Relations Between Violence Exposure and Gun Carriage: Identifying Protective Factors Among African American Youth Living in Low-Income Urban Communities

Abstract

This study identified risk, promotive, and protective factors for handgun carriage among 265 primarily African American adolescents (M_age = 14.3) living in low-income urban areas. Community-based violent victimization and witnessing violence and in-person and cyber forms of peer victimization increased the probability of handgun carriage. Community collective efficacy, including caregiver-reported social connectedness and informal social control, and community developmental strengths/supports, including youth-reported community recognition for prosocial involvement and community developmental assets, moderated relations between both violent victimization and witnessing violence and handgun carriage. School developmental strengths/supports, including school developmental assets and family prosocial involvement in school, moderated relations between in-person and cyber victimization and handgun carriage. Family developmental strengths/supports, including family developmental assets and family recognition and opportunities for prosocial involvement, were associated with lower odds of handgun carriage. Study findings revealed distinct protective factors related to community violence exposure or peer victimization that can inform youth violence prevention efforts.

Keywords

victimization socioeconomic status/social class race/ethnicity African-American neighborhood context parent support media electronic

Introduction

Firearm violence is a critical public health issue in the United States, the burden of which falls disproportionately on African American youth living in low-income urban areas (Nation et al., 2021). For over three decades, homicide remains the leading cause of mortality for African American youth ages 10 to 24, with the majority of these deaths attributed to firearms (CDC-WISQARS, 2020). African American youth are overrepresented in low-income urban communities formed by systemic racial inequities (e.g., community disinvestment and housing policies including redlining and housing covenants) (Belgrave et al., 2021). Social and structural factors (e.g., geographic isolation and high residential density and mobility) are associated with high community rates of firearm violence (Miller, 2020). Some consequences of exposure to firearm violence include mortality, physical injury, and compromised social, emotional, and behavioral health (Fowler et al., 2015). These negative outcomes highlight the need to expand our understanding of risk and protective processes related to adolescent handgun carriage (Oliphant et al., 2019). In the current study, we assessed: (a) risk factors, defined as factors that were directly related to higher odds of handgun carriage, including several forms of violence exposure (i.e., exposure to community violence via witnessing or violent victimization, and in-person and cyber victimization by peers); (b) promotive factors, defined as factors that were directly related to lower probabilities of handgun carriage; and (c) protective factors that functioned to attenuate or stabilize relations between violence exposure and handgun carriage. We tested for promotive and protective factors in family, school, and community contexts (Luthar et al., 2000).

Relations Between Violence Exposure and Gun Carriage

A growing body of literature identified community violence exposure as a risk factor for adolescent handgun carriage (e.g., Oliphant et al., 2019). Exposure to community violence typically includes witnessing violence (e.g., hearing about or seeing violent acts) and violent victimization (e.g., being physically hurt) (Oliphant et al., 2019). Concurrent (e.g., Carter et al., 2013; Molnar et al., 2004) and prospective (e.g., Spano et al., 2012) studies documented relations between these forms of community violence exposure and higher probabilities of adolescent handgun carriage. Among samples of primarily African American youth living in low-income neighborhoods, youth who reported witnessing violence and/or violent victimization were more likely to carry a handgun as compared to youth who were not exposed to community violence (Lee et al., 2020; Spano et al., 2012).

Data from meta-analytic reviews indicate that youth who experience peer victimization had a higher likelihood of carrying a weapon (e.g., knife, stick/club, mace/pepper spray, and/or a firearm/gun) both in and out of school (Valdebenito et al., 2017; van Geel et al., 2014). For example, among students from 52 high schools in Maryland (n = 16,302; 62% white, 38% African American), victimized youth had a higher probability of carrying a weapon to school as compared to youth with limited involvement in victimization or bullying (Bradshaw et al., 2013). Relatively fewer published studies focus specifically on the outcome of handgun carriage, as compared to weapon carrying (e.g., Hemenway et al., 2011; Pontes & Pontes, 2021; Schapiro et al., 2014). In one study of high school students enrolled in an urban public school district (41% African American; 32% Latino/a), youth who experienced peer victimization using a weapon (e.g., being threatened with a gun or other weapon) were more likely to carry a gun as compared to youth who had not experienced this type of peer victimization (Hemenway et al., 2011). Additionally, studies using data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) found associations between school bullying victimization and higher rates of gun carriage among high school students (Pontes & Pontes, 2021; Schapiro et al., 2014).

Although community-based violent victimization measures tend to focus on physical victimization (e.g., Hemenway et al., 2011), research on the structure of peer victimization among African American adolescents living in low-income areas supports two distinct forms of peer victimization (in-person and cyber), each comprised of a composite of physical (e.g., acts and threats of physical violence), verbal (e.g., making fun of peers), and relational (e.g., controlling behaviors, social exclusion, and gossip) victimization items (Farrell et al., 2020). Given the central nature of peers’ influences on youths’ attitudes, norms, and behavior (Prinstein & Dodge, 2008), research is needed to assess links between different forms of peer victimization (i.e., in-person and cyber) and adolescent handgun carriage, and to do this using measures that include common subtypes of peer victimization (e.g., physical, verbal, and relational) which are prevalent in adolescence (Farrell et al., 2020). In a recent study, Oliphant (2023) found that a composite peer victimization measure, including physical, cyber, verbal, and relational victimization items, was positively associated with weapon carrying (i.e., a gun, knife, or club) among over 8,000 youth in 7th to 10th grade (46% white, 20% Latino/a, 17% African American).

Cyber victimization represents acts that target victims via electronic communications on social media. It is a common experience in adolescence (Patton et al., 2014) that can be particularly harmful because it reaches large audiences, can be conducted anonymously, and victims have little control over the ways that incidents of cyber victimization are spread (e.g., through retweeting or reposting on social media accounts; Mehari & Farrell, 2018). Among middle and high school students, several studies found that cyber victimization was positively related to weapon carrying (i.e., a gun, knife, or club) either on school property or more generally (Baker & Pelfrey, 2016; Donnelly et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2019; Oliphant, 2023). Additionally, some studies used single item measures of cyber victimization that do not assess different victimization subtypes (Baker & Pelfrey, 2016; Lu et al., 2019; Oliphant, 2023). Lastly, few studies included a majority of African American youth, ranging from 64% to 69% (Baker & Pelfrey, 2016; Donnelly et al., 2022).

Direct relations between exposure to community- and peer-based violence and gun carriage are supported by general strain theory. This theory proposes that exposure to negative stimuli, such as violence, represents one type of strain in youths’ lives (Agnew, 1992). The experiences of violence exposure generate negative emotions (e.g., anger, frustration, and fear) and coping strategies in attempts to mitigate the negative experiences and emotions. For example, youth who are exposed to community- and peer-based violence may be more likely to carry a gun for protection to mitigate fear (Oliphant, 2023).

