senior thesis 2014 pdf

Running head: EFFECT OF BSFT ON BULLYING AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR �1

Effects of Brief Strategic Family Therapy on Bullying and Aggressive Behavior

Samuel James Hall

Grace College

EFFECTS OF BSFT ON AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR �2

Effects of Brief Strategic Family Therapy on Bullying and Aggressive Behavior

There has been much speculation and theories roaming around through cultural and

societal outlets about the effects of bullying in the classroom setting for a number of years. This

cycle of abuse, both physical and psychological, has been occurring for many years.

Unfortunately, professionals and academia cannot point out a specific timetable of specificity

toward its origin of bullying in schools. However, there has been invigorated research and

studies of bullying. Chapell et. al. (2004) indicates the problem of bullying in school did not

generate much research attention until the 1990s. This renewal of research endeavors could be

shown through the number of school shootings in the past decades. An academic novel called

The Bully Society (2012), written by Jessie Klein, shows the numbers of school shooting through

the decades: “Over the last thirty years, school shootings have gone from a rare occurrence to a

frequent tragedy. From 1969 to 1978, there we 16 school shootings in the United States… and

from 1999 to 2008 they increased again, as 63 school shootings took place” (p. 2). In the past 15

years, peer victimization, and especially bullying, have become recognized as a pervasive and

often neglected problem in schools around the world (Cornell et. al., 2013). An example of a

survey has shown the prevalence of bully victimization in high schools across America. The

survey indicated 28% of adolescents experienced victimization of bullying within the past year

(Robers, Zhang, Truman, & Snyder, 2012).

Though emphasis of school bullying is primarily on adolescents and children, we must

recognize the importance of higher academia bullying, because if bullying goes unchecked, it

may progress to later stages of adulthood. Chapell et. al. (2004) shows both under-researched

aspects of bullying in which the report consists of a sample of 1,025 undergraduates indicated


that 24.7% had seen students bully other students occasionally and 2.8% very frequently, 5% had

been bullied by students occasionally and 1.1% very frequently. To note, later stages of bullying

in adulthood is commonly seen through workplace bullying, as many studies have resulted from

this type of bullying. Though this is not the intent of this study, it is important to understand the

extent of bullying throughout an individuals lifetime.

This excessive physical and psychological trauma that many students endure on their way

to adulthood has many drawbacks and affects, in which will affect an individual for the rest of

his or her life. Aluede, Adeleke, Omoike, and Afen-Akpaida (2008) explain, “Bullying can have

devastating effects on victims. For the victims of bullying,they go to school everyday fearing

harassment, taunting and humiliation” (p. 156). Wang, Iannotti, and Nansel (2009) showed the

prevalence of bullying through several aspects of social interaction, in which results showed

adolescents were bullied 20.8% physically, 53.6% verbally, 51.4% socially, or 13.6%

electronically of the time. Without a doubt, bullying in schools across America is prevalent and,

regrettably, terribly intrusive into all aspects of the lives of the individuals bullied. Further,

O’Brennan, Waasdorp, and Bradshaw (2014) talked of a recent national survey, conducted in

2013. In this recent national survey, 75% of teachers had a student report a verbal bullying

incident to them, 58% heard reports of relational bullying, 50% of physical bullying, and 14% of

cyber bullying. Clearly, the need for more concise research is needed for the prevention of

bullying and the knowledge of effective strategies and techniques to diminish, if not eliminate all

together, the intrusive nature of bullying in the United States school system.


Statement of the Problem

As the section above iterates, bullying is quite extensive and invasive in the United States

school system. However, to think of bullying as “just a school problem” would be a mistake.

Bullying occurs in a three-tiered environment involving both the home, school and even the

workplace. Roberts and Morotti (2000) in a journal article for understanding bullying behavior,

sum up the bullies home environment, saying “Bullies are well-versed in aggressive behaviors

designed to obtain goals, and these lessons most often originate first in the home

environment” (p. 152). Further, the developmental ecological systems framework suggests that

parents have a significant influence on the development and maintenance of their child’s

aggressive behaviors, as well as their child’s behavioral and emotional responses to interpersonal

conflict (Waasdorp et. al., 2011). Therefore, is there a positive relationship between brief

strategic family therapy and aggressive behavior in adolescent bullies?

Statement of the Hypothesis

It is the intention of this study to show a positive relationship of the therapy received and

a decrease in scores on the assessment test given, the Social Behavior Assessment Inventory. It is

posed that by directing this research in an experimental fashion, the study will yield results of

adolescents classified under aggressive behavior will decrease aggressive behavior due to the

brief strategic family therapy treatment. In the direction of this goal, in the beginning of the

study, we will begin by both the manipulated and control group partaking in the Social Behavior

Assessment Inventory (SBAI). Additionally, at the end of the study, we will compare the

difference of the scores between each field, respectfully, through an ANOVA statistical analysis.

To finish, the hypothesis shall be stated as follows: Aggressive adolescents families who receive


Brief Strategic Family Therapy will have significantly lowered scores than the families of

aggressive adolescents who do not receive Brief Strategic Family Therapy.

