Values and Violence

1

Running head: VALUES AND VIOLENCE

Values as Protective Factors against Violent Behavior in Jewish and Arab High Schools in

Israel

Ariel Knafo, Ella Daniel, and Mona Khoury-Kassabri

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Values and Violence

2

Abstract

This study tested the hypothesis that values, abstract goals serving as guiding life principles,

become relatively important predictors of adolescents' self-reported violent behavior in school

environments in which violence is relatively common. The study employed a students-nested-in-

schools design. Arab and Jewish adolescents (N=907, mean age = 16.8), attending 33 Israeli

schools, reported their values and their own violent behavior. Power values correlated

positively, and universalism and conformity correlated negatively with self-reported violent

behavior, accounting for 12% of the variance in violent behavior, while school membership

accounted for 6% of the variance. In schools in which violence was more common, power

values' relationship with adolescents' self-reported violence was especially positive, and the

relationship of universalism with self-reported violence was especially negative.

Values and Violence

3

Values as Protective Factors against Violent Behavior in Jewish and Arab High Schools in

Israel

The question of school violence, defined as any intentional behavior meant to harm

people and property at school (Benbenishty, Zeira, & Astor, 2000), has attracted the attention

of researchers, educators, practitioners, and parents for decades. Studies point out some

schools as a center of many violent incidents. For example, in a World Health Organization

survey 33.2% of Israeli 10th graders reported having been victims of bullying, harassment, or

molestation at school at least once during the last school year (Harel, Ellenbogen-Frankovits,

Molcho, Abu-Asbah, & Habib, 2002). However, within schools individual students vary also

in the extent of involvement in violent behavior. This study addresses individual differences in

Israeli Jewish and Arab adolescents' self-reported violent behavior, focusing on the role of

their value priorities.

Values are abstract trans-situational goals, varying in importance, that pertain to desirable

end-states or behaviors, and guide evaluation of the self and other people and selection of

behavior (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992). As such, individual differences in value priorities

should predict individual differences in violent behaviors (Knafo, 2003). In the present study

we examine whether individual differences in adolescents' values predict their self-reported

violent behavior and whether these relationships interact with school-level violence. We

propose and test the hypothesis that the higher the level of violence in each school, the more

strongly the values of individual adolescents will be related to their self-reported violent

behavior.

Three key issues in the literature on adolescence are relevant to the current study: identity

development (with a focus on the values that constitute part of this identity), violence, and peer

influence (Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Adolescence is a developmental period in which values

are reevaluated and renegotiated (Marcia, 1980). These values form a core aspect of identity

Values and Violence

4

(Hitlin, 2003; Gecas, 2000). In a parallel process, violence also undergoes developmental shifts

during this period. For example, although there is less fighting behavior in adolescence, the

impact and severity of aggressive acts increase during this time (Loeber & Hay, 1997; Moffitt,

1993). According to Moffitt's (1993) developmental theory, for many individuals adolescence

is a period of temporary engagement in antisocial behavior, including aggression, and this

period usually ends upon entering the adult world. Naturally, adolescents differ in their degree

of violent behavior. An important predictor of adolescents' violent behavior is the degree of

violence in their immediate social context, or their peer group. During adolescence there is an

increase in violence committed by groups (Loeber & Hay, 1997). This process is relevant to

identity development, because groups often define the adolescent's status and his/her social

relationships (Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Metzger, 2006).

In the current study we address these three aspects – values, violence, and the social

context. Violence is examined in different social school contexts, and is related to individual

value priorities in order to examine whether values predict adolescents' self-reported violent

behavior and whether this relationship is affected (or moderated, Baron & Kenny, 1986) by the

degree of violence they are exposed to in their ecological context (i.e., the school they attend).

Various variables predict violent behavior and these will be presented briefly in the next

section, to be followed by a presentation of Schwartz's (1992) theory of values. Hypotheses

regarding the links between violent behavior and values will be delineated subsequently. A

discussion of the conditions in which values may influence behavior will then lead us to argue

that values may impact behavior more strongly in schools in which violence is more common.

Research on Individual Differences in Violence

Individual differences in violence have been related to low socioeconomic status

(Moffitt, 2003, Sampson & Laub, 1994), to the parenting style experienced by adolescents

(Criss, Pettit, Bates, Dodge, & Lapp, 2002, Moffitt, 2003, Sampson & Laub, 1994), to peer

rejection (Pettit, 2004), to adolescents' personality (Dykeman & Daehlin, 1996, Moffitt, 2003),

Values and Violence

5

to deficits in problem solving and cognitive functioning, as well as to irritable, control-resistant

temperament (Pettit, 2004), to genetic effects (Deater-Deckard & Plomin, 1999), and to the

interaction between genetic effects and childhood maltreatment (Caspi et al., 2002). Another

important predictor of violent behavior is the degree of violence exhibited by the adolescent's

friends (Moffitt & Caspi, 2001). Finally, in a classic meta-analysis, Hyde (1984) found gender

differences, with men (and boys) scoring higher on physical violence than women (and girls)

(but not on indirect aggression, such as peer exclusion, Landau, Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz,

Osterman, & Gideon, 2002).

An important predictor of adolescents' degree of violent behavior is their membership in

a particular school (e.g., Khoury-Kassabri, Benbenishty, Astor, & Zeira, 2004). Schools play

an essential role in children's emotional, physical, and educational development (e.g., Roeser,

Eccles, & Sameroff, 2000; Rutter & Maughan, 2002). For example, in schools that are well-

organized, have a harmonious climate, and prioritize learning there was a decline over time in

students' school problems and deviance (Kasen, Berenson, Cohen, & Johnson, 2004). On the

other hand, some schools might have negative effects on students' sense of safety and

involvement in antisocial behavior. For instance, students who see peers behave dangerously

feel less safe in their schools (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005), and those who fear for their safety

are more likely to bring with them some weapon to school (Khoury-Kassabri, Astor, &

Benbenishty, 2005). Explanations for school-level differences in violence range from technical

factors such as class overcrowding (but not school size, Khoury-Kassabri et al., 2004) to more

psychological and sociological variables such as school climate (e.g., Khoury-Kassabri et al.,

2004). We thus expect that school membership will predict individual differences in self-

reported violence. In addition, we investigate the role of individuals' values in predicting self-

reported violence over and above the influence of gender, school system, and school

membership.

Direct Relationships between Values and Violence

Values and Violence

6

Values are abstract motivational constructs whose functions are to guide, evaluate, and

justify behaviors, people, and events (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992). In our theoretical

framework, values are conceived of as what is important to individuals as guiding principles in

their lives across situations (Schwartz, 1992). In this respect, values as conceptualized here

differ from values as defined in the expectancy-value model, in which values are considered

with regard to a specific activity or task (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Values, as defined here,

are also different from attitudes, since values focus on abstract ideals while attitudes are

applied to more concrete objects (e.g., Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004).

According to value theory, values represent the basic needs of individuals as well as the

influences of the social environment (Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004; Rohan, 2000; Schwartz, 1992).

By providing personal or social goals to aspire for, values motivate individuals for behaviors,

through guiding the judgment regarding which actions are considered as more justified or more

desirable than the alternatives (Feather 1995). Furthermore, values present individuals with

abstract goals according to which they judge concrete objects and people, and form attitudes

towards them (Feather, 1995; Homer & Kahle, 1988). The more concrete attitude, guided by

one's values, is in turn expected to guide the choice of behaviors, and eventually actual

behavior, if social and situational constraints do not prevent the desired behavior (Ajzen, 2001;

Feather, 1995; Homer & Kahle, 1988). The current study focuses on the role of values in

guiding behavior. We argue that the specific values held by individual adolescents may predict

their self-reported violent behavior. We next propose a set of hypotheses regarding the

direction of these relationships, followed by a description of how situational constraints may

affect the strength of the value- self-reported behavior relationship.