Relations Between Protective Processes and Gun Carriage

Several theoretical models and frameworks support the role of protective processes in decreasing the likelihood of gun carriage (Benson et al., 2011; Catalano et al., 2021; Hirschi, 1968). Social bond theory (Hirschi, 1968) argues that forming strong social bonds with peers, caregivers, teachers, and other adults who encourage and provide opportunities for conventional activities (e.g., educational attainment, involvement in extracurricular activities, and job opportunities) deters delinquent behavior. The four components of social bonds include youths’: (a) attachment to peers, caregivers, and other adults who strengthen bonds to conventional activities and institutions; (b) commitment to these activities and institutions and desire not to jeopardize opportunities by engaging in delinquent behavior; (c) time spent involved in conventional activities; and (d) conventional social beliefs, values, and norms (Hirschi, 1968; Krohn & Massey, 1980). As two examples, study findings have shown negative associations between high quality relationships with fathers and weapon carrying (Haegerich et al., 2014) and school attachment and gun carriage (Wilcox et al., 2006).

The Social Development Model (SDM) combines elements of social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and social bond theory (Hirschi, 1968). It delineates two socialization pathways that can lead either to prosocial or delinquent behavior. Catalano et al. (2021) described protective socialization processes associated with health-promoting behaviors among youth that included having opportunities for and engaging in prosocial involvement with others, receiving recognition from adults for prosocial involvement, bonding with prosocial peers and adults, and holding prosocial values and beliefs. In one study of adolescents ages 12 to 17 (59% white, 18% Latino/a, and 14% African American), single items assessing youths’ perceptions of parents’ recognition of their behavior (e.g., “parents tell youth they have done a good job in the past year”) and parents’ prosocial involvement (e.g., “parents help with homework in the past year”) were related to lower odds of handgun carriage (Vaughn et al., 2012). The SDM includes a risk and protective factor framework to guide intervention efforts (Catalano et al., 2021). This framework assesses direct effects that increase (risk) or decrease (promotive) the likelihood of an outcome and protective effects that attenuate or stabilize associations between risk factors and outcomes, and has been used extensively to examine the etiology of violence-related outcomes (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2020). Additional research is needed to explore the role of opportunities and recognition for prosocial involvement provided by adults in family and community contexts in attenuating risk for adolescent gun carriage (Oliphant et al., 2019).

The Developmental Assets Profile (DAP) is a well-researched measure that includes internal skills, beliefs, values, external resources, and supportive relationships that are associated with positive youth development (PYD; Benson et al., 2011; Scales & Leffert, 2004). In the context of the DAP, positive youth development highlights developmental plasticity as well as youths’ combinations of internal and external factors that promote well-being (Shek et al., 2019). Research findings support the role of developmental assets in promoting socio-emotional and behavioral health (e.g., Benson et al., 2011). For this measure, assets are grouped into scales within personal, social, family, school, and community contexts (Scales & Leffert, 2004). The current study includes developmental assets in community, school, and family contexts with some items assessing attachment to individuals and institutions and involvement in prosocial activities in these contexts. Exploring relations between developmental assets and adolescent gun carriage adds to the literature on the protective nature of these assets in fundamental developmental contexts for adolescents.

At the community level, collective efficacy is a protective process that includes social connectedness (e.g., trusting and positive social relationships and being able to count on neighbors for support and advice) and informal social control (e.g., neighbors’ actions to intervene and address concerning situations such as those related to child welfare, policing, and neighborhood resources) (Pabayo et al., 2020). Prior research showed that collective efficacy had a direct, promotive effect on rates of neighborhood disorder and community violence (e.g., Mazerolle et al., 2010; Sampson, 2021). In addition, a study focusing on Chicago residents found that higher levels of collective efficacy, based on adult reports, served as a promotive factor and was associated with lower rates of youth-reported gun carriage (Molnar et al., 2004). However, research is needed to explore the potential role of community collective efficacy (e.g., social connectedness and informal social control) as a moderator of relations between violence exposure and gun carriage.

The Current Study

One objective of the current study was to assess the extent to which four forms of violence exposure (i.e., witnessing violence and violent victimization in the community, and in-person and cyber victimization by peers) were associated with higher odds of adolescent handgun carriage. This objective contributed to the literature in the area of peer victimization by assessing the relation between cyber victimization and gun carriage in a sample of primarily African American adolescents living in low-income areas. Based on prior empirical findings (e.g., Baker & Pelfrey, 2016; Hemenway et al., 2011; Molnar et al., 2004), we expected that each form of violence exposure would be identified as a risk factor for adolescent handgun carriage.

The second study objective was to determine whether composites of community, school, and family factors functioned as promotive and/or protective factors for adolescent handgun carriage. As the literature on promotive and protective factors for gun carriage develops, it is important to understand how factors within a specific context (e.g., family, school, or community) work together to decrease the odds of or attenuate risk for gun carriage, respectively. Based on empirical studies that identified similar factors as promotive (e.g., Vaughn et al., 2012), we hypothesized that family developmental strengths/supports (i.e., a composite of developmental family assets and family recognition and opportunities for prosocial involvement) would emerge as a promotive factor. Similarly, based on findings by Molnar et al. (2004), we expected that community collective efficacy (i.e., a composite of caregiver-reported social connectedness and informal social control) would be identified as a promotive factor. Drawing from developmental-contextual models of social networks (Lerner & Castellino, 2002), we anticipated that community collective efficacy and community developmental strengths/supports (i.e., youth-reported community recognition for prosocial involvement and community developmental assets) would moderate relations between community violence exposure and handgun carriage. We hypothesized that school developmental strengths/supports would moderate relations between peer victimization and handgun carriage. Given the influence of family dynamics and practices for African American families across school and community contexts (Schmidt et al., 2019), we hypothesized that family developmental strengths/supports would moderate relations between each of the four forms of violence exposure and handgun carriage.

Method

Setting and Participants

Study data were part of the baseline data collected for a larger project assessing the effectiveness of community-level strategies to prevent youth violence. Three communities in a Southeastern United States city were identified as high-burden (i.e., experiencing elevated rates of youth violence and crime) and were predominantly located in subsidized housing communities. Participants included 265 caregivers (M_age = 39.2; 88% female; 78% household income <$15,000) and adolescents ages 12 to 17 (M_age = 14.3; 56% female). A total of 93% of caregivers and 88% of youth identified Black or African American as their sole racial identity. For caregivers and youth who endorsed multiple racial identities, all caregivers and 95% of youth identified Black or African American as one of their racial identities.

Procedures

Study procedures were approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board. Caregivers provided written informed consent to participate in the caregiver survey and permission for adolescent participation in the youth survey. Youth provided written informed assent prior to completing the youth survey. We used a neighborhood canvassing approach and 67% of eligible caregivers and youth identified opted to participate. Participants completed surveys using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) (Harris et al., 2009) on laptops using headphones, and research staff were available to answer questions. Surveys were primarily completed at home (96%), but participants could opt to complete the surveys at a convenient location (e.g., community center or library) if preferred. Most caregivers and adolescents completed the surveys in separate spaces of the home or other convenient location, and they used headphones and separate computers to record their responses. Participants could skip any question and the caregiver and adolescent received $25 each for their time.