Rationale for the Hypothesis

Bullying is a prevalent and devastating cultural norm in our schools today. However, it

does not start in schools. According to the American Psychological Association, they define

bullying as “…a form of aggressive behavior in which someone intentionally and repeatedly

causes another person injury or discomfort” (Bullying, 2014). This aggression does not start in

the schools, but can only begin in the home life of a child. Merrell, Buchanan, and Tran show the

influence of parenting by showing parenting variables that have been found to influence

aggression in children, such as inconsistent parental supervision, use of harsh punishment, and

failure to set limits (2006). Because of the child’s home environment, it is vital to include a

therapy that both relates to the child personally and educationally, and though the context of the

problem of the bullying is within the school, the true psychological harm is within the home.

This is why we must begin with a solid basis of family therapy, in which the adolescent’s

guardians and any other relevant information can be accurately processed. Powell and Ladd

(2010) have found that “Family therapy, regardless of the theoretical orientation used, has been

found effective in increasing health perceptions, vitality, social functioning, and mental health,

and decreasing bullying behavior in males, as well as decreasing aggression in females” (p.

201).


Operational Definitions

Bullying:

As I said above, the American Psychological Association defines bullying as “…a form

of aggressive behavior in which someone intentionally and repeatedly causes another person

injury or discomfort” (Bullying, 2014). In the context of this study, discomfort may refer to many

psychological, social, or physical harm. These “discomforts” occur through direct verbal, direct

physical, and indirect forms of discomfort (O’Brennan, Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2014). To

quantify and operationalize bullying, for this study, bullying will be classified as being sent to

the principal’s office for aggressive behavior 2 times a week, reoccurring for more than 2

months, and further being sent to the school counselor for related aggressive behavior.

Aggressive Behavior (Aggression):

The American Psychological Association defines aggression as “behaviors that cause

psychological or physical harm to another individual” (Glossary, 2014). In this study, aggressive

behavior will be determined by adolescents having a continuous problem of bullying in school

for at least 2 months. It is important to note that aggressive behavior is not necessarily bullying.

Aggression is a factor in bullying but it is not a determinant. Bullying, furthermore, is directed at

another individual whereas aggressive behavior is in general. Aggression will be the appropriate

variable in which we will be measuring on the Social Behavior Assessment Inventory, which

primarily assesses the adolescents level of conformity to institutional rules, a factor in antisocial

behavior. Aggression will be the measured variable due to unethical restraints that would require

the study to manipulate bullying to come to results correctly and accurately. Seeing as how that


is not possible, aggression is the lead factor in bullying, and therefore, will be measured in its

place to remain ethical.

Social Behavior Assessment Inventory:

The Social Behavior Assessment Inventory is a 135-item criterion-referenced rating scale

for aggressive behavior and nonconformity. Impara and Conoley (1995) in the revered twelfth

edition of the Mental Measurements Yearbook, tell us it takes approximately 30-45 minutes to

complete, and covers a wide range of issues, including environmental behaviors, interpersonal

behaviors, self-related behaviors, and task-related behaviors. The participants will of had to pass

the minimum standard of 3 out of 5 (set by this study) on the SBAI assessment in order to be

considered to have aggressive behavior, and to be possibly placed in the therapy-appointed

group. Furthermore, the scaling system is measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale.

Brief Strategic Family Therapy:

According to Szapocznik et. al. (2012) “BSFT is a short-term (approximately 12

sessions), family-treatment model developed for youth with behavior problems such as drug use,

sexual risk behaviors, and delinquent behaviors” (p. 134). Additionally, the main goal of BSFT is

to improve adolescent behavior by improving family relationships and to improve relationships

between the family and other groups that may influence youth behavior (Szapocznik, 2013). This

type of therapy will be administered to adolescents aged 13-16 years of age of whom have had

discipline issues in the high-school level for 3 months. Several reasons are discussed as to why

this therapy was chosen as the primary therapy for reduction of aggressive behavior in adolescent

teens. First, with the family involved, there is a sense of overall credibility to the therapy,

including therapist and adolescent interaction. Second, with the family engaging in the


therapeutic process proves for less resistance and better effectiveness for outcomes of the

adolescent and his or her home life. Thirdly, results of BSFT reviews showed promising results,

as it outperformed other techniques, such as Community Control techniques (Coatsworth,

Santisteban, McBride, & Szapocznik, 2001). This therapy will be provided in a controlled setting

by an experienced professional who has the correct accreditation and competence to engage in

this area of therapy. The professional must have a Master’s degree or higher and must be a

licensed LMHC with adequate supervision experience to conduct and administer BSFT and the

SBAI. Further, the study will take place in collaboration with the Otis R. Bowen Center, using an

inpatient unit of the Center to control the setting of both the manipulated and controlled

variables. The manipulated and controlled variables will meet on separate days to avoid possibly

communicating about the study. These days will be Monday at 1 in the afternoon for the

treatment group and Tuesday at 1 in the afternoon for the control group. The Brief Strategic

Family Therapy will last for a full twelve sessions, once a week, as is the norm for this type of

therapy.

Significance of the Study

If the study goes as planned and the results desired are the results proven, this study will

help to reinforce other substantial literature designed to combat the problem of aggressive

behavior and how it influence bullying. Also, with an effective technique in place to counteract

the home life of bullies, as well as family participation, it will increase the emotional welfare of

the home, directly effecting (“spillover effect”) the individuals on the receiving end of a bullies

harmful acts. With this study proving effective, further results can be combined with this studies

research, in order to progress to better and more efficient strategies to combat against bullying.


