The Acute and Enduring Consequences of Exposure to Violence on Youth Mental Health and Aggression

Abstract

The bulk of “neighborhood effects” research examines the impact of neighborhood conditions cross-sectionally. However, it is critical to understand whether the effects of neighborhood context are situational and whether they endure over time. In this study, we take seriously the notion that there are enduring consequences of exposure to deleterious neighborhood conditions. Using a rich set of longitudinal data on adolescents from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, we estimate the effect of exposure to violence on both internalizing (depression and anxiety) and externalizing problems (aggression). We find that exposure to violence has both an acute and enduring effect on aggression, yet no effect on anxiety-depression, net of individual, family, peer, and neighborhood influences. Part of the enduring effect of violence exposure is explained by changes in social cognitions brought on by the exposure, yet much of the relationship remains to be explained by other causal mechanisms.

Keywords:

• exposure to violence
• neighborhood effects
• street efficacy
• aggression
• mental health

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by grant 2008-IJ-CX-0011 from the National Institute of Justice. We are grateful to the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods for providing the data necessary to undertake this study. We thank Jeff Timberlake for his collaborative work on exposure to violence.

Notes

1. MTO was authorized by the US Congress in 1992 and initiated by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1994 in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York (Katz, Kling, & Liebman, 2001; Kling et al., 2007). MTO families were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) an experimental group, which received relocation assistance and a housing voucher that had to be used in areas with under 10% poverty; (2) a Section 8 comparison group, which received a geographically unrestricted housing voucher but did not receive relocation assistance; and (3) a control group that received no change in housing assistance. Researchers used a comparison of individual behaviors and health across these three groups to make claims about neighborhood effects.

2. Beyond neighborhood environments, reports of PTSD and internalizing and externalizing problems have also been found to be much higher among youth exposed to violence in other contexts, such as incarceration. For instance, in a sample of incarcerated youth, Cesaroni and Peterson-Badali (2005) found that perceptions of safety were predictive of internalizing behaviors. Additionally, youth entering custody with preexisting risk factors (e.g. prior aggression, anxiety, and depression) were found to be adversely affected by imprisonment and reported an increase in their levels of internalizing problems. The effects of past exposure to stressful environments thus influence a youth’s ability to cope with future strains.

3. That said, even if youth come to view violence as normative, family and neighborhood characteristics—such as having supportive family members and a protected place to go in the neighborhood—often act to buffer exposed individuals from the deleterious effects of violence (Garbarino, Dubrow, Kostelny, & Pardo, 1992; Osofsky, 1995; Richters & Martinez, 1993; Widom, 2000). Thus, exposure to violence and subsequent aggression and violent offending may be positively linked, but the relationship may be moderated by social buffers.

4. Does not include shots from a BB gun or from some form of toy weapon like a paint ball gun or air rifle.

5. Analyses with street efficacy are limited to the 12-year-old cohort. Data on street efficacy are not available for the 15-year-old cohort at the third wave of the PHDCN-LCS.

6. As a caveat, we recognize that the causes of psychological distress are housed not only in neighborhood conditions, but also individual and family characteristics. Thus, even if neighborhood conditions change, individual and family characteristics may limit the extent to which one’s psychological distress abates. Besides the enduring consequences for individuals of past neighborhood environments, members of the MTO experimental group may had have limited improvements in mental health because residential moves were often of a very short distance, and were to slightly less impoverished neighborhoods that were still surrounded by neighborhoods of concentrated poverty (see Sampson, 2008).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

David S. Kirk

David S. Kirk is associate professor in the Department of Sociology and a faculty research associate of the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin. His current research explores the effects of neighborhood change, residential mobility, and neighborhood culture on behavior. Kirk’s recent research has appeared in American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, and Criminology.

Margaret Hardy

Margaret Hardy is a PhD candidate in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland, College Park. Her research interests include criminal sentencing, immigration, and neighborhood effects.