Measures

Gun Carriage

Youth reported their frequency of gun carriage in response to the question, “In the past 3 months, how many times have you carried a handgun?” which was included in the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale—Adolescent Report, (PBFS-AR; Farrell et al., 2020). Participants responded using a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Never to 6 = 20 or more times. The measure was dichotomized so that 0 = Never and 1 = One or more times.

Exposure to Community Violence

Witnessing violence and violent victimization were measured using a revised version of the Survey of Children’s Exposure to Community Violence (SCECV long form: Richters & Saltzman, 1990). For the 16-item witnessing violence scale (e.g., “Heard the sound of gunfire when you were in or around your home?”) and the 11-item violent victimization scale (e.g., “Been chased by someone who wanted to hit, jump, or attack you?”), youth responded to the item stem, “In the last 3 months, how many times have you. . .” using a 6-point response scale that ranged from 1 = Never to 5 = More than six times. Alphas were .91 for the witnessing violence scale and .83 for the violent victimization scale.

In-person and Cyber Peer Victimization

Peer victimization was assessed using two subscales from the PBFS-AR (Farrell et al., 2020). For all items, youth were asked to think about “how often people your age do different kinds of things” and the item stem was, “In the last 3 months, how many times has this happened to you. . ..” Youth responded to items using a 6-point response scale ranging from 1 = Never to 6 = 20 or more times. The 15-item in-person victimization subscale included physical (e.g., “Someone hit you hard enough to hurt”), relational (e.g., “Someone left you out on purpose when it was time to do an activity”), and verbal (e.g., “Someone put you down to your face”) victimization (α = .94). An eight-item version of the cyber victimization subscale included physical (e.g., “Someone used text-messaging to threaten to hurt you physically”), relational (e.g., “Someone spread rumors about you online by texting”), and verbal (e.g., “Someone called you mean names online or using a cell phone”) victimization (α = .90).

Perceived Handgun Access

One item was used to assess youths’ perceptions of their ability to access a handgun. Youth responded to the item, “Let’s suppose that you wanted to get a handgun (a REAL gun, not a toy or pellet gun). How difficult do you think it would be for you to get one?” using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (It would be very difficult) to 3 (It would be very easy). This item was dichotomized to 0 = difficult or very difficult and 1 = easy or very easy.

Aggression Toward Peers and Peer Pressure for Fighting

Physical aggression toward peers and peer pressure for fighting were assessed using two subscales from the PBFS-AR (Farrell et al., 2020). For the aggression items, youth reported their own frequency of physically aggressive behaviors directed toward peers (e.g., “Threatened someone with a weapon – gun, knife, or club”). For the peer pressure for fighting items, youth reported how many times they felt pressured by peers to fight (e.g., “Your friends told you that you should fight someone”). Youth rated each item using a six-point response scale: 1 = Never to 6 = 20 or more times. Alphas were .83 for the five-item physical aggression scale and .82 for the four-item peer pressure for fighting scale.

Beliefs Supporting Proactive Aggression

A subscale of the Beliefs About Fighting Scale (BAFS; Farrell et al., 2018) assessed the degree to which youth endorsed beliefs supporting the use of proactive aggression. Youth reported the extent to which they agreed with five items comprising the beliefs supporting proactive aggression subscale (e.g., “It is o.k. to threaten someone if they won’t do what you want”). Responses were based on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree. The α for this subscale was .93.

Community Developmental Strengths/Supports

The community developmental strengths/supports composite measure included youth-reported Community Context subscale from the DAP (Scales & Leffert, 2004) and Community Recognition for Prosocial Involvement subscale from the Communities That Care survey (CTC: Arthur et al., 2002) (r = .41). The 10-item Community Context subscale assessed youths’ participation in activities (e.g., sports, music, and art), religious groups, advocacy and volunteer roles, and having neighbors who care about and looked out for them (e.g., “I am involved in a sport, club, or other group”; α = .84). Response options for the items ranged from 0 = Not at all or rarely to 3 = Extremely or almost always. The three-item Community Recognition for Prosocial Involvement scale assessed the extent to which neighbors encouraged youths’ attempts and achievements related to prosocial involvement (e.g., “My neighbors notice when I am doing a good job and let me know”; α = .80). For this scale, the 4-point response scale ranged from NO! = Definitely not true for you to YES! = Definitely true for you. The composite measure was derived by adding the Community Context subscale and the Community Recognition for Prosocial Involvement scale scores together after converting them to z-scores, and dividing them by two (i.e., the number of scales included in this composite).

School Developmental Strengths/Supports

The school developmental strengths/supports composite measure included the youth-reported School Context subscale from the DAP (Scales & Leffert, 2004) and the Family Prosocial Involvement scale from the CTC survey (Arthur et al., 2002) (r = .40). The 10-item School Context subscale assessed youths’ active engagement in learning, caring about school, feeling safe at school, being supported by school staff, and having rules that are fairly enforced (“I have a school that cares about kids and encourages them”; α = .88). Response options for the items ranged from 0 = Not at all or rarely to 3 = Extremely or almost always. Parents’ involvement in school was assessed using a five-item version of the Family Prosocial Involvement Scale (e.g., “At least one of my parents talks to me about doing well in school”; α = .91). Response options for the items ranged from 0 = Not at all or rarely to 3 = Extremely or almost always. This composite measure was created by adding the School Context subscale and the Family Prosocial Involvement scale scores together after converting them to z-scores, and dividing them by two.

Family Developmental Strengths/Supports

The family developmental strengths/supports composite included the youth-reported Family Context subscale from the DAP (Scales & Leffert, 2004) and Family Recognition and Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale from the CTC survey (Arthur et al., 2002) (r = .68; variance inflation factor = 2.09). The 10-item Family Context subscale assessed youths’ perceptions of caregivers’ love, support, quality time spent with them, help and guidance given, and consistent rules and monitoring (e.g., “I have parent(s) who try to help me succeed”; α = .90). Response options for the items ranged from 0 = Not at all or rarely to 3 = Extremely or almost always. The Family Recognition and Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale included seven items (e.g., “How often do your parents tell you they’re proud of you for something you have done?” and “Do you enjoy spending time with your mother?”; α = .82). For the five items assessing opportunities for prosocial involvement, the 4-point response scale ranged from NO! = Definitely not true for you to YES! = Definitely true for you. For the two items assessing parents’ recognition of youths’ activities and accomplishments, the 4-point response scale ranged from 1 = Never or nearly never to 4 = All the time. This composite measure was created by adding together the scale scores from the Family Context subscale and the Family Recognition and Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale after converting them to z-scores, and dividing them by the number of scales.

