carolinas violent and aggressive homes are internalizing these behaviors and subsequently enacting them. The two counties included in the present study that ranked in the top 3 of the states 46 counties for rates of domestic violence assaults exhibited strong, signicant correlations with participants aggression levels, while the county that ranked outside of the top 10 exhibited a very weak relationship. This nding, in conjunction with the MANOVA results of signicance, helps to bolster the conclusion that the increased levels of aggression detected in the current study are related to the levels of domestic violence found within the study population counties. Therefore, the hypothesis that there is a positive correlation between rates of domestic violence and the aggressive beliefs and behaviors of school-aged children in the state is tentatively supported. With regard to social construction, the laissez-faire attitude of the state toward gun ownership and gun control does little to deter criminals from buying guns in bulk and employing these weapons in illegal activities such as robbery, rape, murder, and gun sales to minors or convicted felons. The ability of South Carolinas citizens to amass an unlimited amount of rearms and never have to register them legitimizes and encourages even illegal gun possession.

TABLE 4 MANOVA Results

Effect Socioeconomic status Wilks Lambda County Wilks Lambda

Value 0.80 0.88

F 8.01 8.22

Hypothesis df 4.00 4.00

Sign. 0.000 0.000

JULIE E. SPRINKLE

147

A direct by-product of gun possession, particularly illegal possession, is an increase in violent and aggressive behaviors (Lizotte et al., 1994). Participation in such behaviors can easily become a socially constructed, normed, and accepted reality for school-aged children raised in these environments. However, since the researcher was unable to assess the number of registered rearms in the study counties, due to the lack of a state registry and the inability of the researcher to ask children in the study about familial gun ownership, the hypothesis that there is a positive correlation between South Carolinas rates of gun ownership and the aggressive beliefs and behaviors of school-aged children can not be conclusively supported. Social construction also serves to clarify the relationship between the states educational attainment and the levels of aggression in study participants. As South Carolina is one of the only states in the union were a minimally adequate education is an acceptable norm, the construction of education as having little importance is not simply coming from the local community but the state and nation as well. The stereotypical portrayal of Southerners as slow, dim-witted, and stupid by television and movies only reinforces and aids in the internalization of such negative constructs. If no one counters these messages, they in effect become a reality and low-educational attainment is one result. With fewer than 6 out of 10 South Carolinians completing high school, it is not surprising that 64% of all South Carolina students qualify for free or reduced price lunch. In the present study, the low-income schools far exceeded this average, while the high-income schools fell far below. Since parental educational attainment, as measured by socioeconomic status, was found to be negatively correlated and signicantly inuential (MANOVA) of levels of aggression in the study population, the hypothesis that there is a negative correlation between South Carolina citizens level of educational attainment and the aggressive beliefs and behaviors of the states elementary and middle school-aged children is supported. Limitations There are several limitations to the current study. First, children can adopt violent and aggressive behaviors from witnessing violence on television, in the movies, video games, or community of residence. Therefore, even though numerous studies link domestic

148

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL

violence to aggressive behaviors in children, the current studys ndings could be the result of exposure to violence in other mediums. The inability of the researcher to determine direct exposure to domestic violence among study participants can also detract from the validity of the present ndings. Additionally, the age, socioeconomic status, and thus parental educational attainment, of participants may inuence the relationship observed between domestic violence rates and levels of aggression. Yet, given the conuence of domestic violence, low-educational attainment, and poverty, it is unlikely that the relationship detected between incidents of domestic violence and participants aggressive beliefs and behaviors is not a valid one. Second, although South Carolina has highestimated rates of gun ownership and little gun control law, it is feasible that some individuals are purchasing large quantities of rearms for hunting or other legitimate purposes, particularly in the rural areas of the state. Third, not all rearms are being purchased or used for criminal purposes. Many law abiding citizens possess rearms for protection of property or hunting, not to be used for violent or aggressive activities. Fourth, the inability of the researcher to ascertain rates of gun ownership in the counties included in the study limits the conclusions that can be drawn about the relationship between aggression levels in children and South Carolinas gun ownership rates. Fifth, though education attainment is directly negatively correlated with rates of poverty, domestic violence, and criminal activities, not all persons who drop out of high school t this prole or instill these traits in their children. Further some individuals from families in which low-educational attainment has been the norm do not perpetuate the cycle, but in fact go on to nish high school and in some cases even college. However, in light of the states high rates of school drop-outs and poverty, the results of the current study can tentatively link the aggressive beliefs and behaviors of the states children to their parents educational levels. As shown by this investigation, children from high-socioeconomic areas, most likely with well-educated parents, had the lowest levels of aggression, while children from low-socioeconomic areas had signicantly higher scores across all dimensions of each instrument. However, since violence and aggression tend to escalate with age (Valois et al., 2002), the age of participants could be construed as a confounding variable. Although the fth and six grade participants were from low-socioeconomic schools, the ages of participants are similar enough