In extensive cross-cultural work, Schwartz (1992; Schwartz & Rubel, 2005) has

demonstrated the cross-cultural equivalence of value systems in over 70 cultures. Although

there are many different values, in most cultures ten value types are found (Schwartz, 1992).

These ten values (defined in Table 1 according to their motivational emphases, or in other

Values and Violence

7

words, the goals underlying them) form a motivational continuum in a quasi-circumplex shape

in which adjacent values share certain motivational bases, while values appearing opposite to

each other are derived from contradicting goals (e.g., Schwartz, 1992). Figure 1 presents the

value structure proposed by Schwartz's (1992) theory and validated across cultures.

In the present study, our hypotheses focus on four of the ten values: universalism, power,

conformity, and security. We chose these four values because they pertain to two questions

that are important to the issue of violence. First, the wish to preserve the welfare of unrelated

others (universalism) is juxtaposed with the motivation to achieve status and resources even at

the expense of others (power). Second, there is the motivation for reducing threats to the

current social order (conformity) and to avoid risks to oneself and to related others (security).

Values of universalism are hypothesized to relate negatively to self-reported violent

behavior, as they promote peace and tolerance of others. At the attitudinal level, these values

emphasize equality and are related negatively to individuals' social dominance orientation,

militarism, and authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1998; Cohrs, Moschner, Maes, & Kielmann,

2005). Therefore, adolescents who regard universalism more highly are expected to care little

for achieving social dominance through behaviors such as aggression and bullying.

Furthermore, a negative relationship was found between adolescents' universalism values and

their self-reported bullying behavior (Knafo, 2003).

Values of power are hypothesized to relate positively to self-reported violent behavior.

Power values relate negatively to expression of empathy with others (Myyry & Helkama,

2001), and positively to selfish behavior in an economic money allocation laboratory setting

(Schwartz, 1996). Placing importance on obtaining resources and social status at the expense

of others may lead some individuals to resort to violence when faced with perceived threats to

their honor or to their own resources. Indeed, power values have been found to relate positively

to adolescents' self-reported bullying behavior (Knafo, 2003).

Values and Violence

8

Values of conformity emphasize abiding by societal norms. Regardless of the opinion of

each adolescent's immediate peers, in general societal institutions discourage violence of any

kind, including bullying and fighting. Adolescents who maintain high conformity values are

less likely to promote behavior that contradicts societal norms (Mokounkolo, 2004), and will

thus be less likely to engage in violent behavior.

Values of security are also expected to relate negatively to self-reported violent behavior,

as they focus on stability in one's personal life and in the social environment. Violent behavior

entails risk to the perpetrator. Individuals who rate security as highly important are less likely

to be violent, as this behavior may lead to punishment and retaliation. Indeed, adolescents'

rating of security values correlates negatively with their attitudes towards violence

(Mokounkolo, 2004), and with self-reported bullying (Knafo, 2003).

Summary. We hypothesize that higher endorsement of power values will be positively

correlated with adolescent self-reported violent behavior. In contrast, we hypothesize that high

levels of universalism, security, and conformity values will be negatively correlated with self-

reported violent behavior. Having described our predictions regarding the relationships

between values and self-reported violent behavior, we now turn to hypothesize about the way

values relate to self-reported violent behavior within the social context. We suggest below that

the relevance of values to adolescents' self-reported violent behavior is enhanced in

ecologically risky environments of schools in which violence levels are relatively high.

The Potential Role of Certain Values as Protective Factors against Violence

Recent developmental research has focused not only on risk factors but also on the

protective factors that prevent the development of problem behavior in the face of adversity

(Alvord & Grados, 2005; Luthar & Latendresse, 2005; Masten, 2001). Schools in which

students are exposed to high levels of violence present students with an environment that may

lead them to become violent themselves, through various processes such as modeling, retaliation,

or joining particular peer groups. In contrast, schools in which adolescents are not exposed to

Values and Violence

9

high degrees of violence provide lower degrees of such ecological risk.We hypothesize that

adolescents' emphasis on values of universalism, security, and conformity, as well as rating

power as low in importance, will serve as stronger predictors of self-reported violent behavior in

ecologically risky environments than in other environments, and may thus serve as protective

factors against the negative influence of schools in which violence is relatively common.

Values are not expected to have an identical influence on behaviors in all situations and

contexts. For example, values have stronger relationships with self-reported bullying among

adolescent children of autocratic fathers than among children of non-autocratic fathers (Knafo,

2003). Verplanken and Holland (2002) showed that when the centrality of values to the self

and their accessibility are increased, values relate more strongly to behavior. Maio et al. (2001)

demonstrated that thinking about the reasons for holding some values also increases the likelihood

of behaving according to one's values. Finally, Bardi and Schwartz (2003) noted that when

behaviors are not highly normative and there is more room for individual expression, values are

more relevant to behavior.

In the current work we extend this line of thought to the context of schools. In schools in

which violence is less common, the vast majority of students do not engage in violence, and there

is likely to be a normative social pressure against violence. In such schools adolescents' individual

value priorities may be less likely to predict their self-reported violent behavior. In schools in

which violence is relatively widespread, on the other hand, the proportion of violent students is

more substantial and therefore there are no strong norms against violence. In such schools,

adolescents have both highly violent and non-violent peers, a situation that is likely to increase the

importance of their own personal values of high or low power, universalism, conformity, and

security in determining their behavior.

In addition, in schools in which students experience high levels of violence, the awareness

of one's own value priorities may be increased. Exposure to violence as a victim, witness, or even

perpetrator poses questions with regards to certain values, such as whether to side with those who

Values and Violence

10

violate social expectations or with those who abide by them. Thus, the relevant values of

universalism, power, conformity, and security are likely to become more prominent in

adolescents' thinking. As adolescents' awareness of relevant values increases in schools in which

violence is relatively common, they may come to consider the advantages and disadvantages of

various value standpoints. In sum, both increased awareness of values and lower normative

pressures are expected in schools in which violence is relatively common. These two conditions

are expected to increase the relevance of students' values to their behavior in such schools. We

therefore hypothesize that the relationships between self-reported violent behavior and values of

universalism, power, conformity, and security will be higher in schools in which school-level

violence is relatively common than in schools with low levels of violence.

The present study tests the hypotheses that a high importance to power values and a low

importance to universalism, conformity, and security values would be associated with adolescents'

self-reported violent behavior. We further hypothesize that the relationship between these four

values and adolescents' self-reported violent behavior would be stronger in schools in which

students experience high levels of violence. We test these hypotheses with a large sample of

adolescents attending either Jewish or Arab high schools in Israel. The hierarchical nature of

the students-nested-in-schools study design enables the investigation of the hypothesized

interaction between students' own values and the prevalence of violence in their schools in

predicting adolescents' self-reported violent behavior. The cross-cultural aspect of the design

enables an exploration of similarities or differences in the way adolescents' values are related

to their self-reported violent behavior.

Method

Participants

The study population was high school students (10th to 12th grade) from Jewish and Arab

schools in Israel. In this country, Jewish and Arab adolescents attend two separate public

school systems, each operating in a different language, and catering to the culture-specific

Values and Violence

11

needs of individuals who mostly live in ethnically homogeneous and separate communities.

We sampled schools from each sector based on socio-economic status, as classified by the

Israeli Ministry of Education (the Ministry classifies schools into within-sector SES deciles on

the basis of factors such as the average educational level and occupational status of parents).

Thirty-four percent of the schools were selected from the top three deciles, 36% from the

middle three deciles, and 27% from the lower four deciles. Jewish schools included students

with somewhat higher within-sector SES than Arab schools, but this difference was not

significant (χ2(2) = 0.75, ns). Most schools were gender-mixed schools, with two all-girls

schools (one Arab) and two all-boys schools (one Arab), same-sex schools being religiously

oriented.