Collective Efficacy

The community collective efficacy composite included the caregiver-reported social connectedness and informal social control scales (r = .44). The composite measure assessed caregivers’ perceptions of social connections between neighbors and the extent to which neighbors would address concerning community issues. The 55-item Informal Social Control Scale from the Neighborhood Matters Survey (Henry et al., 2014) assessed the extent to which community members would be likely to do something to address concerns related to child welfare, child and adolescent behavior, neighborhood organization and management, and crime. For all items, the stem was “In general, how likely would someone in your neighborhood do something if. . .,” and the response scale ranged from 1 = Very unlikely to do something to 4 = Extremely likely to do something (α = .98). The 30-item Neighborhood Social Cohesion scale from the Neighborhood Matters Survey (Henry et al., 2014) measured caregiver report of neighbors’ willingness to help each other (e.g., “Are willing to help their neighbors”), feel comfortable with and trust each other (e.g., “Can find a neighbor to run errands for them”), and have positive social relationships (e.g., “Get along with each other”). For all items, the stem was “In general, people in the neighborhood. . .,” and the response scale ranged from 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree (α = .94). This composite measure was derived by adding the Informal Social Control scale and the Neighborhood Social Cohesion scale scores together after converting them to z-scores, and dividing them by two.

Data Analysis Plan

Analyses were run using SPSS version 29.0. We included the four risk factors assessing violence exposure based on empirical support for witnessing violence and violent victimization (Vermeiren et al., 2003), and for cyber and in-person peer victimization (Farrell et al., 2020), as associated but separate constructs. A series of regression analyses were run to identify the extent to which each composite factor moderated relations between violence exposure and gun carriage. For each regression analysis, covariates (i.e., age, sex, race, and community) were entered at Step 1, the promotive factor at Step 2, the risk factor at Step 3, and the Risk × Protective factor interaction at Step 4. We used PROCESS (Hayes, 2017) to graph significant interaction effects.

We conducted sensitivity analyses to determine whether risk, promotive, and protective effects persisted after accounting for a composite measure of individual and peer factors related to handgun carriage (i.e., handgun access, peer pressure for fighting, aggression toward peers, and beliefs support proactive aggression). We ran the regression analyses above after adding an individual/peer risk factor composite at Step 1. The individual and peer risk factors included youth-reported handgun access, peer pressure for fighting, peer-based physical aggression, and beliefs supporting proactive aggression. We examined similarities and differences in these findings as compared to the results for the main analyses. G*Power software (Faul et al., 2009) was used to conduct a post hoc power analyses. Results indicated that our sample size provides power that is adequate (i.e., ≥0.80) to detect a medium (f² = 0.15) or large (f² = 0.35) incremental effect (power >0.99), but is less than adequate to detect a small (f² = 0.02) incremental effect (power = 0.63).

Results

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables are detailed in Table 1. A total of 11% of adolescents reported carrying a gun in the past 3 months. Females were less likely to carry a gun (4.8%) than males (20.6%). Gun carriage did not significantly vary based on African American racial status (OR = 1.08, 95% CI [0.91, 1.28]), community (OR = 0.70, 95% CI [0.47, 1.05]), or age (d = 0.171, 95% CI [−0.70, 0.07]). Handgun carriage was positively correlated with community violence exposure (i.e., witnessing violence and violent victimization), peer victimization (i.e., in-person and cyber) (rs ranged from .20 to .38), and the individual/peer risk factors (r = .43). Handgun carriage was negatively related to school (r = −.13) and family (r = −.20) developmental strengths/supports.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Carried a handgun	—
2. Witnessing violence	0.31***	—
3. Violent victimization	0.38***	0.78***	—
4. Cyber victimization	0.34***	0.38***	0.49***	—
5. In-person peer victimization	0.20**	0.44***	0.50***	0.72***	—
6. Collective efficacy—community	−0.03	0.09	0.11	−0.05	−0.04	—
7. Community developmental strengths/supports	−0.02	−0.03	0.04	−0.01	−0.03	0.13*	—
8. School developmental strengths/supports	−0.13*	−0.13*	−0.17**	−0.17**	−.08	−0.08	0.38***	—
9. Family developmental strengths/supports	−0.20**	−0.18**	−0.19**	−0.26***	−0.14*	0.01	0.43***	0.72***	—
10. Individual/peer risk factors	0.43***	0.50***	0.50***	0.50***	0.51***	−0.03	−0.03	−0.18**	−0.18**	—
N	254	251	251	252	252	263	260	258	262	260
M (SD)	0.12 (0.32)	1.96 (0.77)	1.45 (0.55)	1.25 (0.50)	1.47 (0.58)	0.00 (0.81)	0.00 (0.82)	0.00 (0.82)	0.00 (0.92)	0.00 (0.62)

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Direct Effects for Violence Exposure

Community violence exposure and peer victimization were identified as risk factors for gun carriage. Youth who reported higher versus lower levels of witnessing violence or violent victimization were more likely to report handgun carriage in the past 3 months. Similarly, adolescents who reported higher as compared to lower frequencies of cyber or in-person victimization by peers had a higher likelihood of carrying a handgun in the past 3 months (see Table 2). For in-person peer victimization, the direct effect on handgun carriage was not significant after accounting for individual/peer risk factors for analyses including this factor and: (a) community collective efficacy, b = 0.07, p = .70, OR = 1.07, 95% CI [0.75, 1.53]; (b) community developmental strengths/supports, b = 0.07, p = .71, OR = 1.07, 95% CI [0.75, 1.53]; (c) school developmental strengths/supports, b = 0.06, p = .77, OR = 1.06, 95% CI [0.74, 1.52]; and (d) family developmental strengths/supports, b = 0.06, p = .76, OR = 1.06, 95% CI [0.73, 1.54].

Table 2.

Direct and Interaction Effects for Composites of Risk and Promotive Factors on Handgun Carriage with 95% Confidence Intervals.

	Witnessing violence			Violent victimization			Peer victimization in-person			Peer victimization cyber
	b	OR	95% OR	b	OR	95% OR	b	OR	95% OR	b	OR	95% OR
Composite measures by context^a
Community collective efficacy
Promotive factor	0.03	1.04	[0.62, 1.74]	0.03	1.04	[0.62, 1.74]	0.03	1.03	[0.61, 1.74]	−0.10	0.91	[0.55, 1.51]
Risk factor	1.23***	3.42	[1.94, 6.05]	1.66***	5.28	[2.52, 11.05]	0.40**	1.49	[1.11, 1.99]	0.68***	1.98	[1.45, 2.71]
Interaction effect	−1.33**	0.27	[0.10, 0.69]	−1.82*	0.16	[0.04, 0.65]	0.22	1.25	[0.87, 1.79]	0.14	1.15	[0.78, 1.72]
Community developmental strengths/supports
Promotive factor	−0.14	0.87	[0.52, 1.46]	−0.14	0.87	[0.52, 1.46]	−0.14	0.87	[0.52, 1.46]	−0.15	0.86	[0.52, 1.43]
Risk factor	1.22***	3.38	[1.92, 5.93]	1.64***	5.15	[2.48, 10.71]	0.39**	1.48	[1.10, 1.99]	0.69***	1.99	[1.45, 2.73]
Interaction effect	−0.67*	0.51	[0.28, 0.95]	−1.37**	0.25	[0.09, 0.69]	−0.13	0.87	[0.64, 1.20]	−0.03	0.97	[0.68, 1.37]
School developmental strengths/supports
Promotive factor	−0.27	0.76	[0.47, 1.24]	−0.27	0.76	[0.47, 1.24]	−0.27	0.76	[0.47, 1.24]	−0.27	0.76	[0.47, 1.23]
Risk factor	1.22***	3.38	[1.91, 5.96]	1.62***	5.04	[2.40, 10.62]	0.38*	1.47	[1.09, 1.98]	0.69***	1.99	[1.44, 2.73]
Interaction effect	0.30	1.36	[0.76, 2.40]	−0.41	0.67	[0.27, 1.63]	−0.52*	0.60	[0.38, 0.95]	−0.50*	0.60	[0.38, 0.97]
Family developmental strengths/supports
Promotive factor	−0.55*	0.58	[0.35, 0.93]	−0.55*	0.58	[0.35, 0.93]	−0.54*	0.58	[0.36, 0.94]	−0.60*	0.51	[0.33, 0.88]
Risk factor	1.20***	3.31	[1.86, 5.89]	1.55***	4.72	[2.25, 9.92]	0.38*	1.46	[1.08, 1.99]	0.66***	1.93	[1.39, 2.67]
Interaction effect	−0.11	0.89	[0.46, 1.74]	−0.51	0.60	[0.25, 1.43]	−0.20	0.82	[0.57, 1.18]	−0.10	0.90	[0.66, 1.23]