Literature Review

Bullying:

On page 6 of this study, we define bullying, through the American Psychological

Association, as “…a form of aggressive behavior in which someone intentionally and repeatedly

causes another person injury or discomfort” (Bullying, 2014, p. 1). As in the previous section of

aggression, our focus was primarily on how the bully acquires his or her aggressive behavior, it

is now important to discuss how the bully implements his or her aggressive tactics in such a way

to cause psychological, emotional or physical discomfort towards an individual. This study has

examined a multitude of possibilities as to how an individual acquires his or her aggressive

behavior; however, examination of outlets as to why they implement their aggression towards

others is required. One of these possibilities of implementation would be of morality. Findings

from one study on moral development and social cognition suggests that morality and emotional

attributes contribute to moral behavior as behavioral dispositions as opposed to developmental

delays (Krettenauer, Asendorpf & Nunner-Winkler, 2013). Further logical deduction could arrive

at the conclusion that learned behavioral experiences (observational, operant conditioning, etc.)

is the primary source for moralistic reasoning towards peer victimization. This can be supported

by a study done to determine whether moral reasoning and moral emotions were associated with

bullying. Perren et al. (2012) found that the adolescents who were involved in bullying showed

the highest levels of morally disengaged thinking. Additionally, children with overly-physical

parents and lack of parental support show an increase in bullying and overall aggression within

the family structure (Espelage, Bosworth & Simon, 200). Interestingly, a study done in Sweden


by Frisén, Jonsson & Persson (2007), comprised of 119 adolescents (48 boys, 71 girls), were

asked questions regarding why they thought bullies bullied. Two of the percentages were quite

illuminating as 40% blamed the victims appearance and 38% blamed the victims behaviors, in

which made up the majority of the sample. This appears to show that adolescents take a more

lenient and empathic view towards the bully as opposed to the victim, who is shown to be the

encourager. This finding may not be so odd after all, as recent studies have shown a new aspect

to the dimensions of bullying: the bully-victim, in which could give compensation to the

students’ view that the bully may have had justification for his bullying behavior.

Sources of Bullying:

Bullies. Due to the nature of bullying being largely social (Atlas & Pepler, 1998), mainly

through environmental experiences and parental constructs, behavioral modification has had a

sense of renewal in its research in the past years focusing on group (social) processes (Jones et

al., 2012) and how the bully is influenced by his or her peers. Moreover, Jones et al. (2012)

showed that a group to which the adolescent belongs and given their normative contextual

situation is influenced by the combination of the two criteria in their response to bullying. This

study relied heavily on social identity theory, which is largely similar to social learning theory.

Social identity theory was developed in 1979 by Tajfel and Turner, and claims that the identity of

an individual is not found within oneself (though an individual does have a “level of self), but to

the group in which he or she belongs. This theory shows the effectiveness and strength of peers

and has become one of the leading social theories in the world as there is much evidence that

supports social identity theory. For example, Sutton and Smith (1999) found that that 20-30% of

classroom students participated in bullying, either through direct or indirect methods. As such,


behaviors that reinforce bullying through peer bullying, whether direct or indirect, is another

characteristic of the overall hierarchy that is bullying (Cho & Chung, 2012). Peer bullying can be

middle ground for the victim and bully; however, there is new research showing a new aspect

towards the middle ground not being so black and white.

Bully-Victims. As briefly mentioned above, a new aspect of bullying is that of the “bully-

victim.” These children are both perpetrators and victims of bullying. The “Bully-Victim” can be

supported by empirical research, as studies have shown that bully-victims are typically high in

aggression and low in warmth (Duncan, 2004). These students also experience adjustment

problems, lower grades, higher levels of dislike from peers and higher levels of depression and

anxiety (Berkowitz & Benbenishty, 2012). Bully-victims are a group that exemplifies the most

trouble in social skills, anger control and severe behavioral problems (Bland, 2013). Further,

research from one study replicated findings that showed the bully-victim group had the lowest

results for self-esteem, which shows greater likelihood of behavioral disturbances (Kokkinos &

Panayiotou, 2004). Bully-victims work a two-tiered facade as they delegate through

victimization and perpetration, and therefore, may in fact be the adolescents who are most

affected by bullying.

Bullying Demographics:

Bullying offenses are prevalent in the schools of America, as one study suggests that as

many as 30% of adolescent children in school commit acts of bullying (Wang, Iannotti & Nansel,

2009). Along with these acts of bullying, there seems to be an acceptance of the bullying

behavior itself. There is evidence that bullying reinforces aggressive and bullying behavior

through group processes and social identity (Salmivalli et al., 1996). Additionally, the social and


emotional aspects of peer victimization are well-established, as children self-report significant

higher levels of internalizing problems as well as lower levels of self-esteem (Haynie et al.,

2001). The internalization of feelings and other problems can have a resounding impact in terms

of long-term effects as past studies have indicated that 72% of college students involved in the

study reported the remembrance of past victimization of bullying in middle and high school

(Chapell et al., 2006). Another study reported the comparison of college student to adults on the

remembrance and impact of the victimization of bullying. The study indicated that college

students showed higher levels of depression as opposed to the adult group who did not express

the same results as college students (Hawker & Boulton, 2000). The following addresses

different dimensions of bullying and the long-term effects provided with specific demographics.