Adolescents were recruited by telephone during 2005. Each ethnic group was reached in

a procedure that was more likely to yield a relatively high participation rate within that group.

Adolescents attending Jewish schools were approached through phone numbers taken from

student directories for high schools. In each school, two classes were randomly selected, and

then each adolescent was called until a sufficient number of students (usually 30) agreed to

participate. Adolescents attending Arab schools, for which no equivalent phonebooks existed,

were approached with the use of a snowball technique, again randomly selecting classes and

contacting all available adolescents until a sufficient number of students were reached.

Data were obtained from 907 adolescents (454 Jews, 453 Arabs), attending 16 Jewish

schools and 17 Arab schools. Their ages ranged from 15 to 19, with 95% between 16 and 18

(M = 16.8; SD = .76). A small proportion (2.6%) of the adolescents could not be assigned to a

specific school, because they were in the process of changing schools or because they were

enrolled in schools in which only a small number of adolescents participated, and were thus

excluded from analyses. About half (49.4%) of the respondents were female. Arab adolescents

accounted for half of the sample even though they account for only 20% in the actual

population of the 15 to 19 age group in Israel (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2005). This

Values and Violence

12

over-sampling relative to the population was done in order to include a substantial number of

Arab adolescents for cross-cultural comparisons.

Measures

The questionnaires contained several parts, regarding adolescents' values, attitudes,

perception of school characteristics, violent victimization, and violent behavior. A part of the

sample also completed scales assessing subjective well-being and relationship with parents

(Knafo & Assor, in press). These scales as well as the attitude and school characteristics scales

were not analyzed in the current report. Back-translation procedures ensured the comparability

of the Arabic and Hebrew questionnaires.

Values. Values were assessed with the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ; Schwartz et

al., 1999, 2001). We used the most updated version, tested recently by Schwartz and Rubel

(2005) in a multicultural study. The PVQ has been shown to be suitable for use with children

and adolescents (Bubeck & Bilsky, 2004; Knafo & Schwartz, 2003; Schwartz et al., 2001). It

includes short verbal portraits of 40 people (matched to the respondent's gender). Each portrait

describes the person’s goals, aspirations, or wishes, pointing implicitly at the importance of a

single broad value. For example, the portrait “It is important for her to be rich. She wants to

have a lot of money and expensive things” describes a person for whom power values are

important. A portrait that says: “It is important for him always to behave properly. He wants to

avoid doing anything people would say is wrong” describes a person who cherishes conformity

values.

For each portrait respondents indicated “How much like you is this person?”. They

checked one of six boxes labeled: very much like me, like me, somewhat like me, a little like

me, not like me, and not like me at all. Thus, respondents’ own values were inferred from their

self-reported similarity to people who are described in terms of particular values. The

similarity judgments were transformed into a six-point numerical scale.

Values and Violence

13

Smallest-space analyses (SSA, Guttman, 1968) of the values of Jewish and Arab

adolescents yielded structures very similar to the prototypical, circular structure of values

described by Schwartz (1992). (SSA is a scaling technique for the structural analysis of similarity

data that, using the rank order of item similarity, generates a geometrical representation of items

that can be partitioned into regions, based on theory driven a-priori assignment of items to specific

domains). Two security items and one universalism item were found to have different

meanings in the two ethnic groups and were thus omitted from the final analyses in order to

preserve the cross-cultural equivalence of value meaning. Except for these three items, the

analysis indicated that Jewish and Arab adolescents construed their values very similarly,

showing that it was indeed reasonable to conduct a cross-cultural comparison of the

relationship between values and self-reported violent behavior in these two groups. Based on

these analyses, we computed the importance score for each value as the mean of the a-priori

three to six marker items for that value. Across ten values, Cronbach’s alpha ranged between

.76 and .57 (M = .65). These moderate alphas reflect the abstractness and breadth of the

Schwartz (1992) value types, as noted by Schwartz and Rubel (2005).

Individual-level self-reported violent behavior. Every student was asked about the

frequency of his or her own engagement, over the last twelve months, in violent behavior.

Adolescents reported their behavior using eight items (adapted from Benbenishty, 2000) that

measured direct violent behavior, with different levels of severity (e.g., picked up a stone or

another object in order to hurt another student; took things from another student by use of

force). Answers were provided on a three-point scale (0=never, 1=once or twice, 2=three times

or more).

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; AMOS statistical package, Arbuckle, 1997) tested

a model in which all self-reported violent behavior items loaded on a single factor. This single-

factor model represents adolescents' overall self-reported violence. We preferred a single-

factor model over more complex possible models because this model was both more

Values and Violence

14

parsimonious and provided a good fit to the data. Loadings ranged from .31 to .76. To check

for cross-cultural measurement invariance, we compared the fit of a model that allowed

different factor loadings in Jewish and Arab schools to a model in which the loadings were

equal in the two groups. Constraining five of the loadings to cross-cultural equality did not

decrease model fit, Δχ2(5) = 4.70, ns, indicating overall cross-cultural equivalence. Two items

had significantly different loadings for Arabs and Jews, Δχ2(2) = 45.71, p<.01, although in

both groups loadings were positive and significant, and the loading differences were a matter

of strength, not of direction. Model fit of the model with all loadings, except two, set to

equality for Arabs and Jews was good, as indicated by a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of .96,

and a Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of .049. A total score was

calculated by summing responses across all items of each scale, with higher scores indicating

more frequent self-reported violent behavior. Cronbach's alpha for the Jewish sub-sample was

.84 and for the Arab sub-sample.85.

School-level violence. This measure used three indicators of students' reported experience

of violence at school. Specifically, in addition to adolescents' report of their own perpetration

of violent behaviors, adolescents were also asked to rate the same items twice more. For each

of the eight items described above, and using the same response scale, each adolescent was

asked about the frequency in which he or she was a victim of another student's violent behavior

and about the frequency of his or her two best friends' violent behavior, over the last twelve

months. A total score was calculated by summing up responses across all items of the

victimization scale (alphas for Jews and Arabs, .82 and .87, respectively) and the friends'

violence scale (alphas for Jews and Arabs, .82 and .77, respectively), with higher scores

indicating more frequent adolescent-reported violence.

The scores of adolescents' self-reported perpetration of violent behaviors, their reports of

victimization, and their friends' perpetration of violence were aggregated within each school,

yielding three scores of school-level violence for each school that were constant for all

Values and Violence

15

students from a specific school. The scores were positively intercorrelated across both Jewish

schools, minimal r = .58, p < .01, and Arab schools, minimal r = .68, p < .01, suggesting that

schools with higher and lower degrees of violence were found in both ethnic school systems.

The three scores were used as indicators in a CFA. The analysis tested a model in which all

violence measures indicated a single construct of school-level violence. The loadings of the

three scales on the school-level violence factor ranged from .61 to .94. Constraining loadings

to cross-cultural equality did not decrease model fit, Δχ2(2) = 2.25, ns, indicating cross-cultural

equivalence, with a fair fit of the single-factor model, CFI = .965; RMSEA = .097. Cronbach's

alpha was .87 at the school level. We used the factor scores generated from this analysis to

indicate school-level violence.

Procedure

A university student of the relevant ethnic group administered the questionnaire to

adolescents who agreed to participate (46%) and received parental permission to do so. The

university students were recruited, trained, and supervised by a research coordinator of their

own ethnic group. The Arab coordinator and the Jewish coordinator met regularly to match up

their activities and discuss their instructions to both adolescents and student interviewers.