Covariates included sex, age, race, and community.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Direct and Moderating Effects for the Community, School, and Family Factors

Community Factors

Community collective efficacy and community developmental strengths/supports were not directly related to lower odds of gun carriage, and thus did not function as promotive factors (see Table 2). In the step-wise regression analyses testing for protective factors, community collective efficacy and community developmental strengths/supports moderated relations between both witnessing violence and violent victimization and handgun carriage (see Table 2). A protective stabilizing effect was found for all significant interactions except the community developmental strengths/supports × witnessing violence interaction. Protective stabilizing effects confer stability at higher versus lower levels of the protective factor in the face of increased risk (Luthar et al., 2000). At higher levels of community collective efficacy, there was no significant difference in the odds of handgun carriage at lower or higher levels of violent victimization or witnessing violence. In contrast, at lower levels of the community collective efficacy, youth were significantly more likely to carry a handgun when experiencing higher versus lower levels of violent victimization or witnessing violence (see Figure 1). A similar pattern emerged for the community developmental strengths/supports × violent victimization interaction. For the community developmental strengths/supports × witnessing violence interaction, at lower and higher levels of community developmental strengths/supports, the odds of handgun carriage increased at higher levels of witnessing violence. At higher levels of witnessing violence, a higher probability of gun carriage was found at lower levels of community developmental strengths/supports (see Figure 1). The sensitivity analyses showed no changes in the significance of the direct or interaction effects after controlling for individual/peer risk factors.

School Factors

No direct effect was found between the school developmental strengths/supports and gun carriage, and therefore this factor was not identified as a promotive factor (see Table 2). School developmental strengths/supports moderated relations between in-person and cyber victimization and handgun carriage. For both analyses, a protective stabilizing effect was found. At higher levels of the school developmental strengths/supports, the probability of handgun carriage was not significantly different at lower or higher levels of cyber or in-person peer victimization. At lower levels of the school developmental strengths/supports, youth who experienced higher versus lower levels of in-person and cyber victimization were more likely to carry a handgun (see Table 2 and Figure 2). For the sensitivity analyses, there was one change in the significance of the interaction effects. The school developmental strengths/supports × in-person peer victimization interaction was not significant after accounting for the individual/peer risk factors, b = −0.48, p = .05, OR = 0.62, 95% CI [0.39, 1.00].

Family Factors

For direct effects, family developmental strengths/supports was identified as a promotive factor, directly associated with a lower likelihood of gun carriage (see Table 2). However, family developmental strengths/supports was not significantly related to gun carriage after accounting for violence exposure and the individual/peer risk factors for analyses including this factor and: (a) witnessing violence, b = −0.44, p = .11, OR = 0.65, 95% CI [0.37, 1.11]; (b) violent victimization, b = −0.44, p = .11, OR = 0.65, 95% CI [0.37, 1.11]; (c) in-person victimization, b = −0.43, p = .12, OR = 0.65, 95% CI [0.38, 1.12]; and (d) cyber victimization, b = −0.51, p = .06, OR = 0.60, 95% CI [0.35, 1.02]. No significant interaction effects were found across the main or sensitivity analyses.

Discussion

We identified risk, promotive, and protective factors for adolescent gun carriage in a sample of primarily African American adolescents living in low-income communities. Relatively few studies examining risk and protective processes for handgun carriage focused on community samples (e.g., vs. school-based samples or national survey data) or incorporated caregivers’ perspectives to identify protective processes (Molnar et al., 2004). Promotive factors were directly associated with a lower likelihood of gun carriage, and protective factors attenuated or stabilized the relation between risk factors and gun carriage (Luthar et al., 2000). Our study centered on a strengths-based approach with a key goal of delineating protective factors that moderated relations between violence exposure and handgun carriage. We explored these relations beyond the effects of individual and peer-level covariates. Whereas a number of studies focused solely on promotive factors (Oliphant et al., 2019), we identified protective factors in school (i.e., a composite comprised of school developmental assets and family prosocial involvement in school), and community (i.e., composites comprised of caregiver-reported social connectedness and informal social control and youth-reported community recognition for prosocial involvement and community developmental assets, respectively) contexts that attenuated risk for handgun carriage. In general, less research exists on protective processes in family, school, and community contexts as compared to individual and peer contexts, and a number of studies addressing family, school, and community factors included majority white samples (Oliphant et al., 2019). Lastly, we assessed the promotive and/or protective role of composites including factors assessing family, school, and community developmental assets, recognition and/or opportunities for prosocial involvement, and collective efficacy.

Direct Effects on Gun Carriage

The results for the direct effects of community violence exposure and peer victimization on gun carriage partially supported our hypotheses. As anticipated, witnessing violence, violent victimization, cyber victimization, and in-person victimization were each related to higher odds of gun carriage. However, the direct effect of in-person peer victimization on gun carriage was not significant after accounting for individual/peer risk factors. The findings for community violence exposure were consistent with several prior adolescent studies (e.g., Hemenway et al., 2011; Luster & Oh, 2001; Molnar et al., 2004). We identified a link between cyber victimization and gun carriage, extending research connecting cyber victimization to higher odds of weapon carrying (e.g., Oliphant, 2023). Interpersonal dynamics in social media including youths’ perceptions of an ever present “imagined audience,” created by likes, dislikes, and sharing content, can strengthen norms supporting conflict and create a diffusion of responsibility that decreases the likelihood bystanders will intercede to support victims (Nesi et al., 2018). Negative social dynamics online may contribute to youths’ decisions to carry a handgun for protection (Oliphant et al., 2019). The relations between violence exposure and gun carriage are generally consistent with Agnew’s (1992) general strain theory. One explanation for our findings related to peer victimization may be the inclusion of relational and verbal subtypes of peer victimization. For example, in a study of 7th to 12th graders in Colorado (n = 2,662, 37% Latino/a, 24% African American, and 19% white), relational subtypes of aggression but not victimization were associated with a higher likelihood of weapon carrying (Dukes et al., 2010).

