Violence Perpetration

Violence Perpetration

© 2015 Springer Publishing Company 225 http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00043

Violence and Victims, Volume 30, Number 2, 2015

Interpersonal Youth Violence Perpetration and Victimization in a Diverse Asian American and Pacific

Islander Adolescent Sample

Earl S. Hishinuma, PhD Janice Y. Chang, PsyD

Deborah A. Goebert, DrPH Susana Helm, PhD

Department of Psychiatry, John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

Iwalani R. N. Else, PhD The College of St. Scholastica, Duluth, Minnesota

Jeanelle J. Sugimoto-Matsuda, DrPH Department of Psychiatry, John A. Burns School of Medicine,

University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

This study was the first to examine ethnic, sex, and ethnicity-by-sex differences for under- researched, Asian American and Pacific Islander, adolescent groups on youth violence outcomes other than cyberbullying. This effort included the less researched, emotional violence, and included socioeconomic status (SES) measures as covariates. The sample size from 2 high schools in spring 2007 was 881, using an epidemiologic survey design. The pattern of results was higher rates of violence victimization for ethnic groups, with lower representation in the 2 schools’ population, and ethnic groups that more recently moved or immigrated to Hawai‘i. For emotional victimization, girls of European American and “other” ethnicities self-reported higher rates than boys. Several implications (e.g., need for ethnically and gender-based approaches) and further research (e.g., ethnocultural identity) are discussed.

Keywords: interpersonal youth violence; Asian Americans; Pacific Islanders; perpetration; victimization

Youth violence encompasses a wide range of behaviors, from teasing and name-calling to homicide. Homicide is the second leading cause of death for youth ages 15–24 years old in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2009). Yet, homicide represents only a small fraction of youth violence. Based on CDC’s 1999–2009 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), approximately 34% of

226 Hishinuma et al.

high school students reported that they were in a physical fight in the past year, and 13% reported that they were in a physical fight on school property in the past year (Sugimoto- Matsuda, Hishinuma, & Chang, 2013). In addition, studies consistently have shown the strong relationship between violence perpetration and victimization (e.g., Ozer & McDonald, 2006) as well as the negative long-term effects into adulthood of mere expo- sure to violence and engagement in violence during childhood (Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Patterson, Crosby, & Vuchinich, 1992; Tharp-Taylor, Haviland, & D’Amico, 2009). The human toll and financial costs associated with violence in the United States are substantial (CDC, 2012; Else, Goebert, Bell, Carlton, & Fukuda, 2009; Miller, Cohen, & Wiersema, 1996; Miller, Fisher, & Cohen, 2001; Sieger, Rojas-Vilches, McKinney, & Renk, 2004; Tharp-Taylor et al., 2009). The human toll includes problems, such as physical and psy- chological pain, and adverse effects on families, communities, and society. Costs include resources related to medical and mental health care, the justice system, intervention pro- grams, and property-value decreases.

Interpersonal violence is a heterogeneous construct. One obvious distinction at the individual level is between those who perpetrate violence and those who are the victims of violence. Another dimension of violence is violence type—for example, physical versus emotional violence. Physical violence can include hitting, pushing, or shoving another person, whereas emotional violence can include social exclusion, teasing, name-calling, spreading rumors and gossip, or cyberbullying with the intent to cause harm to another person (Crick, 1997; David-Ferdon & Hertz, 2007).

ETHNIC DIFFERENCES

The association between youth violence and ethnicity has been a critically important one (Guerra & Smith, 2006; Mark & Nishigaya, 2009), especially in light of the changing ethnic demographics in the United States, whereby the projection is that the United States will not have a majority group by the Year 2043 (Frey, 2008; Yen, 2012). Previous U.S. national studies have found ethnic differences in victimization and perpetration. In general, African American, Native American, and Hispanic American youth tended to be at high- est risk, whereas European American, Asian American, and combined Asian American/ Pacific Islander adolescents tended to have the lowest violence perpetration and/or vic- timization risk (National Survey of Adolescents [Kilpatrick, Saunders, & Smith, 2003]; National Crime Victimization Survey [Lauritsen, 2003]; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000; Wordes & Nunez, 2002).

Studying Asian American/Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) has become increasingly important given that this collective group has been one of the fastest growing populations in the United States for the past few decades. From Census 2000 to Census 2010, the number of Asian Americans (part or mixed) increased 46%, and the number of Pacific Islanders (part or mixed) increased 40%, compared to the number of European Americans increas- ing only 6% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b, 2012). In addition, the number of AAPI children increased by 31%, whereas the number of European American children decreased by 10% (O’Hare, 2011).