Gender. Aside from the social identity theory and social learning theory, there is not

much empirical evidence of the causations of bullying. However, literature has been more

successful in the consequences of bullying (Dijkstra, Lindenberg & Veenstra, 2007). Along with

the social and emotional aspects of bullying, variations of victimization in regards to offenses of

bullying are well-known as well as established. For example, males often report higher levels of

aggression and victimization involving victimization of physical acts, such as pushing, hitting,

etc (Card et al., 2008). On the other side of the coin, females are more likely than males to

participate in defending the victim of the bullying as they had shown lower levels of aggression,

better prosocial behavior and empathic behavior towards others (Crapanzano et al., 2011). As

females defend the victims more than males, this may be deemed appropriate as females in one

study reported they perceived their experiences with relational bullying during middle school and

high school more serious than their counterpart males (Chambless, 2010). Though more


complete, diverse studies must be further researched, it seems apparent males have higher levels

of aggression as opposed to females, who are typically more prosocial and have lower levels of

aggression.

Age. Age is also an important dimension of bullying. Smith & Levan (1995) had done a

study on the definition of bullying as they noted how the definition of bullying is ever-changing

in perceived notions of individuals from the youth to the elderly. They found that 6-7 year olds

had a abstract definition of bullying, as they indicated their understanding that bullying

encompasses direct and indirect forms. Monks & Smith (2006) encapsulated the study as they

said, “The younger children were more likely to simply distinguish between aggressive and non-

aggressive scenarios, whereas older children were able to make finer grained distinctions

between types of aggression: physical, verbal and social exclusion” (p. 803). Further, Menesini,

Fonzi & Smith (2002) included students (8 and 14 years of age) as well as teachers in their study

for a better comparative analysis. The students seemed to indicate more inclusive results, as they

demonstrated knowledge of a definition of bullying that included social exclusion, gender

exclusion and verbal bullying as forms of bullying. Interestingly, one study found that school

professionals identified bullying as physical violence and aggression as opposed to social or

emotional abuse (Hazler et al., 2001).

In addition to the definition of bullying, age trends in bullying in a school-related setting

must be addressed. Scheithauer and colleagues (2006) conducted a study in which they identified

forms of bullying through self-reports cross-referenced the results through the age demographic

given from the self-reports. The study indicated that “…most of the students categorized as

verbal bullies attend grade 9 (12.2%), while most of the students categorized as physical bullies


attend grade 8 (5.6%) and most of the students categorized as relational bullies attend grade 6

(9.6%)” (p. 268). Additionally, one study that was conducted showed the ages of adolescents and

perceived popularity, which shows the possibility of causation. Caravita & Cillessen (2012)

conducted this study and results showed that in middle childhood, a sociometric popularity has

the largest effect rate; however, in early adolescence, perceived popularity dominated the youth’s

preference. The two researchers go further to suggest that this finding supports social learning

theory: “This may reflect a gradual social learning process about the effects of interpersonal

aggression. Adolescents may have learned that less-effective forms of bullying are censured by

disliking whereas more subtle and advanced forms of bullying are reinforced with popularity” (p.

392).

Aggressive Behavior:

As briefly described in the previous section, bullying is a pervasive and detrimental

occurrence in the United States. However, in order to better understand bullying and the effects

of bullying, it is imperative to understand the aggressive behavior that fuels bullying. Behavior

such as aggression and other behaviors are called risky because of the risk that they pose on the

individual doing the undesirable behavior, as well as the others around them (Ellis et al., 2012).

Speaking in theoretical models, there have been only two major perspectives that have primarily

driven research over the past century, those being 1) Social Learning theory and 2) Disease

Onset. In a qualitative study that focused solely on adolescent aggression, this study had found

significant results to strengthen social learning theory. The study found four major themes that

contributed to aggressive behavior, those being 1) Anger Release, 2) Aggravation as a cue for

Anger, 3) Modeled Anger, and 4) Anger Influenced by Violent Neighborhoods (Margolin, Youga


& Ballou, 2002). The study goes further to state that all routes of aggression can be traced back

to anger, as they say “Factors cited in other studies, such as familial violence, poverty, and

complex social and cultural environments that lead to frustration, are identified by the

adolescents as sources of anger that led to their aggressive behavior (Margolin, Youga & Ballou,

2002, p. 216). One of the main sources that is evident in these researchers writings is the

astounding effect of the environment and social aspect of an adolescents life. The experiences

and impressions felt by a child can have a lasting impact on his or her level of aggression.

Additionally, during childhood, and/or adolescents, is the time frame for most significant and

highest levels of aggression, due to the environmental constructs in which they observe and learn

socially acceptable behavior (Tremblay & Szyf, 2010). If children do not learn these socially

appropriate behaviors (social learning theory), they will typically be labeled and branded as a

child with a “disease,” (disease onset) as can be seen through the label of a mental health

disorder for children and adolescents such as Conduct Disorder.

Forms of Aggression. These “learned” aggressive behaviors have two forms: reactive

and proactive. Reactive forms of aggression have been linked to negative emotionality, such as

sadness, depression, and suicidal ideation. Proactive aggression has been linked to severe forms

of antisocial behavior (Fite et al., 2010). Speculation would tend to lend itself to the side of

proactive aggression being the indicator of bullying. However, a study has shown that both forms

of aggression showed multiple problems including indicators such as impulsivity and thrill

seeking which shown positive outcome expectancies for aggression, and thus, higher rates of

bullying (Crapanzano, Frick & Terranova, 2010).