Family developmental strengths/supports (i.e., family recognition and opportunities for prosocial involvement and family developmental assets), functioned as a promotive but not protective factor for handgun carriage. This finding is consistent with research that showed items assessing the extent to which parents tell adolescents they have done a good job and are proud of them were negatively related to handgun carriage (Vaughn et al., 2012). Caregiver reinforcement of youths’ attempts and accomplishments sets prosocial norms and expectations for youths’ success (Catalano et al., 2021). Family developmental assets assess youths’ perceptions of parent caring and support, involvement in spending time together and helping youth succeed, and providing consistent rules and monitoring. Prior empirical findings in majority white samples identified parental monitoring and involvement as promotive factors (e.g., Loeber et al., 2004; Luster & Oh, 2001; Vaughn et al., 2012). This finding highlights the strengths of African American caregivers (Belgrave et al., 2021) and the role of their caring, involvement with, and guidance of youth in directly decreasing the likelihood of handgun carriage, and is consistent with social bond theory and the SDM (Catalano et al., 2021; Hirschi, 1968). However, the impact of promotive family processes in deterring gun carriage weakened and was no longer significant after accounting for violence exposure and individual/peer risk factors. Future research is needed to investigate how family strengths and assets can be capitalized to directly decrease youths’ handgun carriage.

Moderating Effects on Relations Between Violence Exposure and Handgun Carriage

Community Violence Exposure

For witnessing violence and victimization, our hypotheses were partially supported. Community collective efficacy (i.e., social connectedness and informal social control) and community developmental strengths/supports (i.e., community recognition for prosocial involvement and community developmental assets), but not family developmental strengths/supports, moderated relations between both forms of community violence exposure and gun carriage. Protective social networks within communities can range in breadth (e.g., being widespread or occurring among small clusters of residents) (Gearhart & Joseph, 2019). Our findings showed that differences in youths’ experience of support from residents conferred protection or increased risk related to adolescent handgun carriage. Our findings built upon a prior study with a majority white sample (n = 1,093, ages 12–17, 40% non-Latino/a white, 28% Latino/a, 23% non-Hispanic Black) that showed informal social control predicted lower rates of weapon carrying among youth over time (Haegerich et al., 2014). The protective effect of community recognition for prosocial involvement is consistent with the SDM and social bond theory and highlights the role of adolescent socialization by community members to encourage and recognize youth for their attempts and achievements related to prosocial involvement (Catalano et al., 2021). This type of support may lead to increased participation in formal and informal activities that promote positive youth development and create bonds with community members who may serve in mentorship roles for youth (Catalano et al., 2021).

Similarly, at high levels of caregiver-reported social connectedness, networks of social support among residents may offer instrumental and emotional support for youth who experience high levels of witnessing violence and violent victimization. Further, social connectedness is linked to high levels of informal social control where, in the context of supportive social networks, residents may be empowered to take action to address neighborhood concerns (Gearhart & Joseph, 2019; Henry et al., 2014). These community factors may work in a synergistic and additive way to confer protection to youth in the presence of risk.

Peer Victimization

School developmental strengths/supports (i.e., school developmental assets and family prosocial involvement with school) moderated the relations between cyber and in-person victimization and gun carriage. School developmental assets included aspects of school climate (i.e., involvement in learning, feeling safe at school, feeling supported by school staff, and having rules fairly enforced) that are associated with positive youth development (Gomez & Ang, 2007). Consistent with social bond theory and the SDM (Catalano et al., 2021; Hirschi, 1968), youth who reported higher versus lower levels of school developmental assets and family prosocial involvement in school may have stronger connections to protective mechanisms within schools including access to resources and positive relationships with students, teachers, and school staff. Dill and Ozer (2016) found that youth may avoid community violence through participation in school activities and prosocial interactions with peers. However, school developmental strengths/supports did not significantly moderate the relation between in-person peer victimization and gun carriage after accounting for individual/peer risk factors. This finding suggests that individual- and peer-level risk factors weaken the protective function of conventional school-related social bonds. It also suggests the potential effective role of youth violence prevention programs that address multiple risk and protective factors at individual- and peer-levels for decreasing the likelihood of youth gun carriage.

Limitations

We acknowledge several limitations of the current study. Our focus on African American adolescents living in low-income urban areas limits the generalizability of our findings. However, on balance, we feel that this focus is a strength given that African Americans disproportionately shoulder the burden of violence exposure (Nation et al., 2021). The cross-sectional design precluded the ability to assess the impact of the identified risk, promotive, and protective factors on future handgun carriage. In the current study, we tested and identified several novel promotive and protective factors (e.g., school and community developmental assets). For our sample, we had sufficient power to detect medium and large, but not small effects. However, we were able to detect a number of significant effects and showed consistent patterns in the findings across analyses. Future studies are needed with larger samples to further assess the relations tested in the current study. Finally, youths’ inclinations to disclose gun carriage needs to be considered. Our research team addressed this potential concern by stressing the confidential and voluntary nature of the survey, and only 4% of participants (n = 11) opted not to answer this item.

Implications and Future Directions

Our study results underscored the protective role of collective efficacy (i.e., social connectedness and informal social control) and the strengths of community members in creating social networks that may support collaborative action to address community issues of concern in low-income areas. Haegerich et al. (2014) highlighted that the key element of collective efficacy that produces change, beyond social ties, is the trust among residents to work together and take the initiative to engage in collective action to address challenging situations related to gun carriage and firearm violence. Theoretical models on health inequities highlight the power of collective action to transform systems and promote power sharing in decision-making that impacts community members’ lives (Solar & Irwin, 2010). The development and evaluation of community-level participatory action research strategies that create “linking social capital,” or positive and trusting relationships between community residents and organizational supports, is needed to address common goals (Szreter & Woolcock, 2004) such as those surrounding the prevention of firearm violence. Strategies used in prior research to promote collective efficacy include individual-level activities (e.g., communications/skills workshops), group-level activities (e.g., neighborhood assessment, community projects, family-to-family connections), and community-level activities (e.g., training an established organization in the community to carry out intervention activities, strengthening community norms through social media campaigns) (Butel & Braun, 2019; Ohmer, 2016).

Underscoring the value of collective efficacy as a mechanism to reduce gun carriage does not discount the challenges and complexities for African American adolescents living in low-income areas. For example, we found that individual and peer risk factors weakened some promotive and protective roles of family and school developmental strengths/supports, respectively, in relation to adolescent handgun carriage. Through a series of case studies, Pattillo-McCoy (2000) showed that African American adolescents living in low-income neighborhoods experienced competing protective and risk processes across and within different socio-ecological contexts. The relations between social and structural community risk factors (e.g., concentrated poverty and geographic isolation) and high levels of community firearm violence point to the need for collective action to increase opportunity structures for positive youth development (Allison et al., 2011). Approaches to enhance these opportunity structures may include: (a) developing a Community Advisory Council to engage in strategic planning and pursue systemic policy changes, (b) strengthening the capacity of existing organizations to deliver evidence-based interventions, and (c) establishing evidence-based programming and organized activities for youth in the community. Funding to support staff, build and maintain facilities, and obtain necessary resources is critical to developing, implementing, and sustaining positive youth development programs (Ohmer, 2016).