JULIE E. SPRINKLE

149

chronologically to weaken this possibility. Finally, though the results are specic to South Carolina, it is likely they are generalizable to other southern states with statistically similar domestic violence, gun ownership, and educational attainment rates. Generalizing beyond these particular populations is not feasible.

Recommendations and Conclusion According to Garmezys (1985, 1993) principle of cumulated risk, the more risk factors an individual has for violence and aggression, such as exposure to domestic violence, guns, low-education attainment, and poverty, the more likely the same individual will become violent or aggressive. Conversely, the more protective factors an individual has, the lower the possibility of the same individual engaging in violent or aggressive acts. In order to foster protective mechanisms that buffer risk and reduce the propensity for violence and aggression, the state of South Carolina and the nation as a whole should take several valuable steps. Removing children from exposure to domestic violence is a temporary solution. The problem must be attacked at the root; domestic violence laws should be nationalized, uniform, and strengthened with the penalties for violation of these laws increased and offender therapy mandated. In addition, limitations must be placed on the number of rearms an individual can purchase in a twelve month time span, safety key locks should be required, and the legislature should make it a felony offense to buy guns as ,gifts for children and adolescents or to allow minors access to rearms. Finally, deconstructing the effects of ,special classes, ,slow learners, and minimally adequate schools is the rst step toward creating a positive learning environment where children are nurtured and encouraged to learn, achieve, and succeed. Educational opportunities and positive feedback should be increased for those living in low income, particularly ,minimally adequate, areas of the state. The researcher urges educators, social workers, guidance counselors, and members of the community at large to become involved, be creative, and reach those classied as unreachable. Taken in combination, these suggestions will be the rst of many steps toward producing a generation with less aggression, more prosocial behaviors, and greater opportunities for success and advancement.

150

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL

References
American Bar Association (2005). Intimate partner violence statistics 2003. Domestic Violence Division. Astor, R (1995). School violence: A blueprint for elementary school interventions. Social Work in Education, 17(2), 101115. Bandura, A. (1968). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behaviors modication. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston: New York. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barnett R. (2003). South Carolinas graduation rate ranks 49th, study says. Retrieved July 5, 2005 from http://www.greenvilleonline.com/news/2003/09/16/2003091 615136.htm Bemark, F, & Keys, S (2000). Violent and aggressive youth: intervention and prevention strategies for changing times. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc. Bowker, L. H., Arbitell, M., & McFerron, J. R. (1988). On the relationship between wife beating and child abuse. In K. Yllo & M. Bograd (Eds.), Perspectives on wife abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1996). Combating violence and delinquency: The national juvenile justice action plan (action plan). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Ofce of Justice Programs, Ofce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Cornell, D.G (1993). Juvenile homicide: A growing national problem. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 11, 389396. Cornell, D.G., & Loper, A.B (1998). Assessment of violence and other high-risk behaviors with a school survey. School Psychology Review, 27(2), 317330. Dash, L. (1997). Rosa lee: A mother and her family in urban America. New York: Plume. Department of Justice (2003). Brady Bill restrictions on gun ownership and possession. Washington, DC: Department of Justice. Dodge, K., & Coie, J.D (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in childrens peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 11461158. Ehrenreich, B. (2001). Nickel and dimed: On not getting by in American. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC. Federal Bureau of Investigations (1995). Supplemental homicide report. Washington, DC: FBI. Federal Bureau of Investigations (1998). Statistical proles. Washington, DC: FBI. Flitcraft, A.H., Hadley, S.M., Hendricks-Matthews, M.K., McLeer, S.V., & Warshaw, C. (1992). Diagnostic and treatment guidelines on domestic violence. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association. Furlong, M.J., Casas, J.M., Corral, C., Chung, A., & Bates, M (1997). Drugs and school violence. Education and Treatment of Children, 20(3), 263280. Furlong, M.J., Flam, C.S., & Smith, A (1996). Firearm possession in schools: Disarming the myths. The California School Psychologist, 1, 514. Furlong, M.J. & Morrison, G.M. (1994). School violence miniseries: School Psychology Review [special issue]. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Garbarino, J., Dubrow, N., Kostelny, K., & Pardo, C. (1992). Children in danger: Coping with the consequences of community violence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress resistant children: The search for protective factors. In J. E. Stevenson (Ed.), Recent research in developmental psychopathology (pp. 213233). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Book Supplement.