Social/Environmental Influences of Aggression. Continually, a child’s home life is the

key reason behind aggressive behavior. Aggression can be attributed to a variety of experiences

and situations in the home environment. Schwartz et al. (2013) found in their longitudinal study

on harsh home life environments and negative outcomes for school trajectories: “Home

environments characterized by restrictive discipline, corporal punishment, and exposure to

violence were linked to within-child declines” (p. 311). Additionally, when children witness

interparental conflict in which the resolution of said conflict was inadequately resolved, children

observe and process how to resolve issues in an unhealthy, nonconstructive view (Marcus,

Lindahl & Malik, 2001). To contribute, Loeber and Dishion (1984) conducted a study showing

the significance of family conditions influencing cross-setting aggression in which they verified

that those children who had the least effective parenting practices, such as child management,

were picked out by teachers as the “fighters” of the group. However, the children with the most

effective child-care strategies were not chosen as the “fighters” of the group. Through the views

of parental stability towards aggression, higher rates of maternal aggression show a negative and

adverse effect in which becomes the preferred style of interaction, not just in home life but in a

variety of situations (Bousha & Twentyman, 1984). Parental variables have been found to

increase relational aggression in adolescents such as inconsistent parental supervision, use of

harsh punishment and failure to set limits (Merrell, Buchanan & Tran, 2006). Reversely,

adolescents who receive proper parental support and empathy have been shown to have reduced

levels of aggression than compared to adolescents who do not receive parental support and

empathy (Van der Graaff et al., 2012).


Brief Strategic Family Therapy:

For this study, Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT) will be provided to individuals in

the manipulated group. BSFT is a short-term, family-treatment model that was developed to

emphasize the youth’s delinquent behavior through family restructuring. One study that was

intended to provide an overview and development of BSFT, conducted by Szapocznik et al.

(2012), had this to say about the therapy: “…the BSFT approach is unique in that it focuses on

diagnosing family interactional patterns and restructuring (i.e., changing) the family interactions

associated with the adolescent’s problem behaviors” (p. 135). BSFT was developed to combat

against drug use, sexual risky behaviors and delinquent behaviors. This study qualifies for this

type of therapy through the overarching “delinquent behaviors” division.

History of BSFT. BSFT conception originated in Miami, FL. It was originally developed

for the Hispanic population, as research had indicated that the ethnic group valued family

relations over individual autonomy. As this is supported by research, according to Szapocznik

and Williams (2000), “The results revealed that Cuban families, compared to mainstream White

American families, valued leaders who were active, directive, and present-oriented” (p. 124).

Continuing, Brief Strategic Family Therapy can be best articulated through 3 categories,

including systems, structure/patterns of interactions, and strategy (Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1989).

The first concept of BSFT is systems, in which describes the interrelated parts that work off of

each other in an environment to achieve something. In BSFT terms, this system would be the

family. The second contract is that of structures of patterns of interactions within the family.

Szapocznik and Williams (2000) have this to say about the second concept of structures within

the family, saying “The problem-focused aspect of our treatment strategy refers to targeting


family interaction patterns that are the most directly relevant to the symptomatic behavior

targeted for change” (p. 123). With these structures and patterns determined through therapy, the

third concept may begin. This third category of strategy can be implemented through problem-

focused, practical interventions that include all of the members of the family. With a study

conducted by Szapocznik and Coatsworth (1999), some of the leading advocates of BSFT,

showed empirical research that family relations are well-known and established predecessors of

delinquent behavior.

Effectiveness of BSFT. The efficacy of BSFT has been conducted through 2 RCTs. The

first study tested and validated the effectiveness of BSFT and the process that induces

therapeutic change. In the study, “structural family therapy/BSFT was compared to individual

psychodynamic child-centered psychotherapy and a recreational control condition” (Szapocznik

& Williams, 2000, p. 126). Sixty-nine randomly selected Hispanic emotionally or behaviorally

troubled youth, aging fro 6 to 11 years old. Between these selected, they were placed into one of

the three treatment placements available. Results were as follows: “The first finding indicates

that the control condition (i.e., recreation activities) was significantly less effective at retaining

cases than the two treatment conditions, χ2 (2,19) = 13.64, p < .01), with over two thirds of all

dropouts occurring in the control condition” (Szapocznik & Williams, 2000, p. 127). Secondly,

results showed that structural family/BSFT and child psychodynamic therapy were equally

effective in the groups. The third and final finding showed that family therapy was more

effective than play therapy in helping family integrity at the 1-year follow up.

The second RCT was conducted to find the effectiveness of BSFT in reducing behavioral

problems (Santisteban et al., 2000). The sample size was 79 Hispanic client-families aging from


12 to 18 years old. This study was to determine whether BSFT was effective in reducing

conduct/anti-social problems, emotional problems as well as family conflict. Its results are as

follows: “Adolescents in the BSFT condition showed significant reductions in Conduct Disorder

and Socialized Aggression from pre- to post-treatment; whereas, group therapy participants

showed no significant changes in either Conduct Disorder or Socialized Aggression, F(2,76) =

4.75, p < .05” (Szapocznik & Williams, 2000, p. 129). Additional review by Szapocznik et al.

(2012), further concluded that “the BSFT condition was significantly more efficacious than

group counseling in reducing conduct problems, associations with antisocial peers, and

marijuana use, and in improving observer ratings of family functioning” (p. 139). Each RCT

reveals significant influential research status in improving family interaction, antisocial/conduct

problems and behavioral problems. As Santisteban and colleagues puts it, “BSFT is the only

empirically validated family therapy for adolescents that relies almost exclusively on a coherent

integration of structural and strategic theory and therapy” (Santisteban et al., 2006, p. 261).