Each respondent completed the questionnaire in his or her native language (Hebrew or

Arabic). Most questionnaires were answered in the adolescents' homes. A small (6.8%)

proportion of the sample (n = 62 Jewish adolescents) answered the questionnaire on a secure

website (accessible only with a password given to respondents). No significant differences on

any of the study variables were found between adolescents who answered a paper-and-pencil

questionnaire and those who responded on the internet. All adolescents were assured that their

responses would be anonymous and confidential. They were required to answer the

questionnaires alone, without parental intervention or the presence of peers, and were offered

to hand the questionnaires back in sealed envelopes.

Analyses

Values and Violence

16

We started by comparing the average self-reported violent behavior levels of male and

female adolescents. We then studied the individual-level correlations between values and

adolescents' self-reported violent behavior in the two ethnic groups. Finally, we used

hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to study the value-self-reported behavior relationship at

the within-school level, while controlling for between-school effects.

Results

Preliminary analyses showed gender differences in the extent of individual adolescents'

self-reported violent behavior. Jewish male adolescents reported more violent behavior than

Jewish female adolescents, t= 2.25; SD = 2.89 vs. M = 0.68; SD = 1.64, respectively, t (443) =

6.92, p < .01, with a moderate to large effect size, D = 0.66. Similarly, Arab male adolescents

reported more violent behavior than Arab female adolescents, M = 3.55; SD = 3.54 vs. M =

1.03; SD = 1.43, respectively, t (439) = 9.86, p < .01, with a large effect size, D = 0.94.

Because of these gender differences, and because systematic (though small) gender

differences in value priorities are usually recorded (Schwartz & Rubel, 2005), some of the

relationships between values and self-reported violent behavior might result from a shared

relationship with gender. Ideally, gender would be used as a within-school covariate. However,

because some of the schools included only boys or only girls, it was impossible to correct for

this potential confounding variable by adding gender as a predictor of within-school

individual-differences. We therefore conducted a regression analysis in which the gender

variable predicted self-reported violent behavior. We then computed residual scores of self-

reported violent behavior net of gender effects, to be used below when predicting self-reported

violent behavior levels through value ratings. Nonetheless, the correlations between raw self-

reported violent behavior scores and individuals' values are reported as well.

Correlations between Values and Self-reported Violent Behavior

Table 2 shows the correlations between adolescents' value priorities and their self-

reported violent behavior at school. The first two columns represent the correlations for Arab

Values and Violence

17

and Jewish adolescents, regardless of school membership. Because we are primarily interested

in within-school differences in values as predictors of self-reported violent behavior, we

present the median and range of within-school correlations between each value and the

individual's self-reported violent behavior (see third column). In the fourth column, we list the

proportion of schools in which correlations were positive. The right part of Table 2 displays

the same set of correlations, with self-reported violent behavior scores computed after

controlling for gender differences (residuals of the regression analysis described above).

A comparison of the first two columns of Table 2 shows that all correlations were in the

same direction for Arabs and Jews, although the size of the correlations differed. A Fisher's Z-

test for differences in independent correlations revealed a statistically significant difference in

the correlation size between the two ethnic groups only for hedonism, Z = -2.39, p < .01, and

universalism, Z = 2.40, p < .01. These correlations were weaker in the Jewish group but in the

same direction as seen in the Arab group. Correlations did not differ significantly for males

and females, except for the correlation between universalism values and self-reported violent

behavior, the latter being significantly stronger, Z = 2.05, p < .05, among Arab male

adolescents, r = .36, p < .01, than among Arab female adolescents, r = .18, p < .01.

Differentiating Effects Within and Between Schools

Hierarchical linear modeling obtained with the HLM5 program (Bryk & Raudenbush,

2002) was used to estimate the variation in the effects of school membership on the individual-

level, self-reported violent behavior, as well as the variation of within-school relationships

between values and self-reported violent behavior. The variation of self-reported violent

behavior levels across schools was assessed first (Model 1 in Table 3). Possible school-level

predictors of these levels, such as the ethnic school system and school-level SES, were entered

next (Model 2). Note that the variables of ethnic school system and school-level SES are

independent of within-school effects of individual students' values, which were entered in the

third step (Model 3). Finally, we attempted to account for differences in within-school

Values and Violence

18

relationships between values and self-reported violent behavior by analyzing the ecological

risk factor of school-level violence (Model 4). Because these alternative models are

hierarchically related (i.e., one model is nested within the other), the relative fit of each

alternative model is determined by the difference in the deviance statistic (defined as -2 ln

likelihood function value at convergence) between the two models, a difference which has a

chi-square distribution, with degrees of freedom equal to the difference in number of

parameters estimated in the two models (Bryk & Raudenbush, 2002).

Table 3 presents the equations, parameter estimates, and tests of fit differences between

each pair of nested models. In this study, effects described on level 1 indicate differences

between students within schools, whereas effects described on level 2 refer to differences

between schools. Significant chi-square tests indicated that the simpler models had to be

rejected in favor of gradually more complex models. The first model included only school

membership as predictor of individual-level, self-reported violent behavior, and is thus

conceptually equivalent to an ANOVA. A comparison of between-school variation to the

overall variation in the sample revealed that between-school differences accounted for 6% of

the variance in self-reported violent behavior, leaving 94% of the variance at the individual,

within-school level. This effect was significant, χ2(32) = 88.38, p < .01.

Accounting for School-Level Differences in the Degree of Self-reported Violent Behavior.

The second model accounted for school-level differences in the degree of violence

reported by students, with two school-level predictors. The ethnic school system (0=Jewish;

1=Arab) significantly predicted school differences, β = .35, t(30) = 3.99, p < .01. Low SES

(measured relative to other schools within the same school system, as ranked by the Israeli

Ministry of Education) had a marginal effect on school-level violence, β = .03, t(30) = 1.69,

ns). Despite this marginal effect, this variable was left in the model because of its theoretical

importance. When entered into the full model (Panel 4 in Table 3), and after controlling for

other effects, low SES did emerge as a significant predictor of school violence, β = .04, t(30) =

Values and Violence

19

2.05, p < .05. Nevertheless, these predictors (ethnic school system and school-level SES)

accounted together for only 3% of the individual-level variance, as they accounted for 56% of

the variance among the intercepts, the school's central scores on the violent behavior variable,

or level-2 variance, that in turn accounted for 6% of the overall variability.

Values as Predictors of Within-School Individual Differences in Violence

In addition to the prediction of the intercept by school-level SES and ethnic school

system, we next entered the hypothesized values (power, universalism, conformity, and

security) as predictors of within-school individual differences in self-reported violent behavior.

These analyses used self-reported violent behavior scores net of gender effects, and also

controlled for any between-school effects such as those related to the school system. Thus,

they indicate within-school relationships between values and self-reported violent behavior,

controlling for gender, ethnicity, and school-level mean violence. The first model consisted of

the four values for which there were a-priori hypothesized relationships with self-reported

violent behavior. Security values had no significant effect, and the final equation included

power, β = .12, t(32) = 3.58, p < .01, universalism, β = -.17, t(32) = -2.89, p < .01, and

conformity, β = -.14, t(32) = -2.66, p < .01. A comparison of the variance accounted for in this

model to that of the previous model revealed that these three values accounted for 12% of the

individual-level variance in self-reported violent behavior.

School Differences in the Relationships between Values and Violence

Next, we tested whether within-school relationships between values and self-reported

violent behavior (the slopes) varied substantially across schools. This test is a precondition for

testing our second hypothesis, according to which the relationship between the hypothesized

values and individual-level self-reported violent behavior is stronger in schools in which

violence is relatively common. This analysis was conducted only for the three values in the

final model (power, universalism, and conformity).