JULIE E. SPRINKLE

151

Garmezy, N (1993). Children in poverty: Resilience despite risk. Psychiatry, 56, 12736. Gullotta, T. & McElhaney, S.( (1999). Violence in homes and communities: Prevention, treatment, and intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Huesmann, L.R., Guerra, N.G., Miller, L., & Zelli, A. (1989). The normative beliefs about aggression scale. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois. Johnston, L. D., OMalley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1996). National survey results on drug use from monitoring the future study, 19751995: Volume I Secondary school students (NIH Publication No. 96-4139). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Ofce. Kann, L., Kinchen, S.A., Williams, B.I., Ross, J.G., Lowry, R., Hill, C.V., Grunbaun, J.A., Blumson, P.S., Collins, J.L., & Kolbe, L.J (1998). Youth risk behavior surveillance United States, 1997. Journal of School Health, 68, 355369. Kann, L., Warren, C.W., Harris, W.A., Collins, J.L., Douglas, K.A., Collins, M.E., Williams, B.I., Ross, J.G., & Kolbe, L.J. (1995). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance1993. Journal of School Health, 65, 163171. Kann, L., Warren, C.W., Harris, W.A., Collins, J.L., Douglas, K.A., Williams, B.I., Ross, J.G., & Kolbe, L.J (1996). Youth risk behavior surveillanceUnited States, 1995. Journal of School Health, 66, 365377. Kaplan, S. (1996). Family violence: A clinical and legal guide. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press Inc. Kingery, P.M., Pruitt, B.E., & Heuberger, G (1996). A prole of rural Texas adolescents who carry handguns to school. Journal of School Health, 66(1), 210214. Lizotte, A.J., & Bordua, D (1980). Firearms ownership for sport and protection: Two divergent models. American Sociological Review, 45, 229244. Lizotte, A.J., Tesorio, J.M., Thornberry, T.P., & Krohn, M.D (1994). Patterns of adolescent rearms ownership and use. Justice Quarterly, 11, 5174. Marcus, I. (1994). Reframing domestic violence: Terrorism in the home. In Fineman, M. & Mykitiuk, R.(Eds.), The public nature of private violence (pp. 1135). Thousand Oaks, CA: Routledge Press. Rennison, C. (2001). Violent victimization and race, 19931998. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report, US Department of Justice. Ritzer, G. (1988). Contemporary sociological theory (2nd ed.nd ed.). New York: McGrawHill. Sickmund, M., Snyder, H.N., & Poe-Yamagata, E. (1997). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1997 update on violence. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Ofce of Justice Programs, Ofce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (2003). Year end statistics 2003. Columbia, SC: SCCADVSA. South Carolina Family Violence State Plan (1997). Family violence reduction plan. Columbia, SC: Department of Social Services. South Carolina Firearms (2004). Registered concealed weapons permits. Retrieved July 5, 2005 from www.screarms.org. South Carolina Gun Control Laws (2004). Repealing of limitation law. Retrieved July 5, 2005 from www.jointogether.org. South Carolina Youth Gun Ownership (2003). Statewide ndings. Retrieved July 5, 2005 from www.ojjdp.jcjrs.org/pubs/jvr/2.html. South Carolina School Board (1998). Graduation and drop-out rates in the state of South Carolina. Columbia, SC: Department of Education. Valois, R., MacDonald, J., Bretous, L., Fischer, M., & Drane, J (2002). Risk factors and behaviors associated with adolescent violence and aggression. American Journal of Health Behavior, 26, 454464. Walker, L.E. (1984). The Battered Woman Syndrome. Thousand Oaks, CA: Springer. Wilson, K.J. (1997). When violence begins at home. Alameda, CA: Hunter House Inc. Youth Behavior Risk Survey (2003). Gang afliation. Atlanta. GA: Center for Disease Control.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.