Practicality of BSFT In Therapy. BSFT a flexible, unique approach that is empirically

validated and family-based. This type of therapy covers a large range of situations, including

family situations, a variety of service settings and extensive treatment modalities (Szapocznik et

al., 2012). Within the situations described above, a variety of techniques must be employed to

effectively use BSFT. Some of the main techniques used include joining, tracking and diagnostic

enactment, and reframing. Because of its flexibility and unique deign to incorporate family

cooperation, BSFT is a psychotherapeutic approach that provides a structure of

psychoeducational interventions. Along with its psychotherapeutic approach with structural

interventions, Szapocznik et al. (2012), talks on the goals of BSFT: “Within this approach to


family preservation, two goals must be set: (a) To eliminate or reduce the adolescent’s problem

behaviors, such as drug use and other risk-taking behaviors, known as the “strategic or symptom

focus,” and (b) to change the family interactions that are associated with the adolescent’s

problem behaviors, known as “system focus” ” (p. 138). With these two overall goals in mind,

Brief Strategic Family Therapy provides the most ideal prevention program for an adolescent in

the most influential part of his or her life, their home.

Assessment:

For this study, we will use the Social Behavior Assessment Inventory (SBAI). Impara and

Conoley (1995) in the revered twelfth edition of the Mental Measurements Yearbook, tell us it

takes approximately 30-45 minutes to complete, and covers a wide range of issues, including

environmental behaviors, interpersonal behaviors, self-related behaviors, and task-related

behaviors. Further, of the four major scales assessed, there are also 30 sub-scales in which

encompass the four scales into better specifics (Demaray et al., 1995). This assessment tool is a

135-item criterion-referenced measurement tool for behavioral problems and nonconformity in

the classroom setting.

Method Section

Subjects:

This study will use a representative sample totaling 50 participants (25 female, 25 male).

Participants will selected by working with the local junior high school and high school in the

area of Monmouth, IL, this researcher’s hometown. The two main districts that will be

incorporated into the study will be that of 1) United CUSD #304 and 2) Monmouth-Roseville

CUSD #238. These two school districts provide a good representative overview of the emotional


and behavioral mindset of the adolescents in this specific community. By working with these

school districts, the total population will total 1,295 students from both school districts

combined. Please note, however, the number given is not the total number of students in the two

schools’ districts. It is the accumulation of participants given the specific age demographic

requirement (13-16 years of age). After compiling a list of all these students who meet the age

requirement, we will randomly select 50 students to partake in this study. Only 25 subjects will

be selected from each district (13 male, 12 female). If a student who has been selected does not

meet the criterion below, they will be thrown out and a new name shall be drawn out of a hat.

The criterion the adolescents must display to be considered aggressive is as follows: Children

will be identified of consisting of bullying behavior, and therefore, aggressive behavior, by being

sent to the principal’s office for aggressive behavior 2 times a week, reoccurring for more than 2

months, and further being sent to the school counselor for related aggressive behavior. After

being selected, the subjects (along with their legal guardians) will be debriefed about the general

topic being researched. Afterwards, informed consent forms will be administered for signature by

all possible guardians and the adolescent involved with the study.

Independent Variable:

The independent variable for this study is the Brief Strategic Family Therapy treatment.

The therapy will be administered to 25 randomly selected students, by a mental health counselor

who is properly licensed and has the correct credentials to administer BSFT. There will be 5

mental health counselors (5 subjects per counselor), in order to have a lighter workload,

decreasing the probability of mistakes. The 5 mental health counselors were selected by a school-

based internship opportunity afforded to them by their respected institution. Upon completion of


the study, they will receive credit towards their individual doctoral program. In order to limit the

possibility of bias, the institution the counselor was currently doing their doctoral work at, must

be at least 50 miles away from the Monmouth area, as well as the counselor must have originally

resided 50 miles away from the Monmouth area.

Treatment. The treatment will be given to each individual on separate days to avoid

possibly communicating about the study. These days will be Monday through Friday at 1 in the

afternoon. It will be given once a week for twelve sessions, as is the norm for this type of

therapy. Each day a different subject will partake in the treatment. The therapy will be provided

during the summertime during the months of June, July and August, so as to not interfere with

school-related activities and obligations. Once in session, the counselor and subject will begin

BSFT and will continue for a 50 minute hour. Afterwards, the subject is free to go till next weeks

session. Due to BSFT being highly regarded as a therapy in which employs creative strategies to

eliminate unwanted behavior (Tan, 2011), it is problematic to create a definitive course for the

therapy to take as families are diverse and unique. Each family member and adolescent had a

unique set of characteristics and circumstances, and thereby, no definitive set of questioning or

course of therapy can be implemented without skewing results dramatically. Some creative

techniques that are commonly used, however, are techniques such as creative questioning,

paradoxical techniques and others (Tan, 2011).

Dependent Variable:

The dependent variable is that of aggressive behavior. Therefore, the treatment of BSFT

is working with the measurement tool to show the effectiveness of the independent variable on

aggressive behavior. It was hypothesized that at the end of the therapy on the experimental


group, there will be an inverse relationship between the independent and dependent variable. The

measurement tool that will assess the effectiveness of BSFT on aggressive behavior at the end of

the 12 sessions is the Social Behavior Assessment Inventory (SBAI), which is described in the

next section.