Although AAPIs have been shown to be at low risk for violence (Grunbaum, Lowry, Kann, & Pateman, 2000; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000; Harrell, 2009), aggregating data from these diverse groups have obscured our understanding of group dif- ferences (Lai, 2009). Efforts in the past 15 years have begun to disaggregate data on AAPIs,

Asian and Pacific Islander Youth Violence 227

providing a deeper understanding into how AAPI groups are different from one another and may have different needs in terms of violence prevention and intervention. For example, nationally, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander youth have reported higher rates of violence than Asian American and European American adolescents (based on CDC’s 1999–2009 YRBS; Sugimoto-Matsuda et al., 2013).

In addition to disaggregating Asian Americans from Pacific Islanders (including Native Hawaiians), further disaggregation within the Asian American population and within the Pacific Islander population is needed to determine other ethnic differences (Mark & Nishigaya, 2009; Mark, Revilla, Tsutsumoto, & Mayeda, 2005). For example, a study in California found higher rates of serious violence among Southeast Asian youth as com- pared to Chinese American adolescents (Le & Wallen, 2006).

Like California, the State of Hawai‘i is an important setting to study ethnic differences in youth violence. Hawai‘i’s ethnically diverse population is reflective of the Pacific region and allows for cross-cultural comparisons: 57% full or part-Asian Americans, 42% full or part- European Americans, and 26% full or part-Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). Researchers in Hawai‘i found that Samoan high school students had higher self-reported rates of violence than Native Hawaiian, Filipino American, and Japanese American students (Mayeda, Hishinuma, Nishimura, Garcia-Santiago, & Mark, 2006). In another study in which Hawai‘i teachers rated students, Native Hawaiian and European American students tended to engage in significantly more violent and other externalizing behaviors when compared to Asian American students (Loo & Rapport, 1998).

Hawai‘i, with the only statewide public school system in the United States, is also a place of research interest given long-standing efforts addressing school violence, includ- ing recent anti-bullying legislation directed at public schools (Vorsino, 2013). For the first time since introducing legislation regarding bullying prevention, House Bill (HB) 688 was passed and signed into law by Governor Neil Abercrombie in July 2011. HB 688 required the Hawai‘i Department of Education to heighten its collective response to bully- ing and cyberbullying as well as monitor school-level programs. As a result, in September 2011, the Hawai‘i Department of Education unveiled “Peaceful Schools,” a campaign to address not only bullying and cyberbullying but also safety and well-being as a whole. The campaign included more training for educators, heightened efforts to identify and assist youth involved in bullying, and increased prevention to stop bullying before it starts (Vorsino, 2011).

SEX DIFFERENCES

Significant sex differences between boys and girls have been found for violence perpetra- tion and victimization. Rather consistently, boys reported higher rates of victimization and physical violence perpetration than girls, whereas girls tended to report sexual vic- timization and relational violence perpetration more frequently than boys (Crick, 1997; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health [Shaffer & Ruback, 2002]). Similarly in Hawai‘i, boys self-reported higher rates of violence than girls (Mayeda et al., 2006). However, a slightly different trend in sex differences has been shown both nationally and in Hawai‘i with respect to teen dating violence. With few exceptions, girls tended to report higher rates of victimization and perpetration than boys for most dating violence types (Archer, 2000; Baker & Helm, 2011; O’Leary, Smith Slep, Avery-Leaf, & Cascardi, 2008).

228 Hishinuma et al.

ETHNICITY-BY-SEX INTERACTION

Few studies on youth violence have been published on sex differences as a function of eth- nicity regarding AAPIs. Goodkind, Wallace, Shook, Bachman, and O’Malley (2009) found the highest rates of self-reported fighting by African Americans, followed by Hispanics, European Americans, and then by Asian Americans and Native Americans. Among boys, however, the highest rates of fighting were self-reported by Hispanics and African Americans, followed by Native Americans, European Americans, and Asian Americans. Therefore, for both girls and boys, lower self-reported rates were for Asian Americans. Sugimoto-Matsuda et al. (2013) found boys self-reported carrying weapons more than girls in the following descending order: European American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, Asian American, mixed non-Hispanic, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, African American, and mixed Hispanic youth. Goebert, Else, Matsu, Chung-Do, and Chang (2011) found Filipino American and Native Hawaiian girls reported being cyber-controlled via the web more often than their male counterparts, whereas Samoan and European American boys reported being cyber-controlled via the web more than their female counterparts. These disparate results were likely reflective of the type of youth violence examined.

SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS

An important confounding, and potentially causal, variable involves socioeconomic status (SES). In general, the lower the SES (e.g., income, occupation, education), the higher the youth violence rates (e.g., National Institute of Justice, 2007; K. Williams, Rivera, Neighbours, & Reznik, 2007). When examining free or reduced-cost lunch as a proxy for SES with an Asian American and Pacific Islander youth sample, Goebert and colleagues (2012) found that 45% received free or reduced-cost lunch, and there was a significant interaction between lunch status and ethnicity with more Native Hawaiian and Samoan students qualifying for “free or reduced-cost” lunch status than European American or Japanese American students. In addition, Singh and Ghandour (2012) found that SES, as measured by living below the poverty line and having parents with less than a high school education, was related to higher odds that children had severe behavioral problems. Higher rates of youth violence have also been associated with SES measures such as low parental education and income, decreased economic opportunities, high levels of transiency, and lack of social capital (K. Williams et al., 2007). Therefore, it is important to control statisti- cally for SES in determining differences among ethnic groups and gender.

PURPOSES

Our understanding of AAPI youth violence epidemiology has been increasing. However, gaps in the literature remain. For example, because of the nature of sampling or data col- lection procedures, previous studies (a) were not able to disaggregate within the Asian American or Pacific Islander sample (e.g., Sugimoto-Matsuda et al., 2013); (b) examined only cyber-related violence (Goebert et al., 2011); or (c) did not include relevant ethnic groups (Mayeda et al., 2006, excluded European American youth within diverse ethnic populations). When studying AAPI youth violence, there are two reasons for including other ethnic groups, including European Americans. First, European American youth can

Asian and Pacific Islander Youth Violence 229

serve as an important comparison group, given the vast majority of research has been conducted with this ethnic group. Second, although Asian Americans constitute more than 50% of Hawai‘i’s population, Hawai‘i does not have a majority ethnic group when examining disaggregated ethnicity (e.g., Japanese, Filipino, Chinese, Korean). Therefore, European Americans can be conceptualized as a minority group in Hawai‘i, with tradi- tional risk factors associated with minority group status (i.e., minority effort; Halpern, 1993) with some empirical support for this notion (Hishinuma et al., 2005). In addition, previous studies (e.g., Mayeda et al., 2006; Sugimoto-Matsuda et al., 2013) did not include SES in the model to determine whether any significant unique variance was associated with ethnicity after SES was considered. Finally, previous research (e.g., Mayeda et al., 2006; Sugimoto-Matsuda et al., 2013) generally focused on violence perpetration as opposed to victimization and emotional violence.

Therefore, the purposes of this study were as follows:

1. To determine whether there are differences across ethnic groups in Hawai‘i, including among the AAPI groups (i.e., European American, Filipino American, Native Hawaiian, Japanese American, Samoan, and other) for six different forms of youth violence (i.e., social exclusion perpetration, teasing perpetration, physical perpetration, emotional victimization, physical victimization, and overall), with the hypothesis that there will be generally higher rates for Pacific Islanders (Native Hawaiians, Samoans) and higher rates of victimization for those with low ethnic populations for the schools in question.

2. To determine whether there are differences by sex for the six youth violence measures, with the hypothesis that boys will have higher rates than girls for at least the physical violence indicators, and girls will have higher rates than boys for emotional violence measures.

3. To determine whether there are ethnicity-by-sex interactions for the six youth violence measures. 4. To determine whether the SES measures, used as covariates, alter the results involving ethnic-

ity and sex, with the hypothesis that SES will decrease the number of statistically significant findings given SES’s association with ethnicity.

METHOD

Selection of Schools

Data collection took place at two public high schools on the island of O‘ahu—the most populated island in the State of Hawai‘i (see also Goebert et al., 2011). The selected schools are located in communities populated by the ethnocultural groups of interest (Native Hawaiians, Filipino Americans, and Samoans). One of the schools comprised a large proportion of Native Hawaiian students as well as Japanese American and European American youth. The other school is from a more ethnically diverse community where more than half of this school’s student population is Filipino American. The school also serves other Pacific Islander youth, including Samoan, Marshallese, Chuukese, Tongan, and Native Hawaiian students.

Sample Description

The sample consisted of 881 high schools students (see Table 1). Ethnicity was based on self-reported ethnic identity (see “Measures” section). There were considerably more Filipino Americans, followed by Native Hawaiians and those of “Other” ethnicities, with

230 Hishinuma et al.

T A

"Order a similar paper and get 15% discount on your first order with us
Use the following coupon
"FIRST15"

Order Now