Values and Violence

20

The within-school relationship between self-reported violent behavior and conformity

values did not vary significantly across schools, χ2(32) = 41.21, ns. However, in the case of

power and universalism the slopes did vary considerably across schools. Thus, although power

values related positively to within-school individual differences in self-reported violent

behavior (positive correlations in 84% of schools, Table 2), these relationships varied

substantially across schools, χ2(32) = 50.66, p < .05. Similarly, universalism related negatively

to within-school individual differences in self-reported violent behavior (negative correlations

in 84% of schools, and positive correlations in 16% of schools, Table 2), but these

relationships varied significantly across schools, χ2(32) = 52.26, p < .05, pointing out the need

to account for the variability across schools in the strength of the relationship between self-

reported violent behavior and universalism and power values.

The Increased Relevance of Values in Schools with Relatively High Degrees of Violence

Several school characteristics were entered as predictors of the within-school slope of the

relationship between self-reported violent behavior and power / universalism values. In

preliminary analyses, the ethnic school system and low school-level SES were tested as

potential moderators of the value-self-reported violent behavior relationship (i.e., contextual

variables that interact with values in predicting individuals' self-reported violent behavior, so

that the strength of the values-violence relationship varies by levels of the contextual variable).

These factors did not significantly moderate the values-behavior relationship and were

therefore dropped from the model (see the fourth panel of Table 3).

According to the values as protective factors hypothesis, the effect of low power values

and high universalism values should be stronger in ecologically risky environments, because

these environments expose the student population to violence. The most likely environmental

risk factor was overall school violence (i.e., the average of the within-school aggregated scores

of students' own self-reported violent behavior, violent behavior of their two best friends, and

victimization), which was also entered at this step. The results indicate that adolescents'

Values and Violence

21

attribution of low importance to power values may protect against the effect of school

violence. The overall effect of within-school power values was still positive and significant, β

= .11, t(31) = 3.89, p < .01, but it was stronger (more positive) in schools in which violence

was more common, β = .10, t(31) = 3.68, p < .01. Similarly, the overall effect of adolescents'

within-school universalism values was negative and significant, β = -.18, t(31) = -3.21, p < .01,

but stronger (more negative) in schools in which violence was more common, β = -.15, t(31) =

-3.22, p < .01, indicating that universalism values may protect against the adverse effects of

school-level violence, as hypothesized.

Discussion

Using data from a large cross-cultural sample of adolescents, we report stable

relationships between values and self-reported violent behavior. Self-reported violent behavior

was positively related to power values and negatively related to the values of conformity and

universalism, in the two ethnic school systems. Furthermore, students' power and universalism

values were more strongly related to self-reported violent behavior in ecologically risky

environments (defined as schools with relatively high levels of violence), relative to less risky

environments (schools in which adolescents experienced lower levels of violence).

Specifically, in schools in which violent behavior was more common, the positive relationship

of power values with self-reported violence was increasingly positive, and the negative

relationship of universalism values with self-reported violence was increasingly negative.

These findings are in line with our hypothesis that assigning low importance to power values

and high importance to universalism values may protect against the adverse effects of a school

environment with relatively high degrees of violence on adolescents' self-reported violent

behavior.

Evidence for Direct Relationships between Values and Self-reported Violent Behavior

The expected correlations between power, universalism, and conformity values and self-

reported violent behavior were found for both ethnic groups and in the vast majority of

Values and Violence

22

schools. This study confirms previous theory and research in showing the relevance of values

to behavior (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003; Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004; Rohan, 2002; Schwartz, 1996).

The three values predicted self-reported violent behavior over and above the effects of school

membership, gender, ethnic school system, and school-level SES. This finding points to the

robustness of the current results, and to the importance of values to behavior.

Several processes that mediate the influence of values on behavior (i.e., accounting for

the values-behavior relationship) or moderate it (i.e., affecting the direction and/or strength of

the relation between values and behavior, see Baron & Kenny, 1986) have already been

described (see reviews by Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004; Rohan, 2002). These processes provide an

important agenda for future research. Regarding mediation, values can influence behavior by

helping individuals form judgments regarding certain objects (such as attitudes or valences, see

Feather, 1995; Homer & Kahle, 1988). As a result, values can indirectly influence attention,

social perception, and interpretation of social stimuli (Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004). For example,

giving high importance to power values with their focus on social power and preserving one's

public image may increase the likelihood that an unintentional insult would be interpreted as

offensive, thereby leading to potential violent retaliation. Another important process concerns

the way in which the situation moderates the relationship between values and behavior through

differential activation of values or other processes that increase awareness of them

(Verplanken & Holland 2002). It is possible that high levels of violence in the school context

activate the values in adolescents. As adolescents become more aware of the situation, it is

more likely that their values will guide their behavior. Research on the mediation of the values-

violence relationship by attitudinal, attentional, perceptual and interpretational processes, and

on the role of situational moderators such as activation of values is yet to be more fully

developed.

Overall, the current results show cross-cultural convergence, with ethnic differences in

the correlations between values and self-reported violent behavior being mainly a matter of

Values and Violence

23

size and not direction. This finding may have important implications for educational

intervention, as the same values (high power, low universalism, and low conformity) are

related to self-reported violent behavior among Arabs and Jews. It is nevertheless important to

remember that although potential interventions may be aimed at the same values in different

cultures, they should also include a strong culture-sensitive component (e.g., Hudley, 2001).

For example, research shows that culture moderates the degree in which individuals perceive

the actions of others as offensive and this interpretation might determine whether an individual

believes the actions actually call for retaliation (Vandello & Cohen, 2003).

Adolescent violence and aggression evolve in one of several alternative developmental

patterns (Aber, Brown, & Jones, 2003; Loeber & Hay, 1997; Moffitt, 1993). For some

individuals the onset of violent behavior is in adolescence, whereas for others this period brings

an end to aggression. Some adolescents may show stability in aggression levels, while others

may experience an escalation of early aggression during adolescence (Loeber & Hay, 1997). A

longitudinal study may shed further light on the potential role of values in adolescent

development. For example, it is possible that adolescents who assign high importance to values

of universalism will come to better understand the harm that violence perpetuates, and will cease

any violent reactions. Similarly, adolescents who rate conformity values highly will be less likely

to increase the intensity of their violent behavior, since they value social norms and care more

about the social sanctions associated with violating these norms.

Implications for Value Theory

The current results add to the small yet important body of literature that attempts to

account for the moderate relationships often observed between abstract values as

conceptualized by Feather (1995), Rokeach (1973), or Schwartz (1992) on the one hand and

behavior (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003; Maio et al., 2001; Verplanken & Holland, 2002) on the

other hand. Value theory would benefit from considering not only the direct relationships

between values and behaviors but also the possible moderation of these relationships by

Values and Violence

24

situational factors, as demonstrated in the present study. Such an approach could help value

research present a clearer set of predictions regarding the correlations between values and

behavior. The idea of values as protective factors, whose relevance increases in ecologically

risky contexts, could be studied with regards to the implications of universalism values to

racism, or of low hedonism to substance abuse, in conjunction with ecologically risky factors

such as prevalence of racism at school or availability of substances, respectively. As for the

substance abuse example, it may lead to specific hypotheses according to which values will be

more relevant to substance abuse when drugs and alcohol are abundant than when they are not

available.

This study focuses on a life period that is considered crucial to the development of values

(Knafo & Schwartz, 2004; Marcia, 1980). On the one hand, because many adolescents have

yet to form a crystallized identity, the role of values in this age group may be weaker than in

older groups. On the other hand, because issues such as self-definition, identification with

groups, and peer influence are prominent in this developmental period and because some

adolescents are exposed to substantial degrees of violence at school, values may be especially

accessible in this period. Thus, adolescents, particularly those in the moratorium identity

status, may be increasingly preoccupied with values (e.g., Marcia, 2002). These considerations

imply that future research should compare individuals from different developmental stages.