Our study findings focused on identifying promotive and protective factors that either decreased the likelihood of gun carriage or mitigated relations between victimization experiences and this outcome. Our findings supported the utility of creating composite measures within community, school, and family contexts. We found different patterns of moderating effects based on the type of violence exposure. Protective factors that supported connections to school (i.e., school developmental assets and family prosocial involvement in school) attenuated relations between peer-based cyber victimization, and for some analyses, in-person peer victimization and gun carriage. In contrast, factors related to community support and connection moderated relations between community violence exposure and gun carriage. In addition, the composite of risk factors was negatively related to the family and school composite measures but not community composite measures. Our findings highlighted that both promotive and protective processes were differentially linked to risk factors by context. Overall, our findings speak to the necessity of comprehensive approaches to firearm violence prevention that address relevant risk and protective processes across multiple levels of the social ecology. Dovetailing with this approach is the need to consider adolescents’ cumulative experience and the balance of risk, promotive, and protective factors associated with handgun carriage in their social networks across contexts.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Research reported in this publication was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC Cooperative Agreement U01CE002766.

ORCID iDs

Terri N. Sullivan

Katherine M. Ross

Colleen S. Walsh

Author Biographies

Terri N. Sullivan, PhD, is a professor of Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University. Her major research interests include dating and peer relationships in adolescence, positive youth development, youth violence prevention, and adolescent social and emotional development.

Katherine M. Ross, PhD, is a Research Scientist at the Search Institute. Dr. Ross’ research is broadly focused on a holistic and interdisciplinary approach to positive youth development. Her research examines trajectories of adolescent health and well-being, particularly in social and emotional development.

Kelly E. O’Connor, PhD, is a Clinical Child Psychologist and Postdoctoral Fellow at VCU Health’s Injury and Violence Prevention Program. Her clinical and research interests focus on prevention and intervention efforts aimed at reducing violence and trauma symptoms among minoritized youth in urban communities.

Colleen S. Walsh, MS, MSEd, is a doctoral student in Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University. She studies positive youth development and youth violence prevention with a focus on gun violence prevention. As a developmental scientist, her research seeks to inform prevention and intervention efforts through a strength-based, ecological approach.

Diane Bishop, MPH, is a faculty researcher in Epidemiology at Virginia Commonwealth University. Her work focuses on youth violence prevention and maternal health with a focus on using surveillance data, environmental data, and survey data to identify factors associated with health behaviors and outcomes.

References

Agnew

(1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x

Allison

K. W.

Edmonds

Wilson

Pope

Farrell

A. D.

(2011). Connecting youth violence prevention, positive youth development, and community mobilization. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9407-9

Arthur

M. W.

Hawkins

J. D.

Pollard

J. A.

Catalano

R. F.

Baglioni

A. J

Jr. (2002). Measuring risk and protective factors for substance use, delinquency, and other adolescent problem behaviors: The Communities That Care Youth Survey. Evaluation Review, 26(6), 575–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X0202600601

Baker

Pelfrey

W. V.

(2016). Bullying victimization, social network usage, and delinquent coping in a sample of urban youth: Examining the predictions of general strain theory. Violence and Victims, 31(6), 1021–1043. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.vv-d-14-00154

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191

Belgrave

F. Z.

Goings

T. C.

Jones

H. A.

(2021). African American families: Research, theory, and practice. Cognella Academic Publishing.

Benson

P. L.

Scales

P. C.

Syvertsen

A. K.

(2011). The contribution of the developmental assets framework to positive youth development theory and practice. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 41, 197–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-386492-5.00008-7

Bradshaw

C. P.

Waasdorp

T. E.

Goldweber

Johnson

S. L.

(2013). Bullies, gangs, drugs, and school: Understanding the overlap and the role of ethnicity and urbanicity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(2), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9863-7

Butel

Braun

K. L.

(2019). The role of collective efficacy in reducing health disparities: A systematic review. Family & Community Health, 42(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0000000000000206

10.

Carter

P. M.

Walton

M. A.

Newton

M. F.

Clery

Whiteside

L. K.

Zimmerman

M. A.

Cunningham

R. M.

(2013). Firearm possession among adolescents presenting to an urban emergency department for assault. Pediatrics, 132(2), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-0163

11.

Catalano

R. F.

Hawkins

J. D.

Kosterman

Bailey

J. A.

Oesterle

Cambron

Farrington

D. P.

(2021). Applying the Social Development Model in middle childhood to promote healthy development: Effects from primary school through 30s and across generations. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 7, 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-020-00152-6

12.

CDC-WISQARS. (2020). Leading causes of death reports 1981–2020. CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. https://wisqars-viz.cdc.gov:8006/explore-data/home

13.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Youth violence: Risk and protective factors. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html

14.

Dill

L. J.

Ozer

E. J.

(2016). “I’m not just runnin’ the streets”: Exposure the neighborhood violence and violence management strategies among urban youth of color. Journal of Adolescent Research, 31(5), 536–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558415605382

15.

Donnelly

K. A.

Rucker

Boyle

M. D.

Fornari

M. J.

Badolato

G. M.

Goyal

M. K.

(2022). Experiencing bullying is associated with firearm access, weapon carriage, depression, marijuana use, and justice involvement in adolescents. Pediatric Emergency Care, 38(2), e918–e923. https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0000000000002473

16.

Dukes

R. L.

Stein

J. A.

Zane

J. I.

(2010). Gender differences in the relative impact of physical and relational bullying on adolescent injury and weapon carrying. Journal of School Psychology, 48(6), 511–532.

17.

Farrell

A. D.

Bettencourt

Mehari

K. R

. (2018). Beliefs about fighting and their relations to urban adolescents’ frequency of aggression and victimization: Evaluation of the Beliefs About Fighting Scale. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 39(6), 785–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431618791297

18.

Farrell

A. D.

Thompson

E. L.

Mehari

K. R.

Sullivan

T. N.

Goncy

E. A.

(2020). Assessment of in-person and cyber aggression and victimization, substance use, and delinquent behavior during early adolescence. Assessment, 27(6), 1213–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118792089

19.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

20.

Fowler

K. A.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Haileyesus

Annest

J. L.

(2015). Firearm injuries in the United States. Preventive Medicine, 79, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.06.002

21.

Gearhart

M. C.

Joseph

M. L.

(2019). Social cohesion, mutual efficacy, and informal social control: Enhancing the conceptualization of collective efficacy. Community Development, 50(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2018.1545793

22.

Gomez

B. J.

Ang

P. M. M.

(2007). Promoting positive youth development in schools. Theory Into Practice, 46, 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840701232752

23.

Haegerich

T. M.

Oman

R. F.

Vesely

S. K.

Aspy

C. B.

Tolma

E. L.

(2014). The predictive influence of family and neighborhood assets on fighting and weapon carrying from mid- to late adolescence. Prevention Science, 15, 473–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-013-0400-z

24.

Harris

P. A.

Taylor

Thielke

Payne

Gonzalez

Conde

J. G.

(2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42(2), 377–381.