Instrumentation:

The Social Behavior Assessment Inventory (SBAI) takes approximately 30-45 minutes to

complete, and covers a wide range of issues, including environmental behaviors, interpersonal

behaviors, self-related behaviors, and task-related behaviors. Further, of the four major scales

assessed, there are also 30 sub-scales in which encompass the four scales into better specifics

(Demaray et al., 1995). This assessment tool is a 135-item criterion-referenced measurement tool

for behavioral problems and nonconformity in the classroom setting. Further, on the issue

surrounding reliability and validity, there is evidence of internal consistency and interrater

reliability on the SBAI. More so, there is a consensus of high internal consistency (Demaray et

al., 1995).

Procedure:

Random Assignment of Subjects. Once the sample group has been collected through the

appropriate measures, I will randomly assign the subjects into two groups. Each group will

consist of 25 participants. Furthermore, the individuals selected to each group will be chosen

randomly by drawing names out of a hat. The first name selected will be apart of Group A; the

second name chosen will be chosen to be apart of Group B and so on, so forth till all are assigned

to their respective groups.


Random assignment of treatment. To ensure further objectivity and impartiality of the

study, the groups will be divided at random into Group A and Group B by way of flipping a coin

to decide which group is the experimental group and which is the control group. We will also test

the control group in order to better evaluate the effectiveness of BSFT on aggressive behavior, as

the control group will participate in watching a movie called “The Baby Sitter’s Club,” in which

depicts a group of teens learning life lessons on their way to adulthood. A popular movie review

site confirms the nonviolent cinematic adventure as “Parents need to know that while some of

the young teen characters make poor choices in this movie, they ultimately learn their lessons

and serve as strong role models” (The Baby, 2007, p. 1). On a Likert-type scale assessing the

movies violence factor, the rating given was a 2 out of 5, because of a baseball injury and a

hiking collapse due to a teens preexisting condition of diabetes. However, no physical or

emotional violence on the part of the teens toward each other is evident. This movie serves as a

good movie for the control group to watch while in their 50 minute session.

Measurement of Independent Variable. In order to correctly prescribe the Brief Strategic

Family Therapy, families and adolescents will meet with their respective counselor on the day

assigned to them, either one of the 5 days of the work week (Mon-Fri). In addition, counselors

will be required to keep two activity logs. The first will consist of daily attendance, which will

help regulate the consistency and desire of the families and adolescents. The second daily log,

apart from the counselor’s personal notes, will describe, in generality, behavioral observations

and general recommendations by the counselor, which can later be reviewed by myself in order

to better understand and remain objective of the families involved in therapy. Also, additional

permission will be required in order to video-tape the proceedings of therapy. Though this is not


a prerequisite to the conditions of the experimental group, it is strongly recommended and will

be suggested to each of the families involved.

Measurement of the Dependent Variable. In order to correctly assess the dependent

variable, of which is the aggressive behavior in the adolescent, we will use a posttest (SBAI)

after the therapy has been completed. The SBAI will be administered by the 5 counselor’s who

did the therapy. However, the counselor’s will be randomized as well, in order to remain

objective. Therefore, each counselor will have a different set of adolescents whom they will be

administering the assessment tool to. The results will then be given to myself for data analysis.

Control for Extraneous Variables. In order to keep this study as constant and therefore,

reliable, as possible, it is necessary to control the extraneous variables that are most prevalent in

this study. Some of the extraneous variables involved are motivation to show up to the therapy,

expectations of participants, history of participants as well as maturation of the participants. The

previous variables listed will be explained in further detail below.

Motivation to show up to the therapy and movie, for each respective group procedure, is

a limitation to this study. This is because we are assessing the effectiveness of the therapy on

aggressive behavior. If the participants do not have the desire to show up, the Brief Strategic

Family Therapy cannot be properly assessed in its relationship affect toward aggressive behavior.

In order to control this factor, an incentive will be offered to each family who completes all

sessions in the therapy. Each family, if attendance is perfect, will receive $50.00. If attendance is

moderate, consisting of 1 miss, each family in this grouping will receive $30.00. If missed 2

sessions, a family will receive $20.00. If a family has missed more than 2 sessions, accurate

results are improbable, and therefore, no incentive shall be given. Money provided for this


incentive will be out of my own pocket, as I can assess the appropriate financial giving for

participants due to my own financial security.

The expectations of the participants are also a major factor when trying to control the

outcome of the experiment. If a participant is volunteering in this study for the wrong reasons, a

participant will be more likely to drop out, affecting the mortality rate, and thus, the overall

findings of the study. To eliminate these possible improper expectations of the participants, a

general overview of expectations of the adolescent and family is necessary, as well as an

overview of what this therapy is for and why we are conducting this research. These questions

should have been answered during the signing of the informed consent; however, to eliminate all

possible preconceived notions, the counselor’s will go over it with the families and adolescents

once more before they begin their sessions in order to ensure complete understanding.

Finally, another dire factor that must be presented is that of the maturation of the

participants. Maturation occurs through daily life, as the individuals involved in the study mature

in all areas of life (such as socially, emotionally, etc.). Due to the inability to keep participants in

an observed area for the duration of the study (as it would unethical to do so), it is impossible to

completely control maturation of an individual. However, it is important to be aware of and the

possibilities that might result from maturation. For example, results gathered from participants

engaged in maturation may not yield as effective of findings compared to participants who are

not involved in maturation. Note, for those who are involved in maturation, it is an evolutionary

process of human development and will not be held against them in this study.