The current study also has implications to our understanding of how school ecologies

affect development. Past research shows that membership in a particular school influences

adolescent violence, but most of the variability in violent behavior lies within schools, not

between them (Khoury-Kassabri et al., 2004), suggesting that adolescents respond

differentially to similar environments. Value priorities may provide an important clue as to

who will be relatively violent and who will not be. The next step is to uncover the processes

through which high universalism values and low power values may provide protection against

violence. One important factor may be peer processes. The popularity of antisocial

Values and Violence

25

adolescents among other antisocial individuals increases with age (Keisner & Pastore, 2005).

Violent adolescents often form social networks with other violent adolescents (Cairns, Cairns,

Neckerman, Gest, & Gariépy, 1988; Sussman, Dent, & McCuller, 2000). Loeber and Hay

(1997) suggest that these networks may prove attractive to other previously non-aggressive

adolescents, who join the violent group in adolescence. Future research should establish the

role of adolescents' value priorities in their attraction to groups with different degrees of

violence. Indeed, within-class friendship networks differ in the importance given by their

members to two of the values related to self-reported violent behavior, power and conformity

(together with self-direction), (Solomon & Knafo, 2007).

The role of peer networks in affecting individual adolescents' violent (and other) behaviors

through their value priorities is another important path for future research. Rohan (2000) has

discussed "personal value systems" (individual's own values) versus "social value systems"

(perceptions about others’ judgments concerning value priorities) and the way both systems

affect behavior. According to Rohan's view, the values ascribed to significant others have, in

certain situations, an important role in shaping behavior over and above the personal value

system (Rohan, 2000). When individuals are strongly influenced by the value system of their

immediate social environment, the social value system is more likely to influence behavior

(Rohan, 2000). This may be especially true in adolescence, due to the prominence of peer

networks in this age (Loeber & Hay, 1997). If mutual influences between friends also have an

impact on increasing friends' value similarity, then this similarity may account in part for

similarity in behavior, as school peers who share the same networks tend to be similar in their

behavior (Steinberg & Morris, 2001).

Study Strengths and Limitations

The large cross-cultural community sample is a methodological strength of this study. It

enabled the detection of correlations that were not very large. In addition, it allowed us to test

for interactions between ethnic school system and individual differences in values. Although

Values and Violence

26

our sampling strategies differed for Jewish and Arab adolescents, the results were similar for

these two groups. The lack of substantial interaction between ethnic school system and

individual differences in values in predicting self-reported violent behavior establishes the

cross-cultural similarity of the value-self-reported behavior relationship in the current case.

This is especially important as Arab communities are too often underrepresented in

developmental and educational research.

Another advantage of the present work comes from the hierarchical nature of its design

that allowed partitioning the effects at the school level from those at the individual level. This

report did not focus on the small school-level differences accounted for by the ethnic school

system and by school-level SES. The small ethnic differences are likely to reflect ethnic

differences in SES (e.g., Benbenishty & Astor, 2005), and the effects of SES could reflect

overcrowding, teacher quality and training, and the quality of facilities (Tatar & Horenczyk,

2003). The school-level differences should be further investigated in future research.

One limitation of the study concerns the use of self-reports for estimating violent

behavior. Because violent behavior is considered undesirable in society, people may alter their

responses to adapt to societal norms. This tendency probably results in an underestimation of

levels of violence (Haj-Yahia, 2000). However, in the current study we were more interested in

individual differences than in the absolute level of violent behavior. Most likely, this limitation

reduces the estimated correlations between values and actual behavior. Nevertheless, it is

important to note that a carefully planned large-scale prospective study found that adolescents'

self-reports of delinquent (including violent) behavior have strong concurrent and predictive

validity regarding objective measures such as future criminal records (Farrington, Loeber,

Stouthamer-Loeber, Van Kammen, & Schmidt, 1996). In order to rule out the possibility that

the relationships described in our study derive from the influences of variables such as social

desirability on self-reports, future studies should include additional measures of violence, such

Values and Violence

27

as peer naming. Since each method has its own practical and ethical problems, a combination

of results from different methods is likely to be the most fruitful approach.

At the school level the problem of self-reports is somewhat resolved by the use of

multiple measures for violence: adolescents' description of their own violence, friends'

violence, and victimization. There is a smaller likelihood for response bias in the latter two

measures, and the high school-level correlations among these measures attest to the validity of

the aggregated measure. Indeed, an advantage of this study is that data came from diverse

sources: self-reports, school-level aggregated scores, and official SES school data.

The cross-sectional nature of this study limits causal inferences from the findings.

Additional factors, related both to adolescents' self-reported violent behavior and to their

values, may account for the relationships found here. While we controlled for some of the

additional factors (gender, ethnicity, school membership), other factors (e.g., parenting,

neighborhood characteristics) may also be relevant. These additional factors may also affect

violent behavior through values. For example, a neighborhood with widespread violence may

increase the importance that adolescents will assign to power values, thereby increasing the

likelihood of their engagement in violent behavior (see Garbarino, Kostelny, & Barry, 1997).

Longitudinal studies are important for testing these potential mediation effects.

We chose to focus on clearly violent behaviors, such as hitting and threatening. More

subtle forms of aggressive behavior such as indirect aggression (e.g., social exclusion and

rumor spreading) have been shown to relate differentially to variables such as gender (Landau

et al., 2002). It is possible that some values are more relevant to physical violence while others

are more relevant to social exclusion. For example, conformity values, which emphasize

abiding by social norms, may be more relevant to physical violence, which is illegal, than to

social exclusion, which is perfectly lawful. Future research should add other kinds of violence

to the ones described in this study.

Values and Violence

28

Another consideration for future studies should regard the distinction between proactive

(instrumental) and reactive (hostile) aggression (Crick & Dodge, 1996). The former type of

aggression refers to violence as a means for achieving goals, whereas the latter concerns the

perception of peer intentions as hostile and the adoption of a violent reaction (Hubbard, Dodge,

Cillessen, Coie, & Schwartz, 2001). Future research should assess the relationships between

values and violence separately for these two kinds of violence. For example, power values may

be more relevant for instrumental aggression, because they promote the pursuit of resources.

On the other hand, security values, which focus on the protection of one's safety, may increase

adolescents' awareness to potential threats, thereby promoting reactive aggression.

Conclusions

The current study shows that theoretically driven hypotheses regarding the relationship

between values and self-reported violent behavior are supported cross-culturally, even after

controlling for the potentially confounding effects of gender, school membership, and

ethnicity. Moreover, the results support our hypothesized interaction between school-level

factors and adolescent characteristics, suggesting that low power values and high universalism

values may play a potential protective role against violent behavior.

This study may have implications for adolescent educators. Schools can have a crucial

role in violence prevention and increasing adolescent prosociality and cooperation. In a review

by Greene (2005), interventions that promoted an ethos of caring, connectedness, and trust

among students and teachers were shown to decrease levels of violence. Furthermore, Whitted

and Dupper (2005), who review the elements that promote an effective intervention, suggest that

staff modeling of caring and non-dominating behavior might decrease violence. In the same vein,

the current study suggests that programs that promote universalistic values at the expense of

power values, if properly implemented, may help reduce adolescents' violent behavior.

Values and Violence

29

References

Aber, J. L., Brown, J. L., & Jones, S. M. (2003). Developmental trajectories toward violence in

middle childhood: Course, demographic differences, and response to school-based

intervention. Developmental Psychology, 39, 324-348.

Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27-58.

Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances

in experimental social psychology (vol. 30, pp. 47-92). San Diego: Academic Press.

Alvord, M. K., & Grados, J. J. (2005). Enhancing resilience in children: A proactive approach.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36, 238-245.

Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). Amos Users Guide: Version 3.6. Chicago : Smallwaters Corp.

Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1207-1220.

Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social

psychological-research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Benbenishty, R. & Astor, A. R. (2005). School violence embedded in context. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Benbenishty, R., Zeira, A., & Astor, R. A. (2000). Violence in the Israeli education system: A

summary report. Jerusalem, Israel: The Hebrew University (in Hebrew).

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data

analysis methods. Newbury, CA: Sage.

Bubeck, M., & Bilsky, W. (2004). Value structure at an early age. Swiss Journal of

Psychology, 63, 31-41.

Values and Violence

30

Cairns, R. B., Cairns. B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D., & Gariépy, J. -L. (1988). Social

networks and aggressive behavior: Peer support or peer rejection? Developmental

Psychology, 24, 815–823.

Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, W. I., Taylor, A., & Poulton,

R. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297,

851-854.

Cohrs, J. C., Moschner, B., Maes, J., & Kielmann, S. (2005). Personal values and attitudes

toward war. Peace and Conflict: Journal of peace psychology, 11, 293-312.

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms on reactive

and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67, 993-1002.

Criss, M. M., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Lapp, A. L. (2002). Family adversity,

positive peer relationships, and children's externalizing behavior: A longitudinal

perspective on risk and resilience. Child Development, 73, 1220-1237.

Deater-Deckard, K., & Plomin, R. (1999). An adoption study of the etiology of teacher and

parent reports of externalizing behavior problems in middle childhood. Child

Development, 70, 144-154.

Dwyer, K. P., Osher, D., & Hoffman, C. C. (2000). Creating responsive schools:

Contextualizing early warning, timely response. Exceptional Children, 66, 347-365.

Dykeman, C., & Daehlin, W. (1996). Psychological predictors of school-based violence:

Implications for school counselors. School Counselor, 44, 35-48.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of

Psychology, 53, 109–127.

Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Van Kammen, W. B., & Schmidt, L.

(1996). Self-reported delinquency and a combined delinquency seriousness scale based on

boys, mothers, and teachers: Concurrent and predictive validity for African-Americans

and Caucasians. Criminology, 34, 493-518

Values and Violence

31

Feather, N. T. (1995). Values, valences, and choice: The influence of values on the perceived

attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

68, 1135-1151

Garbarino, J., Kostelny, K., & Berry, F. (1997). Value transmission in an ecological context: The

high risk neighborhood. In J. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Handbook of parenting and the

transmission of values (pp. 307-332). New York: Wiley.

Gecas, V. (2000). Value identities, self-motives, and social movements. In S. Styker, T.J.

Owens, & R.W. White (Eds.), Self, Identity, and Social Movements (pp. 93–109).

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Greene, M. B. (2005). Reducing violence and aggression in schools. Trauma, Violence, and

Abuse, 6, 236-253.

Guttman, L. (1968). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for

a configuration of points. Psychometrica, 33, 469-506.

Haj-Yahia, M. M. (2000). Patterns of violence against engaged Arab women from Israel and

some psychological implications. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 209-219.

Harel, Y., Ellenbogen-Frankovits, S., Molcho, M., Abu-Asbah, K., & Habib, J. (2002). Youth in Israel:

Social well-being, health and risk behaviors from an international perspective; Summary of

findings from the second study (1998). Jerusalem: The Center for Children and Youth, JDC -

Brookdale Institute (in Hebrew).

Harel, Y., Kanny, D., & Rahav, G. (1997). Youth in Israel: Social well-being, health and risk behaviors

from an international perspective. Jerusalem: JDC-Brookdale Institute and Bar Ilan University

Press (in Hebrew).

Hitlin, S. & Piliavin, J.A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of

Sociology, 30, 359–93.

Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between two theories

of the self. Social Psychoogy Quarterly, 66, 118–137.

Values and Violence

32

Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior

hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 638-646.

Hubbard, J. A., Dodge, K. A., Cillessen, A. H. N., Coie, J. D., & Schwartz, D. (2001). The

dyadic nature of social information processing in boys' reactive and proactive aggression.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 268-280.

Hudley, C. (2001). The role of culture in prevention research. Prevention and Treatment, 2.

Hyde, J. S. (1984). How large are gender differences in aggression? A developmental meta-

analysis. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1120-1134.

Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. (2005). Pupils in schools by supervision and level of

education (Hebrew education). Retrieved April 9, 2006, from

http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton56/st08_14.pdf (in Hebrew).

Kasen, S., Berenson, K., Cohen, P., & Johnson, J. G. (2004). The effects of school climate on

changes in aggressive and other behaviors. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.),

Bullying in American schools (pp. 185-186). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Khoury-Kassabri, M., Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R.A. (2005). The effects of school climate,

socioeconomics, and cultural factors on student victimization in Israel. Social Work

Research, 29, 165-180.

Khoury-Kassabri, M., Benbenishty, R., Astor, R., & Zeira, A. (2004). The contribution of

community, family and school variables on student victimization. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 34, 187-204.

Knafo, A. (2003). Authoritarians, the next generation: Values and bullying among adolescent

children of authoritarian fathers. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3, 199-204.

Knafo, A., & Assor, A. (in press). Motivation for agreement with parental values: Desirable

when autonomous, problematic when controlled. Motivation and Emotion.

Knafo, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Parenting and accuracy of perception of parental values

by adolescents. Child Development, 73, 595-611.

Values and Violence

33

Knafo, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2004). Identity status and parent-child value congruence in

adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 439-458.

Landau, S. F., Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Osterman, K., & Gideon, L. (2002). The

effects of religiosity and ethnic origin on direct and indirect aggression among males and

females: Some Israeli findings. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 281-298.

Loeber, R., & Hay, D.F. (1997). Key issues in the development of aggression and violence

from childhood to early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 371–410.

Luthar, S. S., & Latendresse, S. J. (2005). Comparable "risks" at the socioeconomic status

extremes: Preadolescents' perceptions of parenting. Development and Psychopathology,

17, 207-230.

Maio, G. R., Olson, J. M., Allen, L., & Bernard, M. M. (2001). Addressing discrepancies

between values and behavior: The motivating effect of reasons. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 37, 104-117.

Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent

psychology. New York: Wiley.

Marcia, J. E. (2002). Adolescence, identity, and the Bernadone family. Identity: An

International Journal of Theory and Research, 2, 199-209.

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American

Psychologist, 56, 227-238.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-cycle-persistent antisocial behavior: A

developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.

Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited anti social behavior: A

10 year research review and a research agenda. In B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt, & A. Caspi

(Eds.) Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency. (pp. 49-75). New York:

Guilford Press.

Values and Violence

34

Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent

and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females. Development and

Psychopathology, 13, 355-375.

Mokounkolo, R. (2004). Les adolescents, la violence et les incivilites: Etude exploratoire dans

un échantillon de collégiens et de lycéens francais [Adolescents, violence, and

antisociality: An exploratory study in a sample of French college and high school

students]. Bulletin de Psychologie, 57, 171-180.

Myyry, L., & Helkama, K. (2001). University students' value priorities and emotional

empathy. Educational Psychology, 21, 25-40.

Pettit, G. S. (2004). Violent children in developmental perspective: Risk and protective

factors and the mechanisms through which they (may) operate. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 13, 194-197.

Roeser, R.W., Eccles, J.S., & Sameroff, A.J. (2000). School as a context of early adolescents'

academic and social–emotional development: A summary of research findings. The

Elementary School Journal, 100, 443–471.

Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 4, 255-277.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

Rutter, M., & Maughan, B. (2002). School Effectiveness Findings 1979–2002. Journal of

School Psychology, 40, 451-475.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1994). Urban poverty and the family context of delinquency:

A new look at structure and process in a classic study. Child Development, 65, 523-540.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical

advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental

social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.