25.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.

26.

Hemenway

Vriniotis

Johnson

R. M.

Miller

Azrael

(2011). Gun carrying by high school students in Boston, MA: Does overestimation of peer gun carrying matter? Journal of Adolescence, 34(5), 997–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.11.008

27.

Henry

Gorman-Smith

Schoeny

Tolan

(2014). “Neighborhood matters”: Assessment of neighborhood social processes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 54(3–4), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9681-z

28.

Hirschi

(1968). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.

29.

Krohn

M. D.

Massey

J. L.

(1980). Social control and delinquent behavior: An examination of the elements of the social bond. Sociological Quarterly, 21(4), 529–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1980.tb00634.x

30.

Lee

D. B.

Hsieh

H.-F.

Stoddard

S. A.

Heinze

J. E.

Carter

P. M.

Goldstick

J. E.

Cunningham

M. C.

Cunningham

R. M.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2020). Longitudinal pathway from violence exposure to firearm carriage among adolescents: The role of future expectation. Journal of Adolescence, 81, 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.03.009

31.

Lerner

R. M.

Castellino

D. R.

(2002). Contemporary developmental theory and adolescence: Developmental systems and applied developmental science. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(6 Suppl), 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1054-139x(02)00495-0

32.

Loeber

Burke

J. D.

Mutchka

Lahey

B. B.

(2004). Gun carrying and conduct disorder: A highly combustible combination? Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 158(2), 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.158.2.138

33.

Luster

S. M.

(2001). Correlates of male adolescents carrying handguns among their peers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(3), 714–726. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00714.x

34.

Luthar

S. S.

Cicchetti

Becker

(2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00164

35.

Avellaneda

Torres

E. D.

Rothman

E. F.

Temple

J. R.

(2019). Adolescent cyberbullying and weapon carrying: Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking, 22(3), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0463

36.

Mazerolle

Wickes

McBroom

(2010). Community variations in violence: The role of social ties and collective efficacy in comparative context. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427809348898

37.

Mehari

K. R.

Farrell

A. D.

(2018). Where does cyberbullying fit? A comparison of competing models of adolescent aggression. Psychology of Violence, 8(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000081

38.

Miller

(2020). Reconceptualizing public housing: Not as a policed site of control, but as a system of support. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, 28(1), 95–115.

39.

Molnar

B. E.

Miller

M. J.

Azrael

Buka

S. L.

(2004). Neighborhood predictors of concealed firearm carrying among children and adolescents: Results from the project on human development in Chicago neighborhoods. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 158, 657–664. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.158.7.657

40.

Nation

Chapman

D. A.

Edmonds

Cosey-Gay

F. N.

Jackson

Marshall

K. J.

Gorman-Smith

Sullivan

Trudeau

A. T.

(2021). Social and structural determinants of health and youth violence: Shifting the paradigm of youth violence prevention. American Journal of Public Health, 111(S1), S28–S31.

41.

Nesi

Choukas-Bradley

Prinstein

M. J.

(2018). Transformation of adolescent peer relations in the social media context: Part 2-Application to peer group processes and future directions for research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 21(3), 295–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-018-0262-9

42.

Ohmer

M. L.

(2016). Strategies for preventing youth violence: Facilitating collective efficacy among youth and adults. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 7(4), 681–705. https://doi.org/10.1086/689407

43.

Oliphant

S. N.

(2023). Bullying victimization and weapon carrying: A partial test of General Strain Theory. Youth & Society, 55(1), 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x211036919

44.

Oliphant

S. N.

Mouch

C. A.

Rowhani-Rahbar

Hargarten

Jay

Hemenway

Zimmerman

Carter

P. M.

(2019). A scoping review of patterns, motives, and risk and protective factors for adolescent firearm carriage. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 42(4), 763–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-019-00048-x

45.

Pabayo

Grinshteyn

Avila

Azrael

Molnar

B. E.

(2020). Relation between neighborhood socio-economic characteristics and social cohesion, social control, and collective efficacy: Findings from the Boston Neighborhood Study. SSM - Population Health, 10, 100552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2020.100552

46.

Pattillo-McCoy

(2000). Negotiating adolescence in a Black middle class neighborhood. In Danziger

Lin

A. C.

(Eds.), Coping with poverty: The social contexts of neighborhood, work, and family in the African-American community (pp. 77–104). University of Michigan Press.

47.

Patton

D. U.

Hong

J. S.

Ranney

Patel

Kelley

Eschmann

Washington

(2014). Social media as a vector for youth violence: A review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 548–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.043

48.

Pontes

N. M. H.

Pontes

(2021). Additive interactions between school bullying victimization and gender on weapon carrying among U.S. high school students; Youth Risk Behavior Survey 2009 to 2015. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19–20), n10886–n10907. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519877945

49.

Prinstein

M. J.

Dodge

K. A.

(Eds.). (2008). Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents. The Guilford Press.

50.

Richters

Saltzman

(1990). Survey of exposure to community violence: Self report version. National Institute of Mental Health.

51.

Sampson

R. J.

(2021). Great American city. University of Chicago Press.

52.

Scales

P. C.

Leffert

(2004). Developmental assets: A synthesis of the scientific research on adolescent development. Search Institute.

53.

Schapiro

L. E.

John

Adesman

(2014). Association between victims of bullying and weapon carrying among high school students in the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54, S43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.10.099

54.

Schmidt

C. J.

Rupp

Pizarro

J. M.

Lee

D. B.

Branas

C. C.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2019). Risk and protective factors related to youth firearm violence: A scoping review and directions for future research. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 42, 706–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-019-00076-7

55.

Shek

D. T.

Dou

Zhu

Chai

(2019). Positive youth development: Current perspectives. Adolescent Health Medicine and Therapeutics, 10, 131–141. https://doi.org/10.2147/AHMT.S179946

56.

Solar

Irwin

(2010). A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health. WHO Document Production Services.

57.

Spano

Pridemore

W. A.

Bolland

(2012). Specifying the role of exposure to violence and violent behavior on initiation of gun carrying: A longitudinal test of three models of youth gun carrying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(1), 158–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511416471

58.

Szreter

Woolcock

(2004). Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33(4), 650–667. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh013

59.

Valdebenito

Ttofi

M. M.

Eisner

Gaffney

(2017). Weapon carrying in and out of school among pure bullies, pure victims, and bully-victims: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 33, 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.004

60.

van Geel

Vedder

Tanilon

. (2014). Bullying and weapon carrying; A meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 168, 714–720. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.213

61.

Vaughn

M. G.

Perron

B. E.

Abdon

Olate

Groom

L. T.

(2012). Correlates of handgun carrying among adolescents in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(10), 2003–2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511432150

62.

Vermeiren

Schwab-Stone

Deboutte

Leckman

P. E.

Ruchkin

(2003). Violence exposure and substance use in adolescents: Findings from three countries. Pediatrics, 111, 535–540. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.111.3.535

63.

Wilcox

May

D. C.

Roberts

S. D.

(2006). Student weapon possession and the “fear and victimization hypothesis”: Unraveling the temporal order. Justice Quarterly, 23, 502–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820600985362