Values and Violence

35

Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value

systems. In C. Seligman, J.M. Olson, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values: The

Ontario symposium (Vol. 8, pp.1-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and

multi-method studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 1010-1028.

Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in

interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255-284.

Solomon, S., & Knafo, A. (2007). Value similarity in adolescent friendships. In T. C.

Rhoades (Ed.). Focus on Adolescent Behavior Research. New York: Nova Science

Publishers

Steinberg, L, & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of

Psychology, 110, 52-83.

Sussman, S., Dent, C. W., & McCuller, W. J. (2000). Group self-identification as a

prospective predictor of Drug use and violence in high risk youth, Psychology of Addictive

Behaviors, 14, 192-196.

Tatar, M., & Horenczyk, G. (2003). Dilemmas and strategies in the counselling of Jewish and

Palestinian Arab children in Israeli schools. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling,

31, 375-391.

Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (2003). Male honor and female fidelity: Implicit cultural scripts

that perpetuate domestic violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 997-

1010.

Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of motivation

and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 82, 434-447.

Whitted, K. S., & Dupper, D. R. (2005). Best practices for preventing or reducing bullying in

schools. Children and Schools, 27, 167-175.

Values and Violence

36

Author Notes

Ariel Knafo and Ella Daniel are at the Department of Psychology at The Hebrew University

of Jerusalem, and Mona Khoury-Kassabri is at the School of Social Work, at The Hebrew

University of Jerusalem. The study was supported by a Young Scientist Grant (# 2058/2002)

from the German-Israeli Foundation for Research and Development to the first author. We

thank the adolescents who have participated in the study. The comments of Gitit Kavé and

Michelle Weiner on an earlier version are greatly appreciated. We also thank Mahmood

Khatib, Merav Picker, Miri Barhak, Rim Aalimi, Taly Mizrahi, Dikla Shrem, and Eitan Bar-

Ilan for their help in data collection. Correspondence concerning this article should be

addressed to Ariel Knafo, Department of Psychology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,

Mount Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel. E-mail: msarielk@mscc.huji.ac.il

Values and Violence

37

Table 1

Definitions of the Ten Schwartz (1992) Values

Value Definition

Tradition Respect, commitment and acceptance of the costumes and

ideas provided by the traditional culture or religion.

Benevolence Caring for the welfare of the others with whom one is in

frequent social contact.

Universalism Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection of the

welfare of all people and of nature.

Self-direction Importance of independent thought and action.

Stimulation Valuing variety, aspiration for change, challenge, and

excitement.

Hedonism Pursuit of pleasure and sensual satisfaction.

Achievement Acquiring personal success through demonstrating

competence according to social standards.

Power Aspiration for social status through gaining control and

dominance over other people and resources.

Security The need for protection of safety, harmony and stability of the

social structure and of the self.

Conformity Limiting actions and urges that might violate social

expectations and norms.

Values and Violence

38

Table 2

Correlations between Adolescents' Value Priorities and their Self-Reported Violent Behavior at School

Note. Proportion of positive correlations=Proportion of schools with positive correlation between each value and self-reported violent behavior

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

Raw self-reported violence score Self-reported violence score net of gender effect

Value Jews Arabs

Median (range)

of within-school

correlations

Proportion of

positive

correlations

Jews Arabs

Median (range)

of within-school

correlations

Proportion of

positive

correlations

Tradition -.03 -.11* -.06 (-.60 - .40) 31% -.01 -.11* -.05 (-.51 - .35) 34%

Benevolence -.13** -.20** -.16 (-.40 - .38) 22% -.06 -.18** -.09 (-.42 - .33) 38%

Universalism -.16** -.31** -.16 (-.52 - .44) 16% -.12** -.30** -.17 (-.52 - .34) 25%

Self-direction .13** .04 .08 (-.43 - .51) 66% .10* .05 .07 (-.45 - .49) 69%

Stimulation .12** .07 .11 (-.71 - .54) 66% .17** .08 .13 (-.60 - .63) 72%

Hedonism .13** .29** .21 (-.41 - .58) 84% .16* .29** .18 (-.37 - .60) 81%

Achievement .08 .13** .11 (-.42 - .50) 63% .06 .12** .07 (-.42 - .50) 59%

Power .23** .34** .25 (-.26 - .64) 84% .12** .31** .19 (-.26 - .60) 81%

Security -.14** -.07 -.07 (-.50 - .37) 31% -.12** -.05 -.07 (-.50 - .37) 38%

Conformity -.22** -.11* -.17 (-.62 - .24) 28% -.22** -.14** -.18 (-.57 - .38) 28%

Values and Violence

39

Table 3

Hierarchical Linear Modeling of Between-schools and Within-schools Effects on Adolescent Self-reported Violent Behavior

(Table continued on next page)

Model Result equations Comparison to

previous model

Model 1. Fully unconditional model (self-reported violence explained by school membership only)

Level 1 (differences WITHIN schools) equation: Violenceij=β0j+ eij

Level 2 (differences BETWEEN schools) equation: β0j=γ00+ u0j

Violenceij= -.01+ eij

β0j= -.01+ u0j

Model 2. School-level violence explained by school demographic characteristics

Level 1 equation: Violenceij=β0j+ eij

Level 2 equation: β0j=γ00+ γ01Ethnic school system+ γ02Low SES+ u0j

Violenceij= -.18+ eij

β0j= -.18+ .35 Ethnic school system+ .03Low SES+ u0j

χ² (2) =15.41,

p < .01

Values and Violence

40

Table 3 (continued).

Model Result equations Comparison to

previous model

Model 3. Within-school differences in value priorities added as predictors of within-school variance in self-reported violence

Level 1 equation: Violenceij=β0j+ β1j Universalism+ β2j Power + β3j

Conformity+ eij

Level 2 equations: β0j=γ00+ γ01Ethnic school system+ γ02Low SES+ u0j

β 1j=γ10 + u1j

β 2j=γ20 + u3j

β 3j=γ30 + u3j

Violenceij= .13- .17 Universalism+ .12Power - .14

Conformity+ eij β0j= .13+ .23 Ethnic school system+

.02Low SES+ u0j

β 1j= -.17 + u1j

β 2j= .12 + u3j

β 3j= -.14 + u3j

χ² (12) =82.38,

p < .01

Model 4. School characteristics added to predict the effect (slope) of values on within-school self-reported violence differences

Level 1 equation: Violenceij=β0j+ β1j Universalism+ β2j Power + β3j

Conformity+ eij

Level 2 equations: β0j=γ00+ γ01Ethnic school system+ γ02Low SES+ u0j

β 1j=γ10 + γ11 School violence+ u1j

β 2j=γ20 + γ21 School violence+ u3j

β 3j=γ30 + u3j

Violenceij= -.20-.18 Universalism + .11 Power -.14

Conformity+ eij

β0j= .20+ .37 Ethnic school system + .04 Low SES+ u0j

β 1j= -.18 -.15 School violence+ u1j

β 2j= .11 + .10 School violence+ u3j

β 3j= -.14 + u3j

χ² (2) =6.28,

p < .05

Values and Violence

41

Figure Caption

Figure 1. Theoretical model of the structure of relations among ten values (Schwartz, 1992). The

value structure is divided into two bipolar dimensions: (a) conservation vs. openness to change,

which refers to the opposition between preserving the past and stability (conformity, tradition,

and security) and openness to innovation in thought and action (self-direction and stimulation);

(b) self-enhancement vs. self-transcendence, which contrasts aspiration for success and control

(power and achievement) with promoting others' welfare (universalism and benevolence).

Hedonism values share aspects of both openness to change and self-enhancement (Schwartz,

1992).

Values and Violence

42