Data Analysis:

Because the participants involved in this study have only been classified through one

criteria, that being aggressive behavior, it is only proper to do a one-way ANOVA (also known as

a single-factor ANOVA). Analyses could result from conclusion due to a t-test; however, a single

t-test can only compare two means, but a single ANOVA test can compare multiple means, which

can be used for a variety of purposes (Patten, 2000). An ANOVA test, along with the t-test, have

multiple variations of the test for multiple purposes, but all variations relate back to the main test.

According to Johnson & Kudy (2003), to receive proper analysis of the results of a study to be

considered a normal distribution, the sample size must be a minimum of 25 (N= 25). This is to be

able to better generalize to the population of interest. Further, a minimum of 25 participants is

required in order to consider the distribution normal, a factor that is of great importance if the

findings should come out to be representative. Statistical significance occurs around a Pearson-

coefficient of .60 (Patten, 2000). However, for greater content validity, face validity and internal

consistency (to name a few), high statistical significance occurs around the coefficient of .80.

Computation for this will occur alongside Cronbach’s alpha (a), which will compute more

accurate results if alongside a normal distribution. With 25 subjects in each group (N = 50), I am

confident our results will be statistically significant. Finally, the findings will be checked by an

independent third party, to ensure objectivity and validation of the results.


References

Aluede, O., Adeleke, F., Omoike, D., & Afen-Akpaida, J. (2008). A review of the extent, nature,

characteristics and effects of bullying behaviour in schools. Journal of Instructional

Psychology, 35(2), 151-158

Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. Journal of

Educational Research, 92, 86–89. doi:10.1177/0143034300211002

Berkowitz, R., & Benbenishty, R. (2012). Perceptions of teachers’ support, safety, and absence

from school because of fear among victims, bullies, and bully-victims. American Journal

Of Orthopsychiatry, 82(1), 67-74. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2011.01132.x

Bland, P. "Being bullied in childhood has long-term effects on mental health." The

Practitioner Apr. 2013: 7. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Apr. 2014

Bousha, D. M., & Twentyman, C. T. (1984). Mother–child interactional style in abuse, neglect,

and control groups: Naturalistic observations in the home. Journal Of Abnormal

Psychology, 93(1), 106-114. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.93.1.106

Bullying. (2014). Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http://www.apa.org/topics/bullying/

Caravita, S. S., & Cillessen, A. N. (2012). Agentic or communal? Associations between

interpersonal goals, popularity, and bullying in middle childhood and early adolescence.

Social Development, 21(2), 376-395. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00632.x

Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect

aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review

of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child

Development, 79, 1185–1229

http://www.apa.org/topics/bullying/


Chambless, C. B., (2010). "Long-term effects of bullying: Exploring the relationships

among recalled experiences with bullying, current coping resources, and reported

symptoms of distress.” Counseling and Psychological Services Dissertations. Paper 53

Chapell, M. (2004). Bullying in college by students and teachers. Adolescence, 39(153), 53-64

Chapell, M. S., Hasselman, S. L., Kitchin, T., Lomon, S., MacIver, K. W., & Sarulla, P.

(2006). Bullying in elementary school, high school, and college. Adolescence, 41,

633-648

Cho, Y., & Chung, O. (2012). A mediated moderation model of conformative peer bullying.

Journal Of Child & Family Studies, 21(3), 520-529. doi:10.1007/s10826-011-9538-0

Coatsworth, J., Santisteban, D. A., McBride, C. K., & Szapocznik, J. (2001). Brief strategic

family therapy versus community control: Engagement, retention, and an exploration of

the moderating role of adolescent symptom severity. Family Process, 40(3), 313-332.

doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2001.4030100313.x

Cornell, D., Gregory, A., Huang, F., & Fan, X. (2013). Perceived prevalence of teasing and

bullying predicts high school dropout rates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1),

138-149. doi:10.1037/a0030416

Crapanzano, A. M., Frick, P. J., & Terranova, A. M. (2010). Patterns of physical and relational

aggression in a school-based sample of boys and girls [Abstract]. Journal of Abnormal

Child Psychology, 38(4), 433-445. doi: 10.1007/s10802-009-9376-3


Crapanzano, A., Frick, P. J., Childs, K., & Terranova, A. M. (2011). Gender differences in the

assessment, stability, and correlates to bullying roles in middle school children.

Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 29(5), 677-694. doi:10.1002/bsl.1000

Demaray, M., Ruffalo, S. L., Carlson, J., & Busse, R. T. (1995). Social skills assessment: A

comparative evaluation of six published rating scales. School Psychology Review, 24(4),

648-671

Dijkstra, J., Lindenberg, S., & Veenstra, R. (2007). Same-gender and cross-gender peer

acceptance and peer rejection and their relation to bullying and helping among

preadolescents: Comparing predictions from gender-homophily and goal-framing

approaches. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1377-1389. doi:

10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1377

Duncan, R. D. (2004). The impact of family relationships on school bullies and their victims. In

D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools (p. 227–244).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Ellis, B. J., Del Giudice, M., Dishion, T. J., Figueredo, A., Gray, P., Griskevicius, V., & Wilson,

D. (2012). The evolutionary basis of risky adolescent behavior: Implications for science,

policy, and practice. Developmental Psychology, 48(3), 598-623. doi:10.1037/a0026220

Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000). Examining the social context of bullying

behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(3), 326–

333


Fite, P. J., Raine, A., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., & Pardini, D. A. (2010). Reactive and

proactive aggression in adolescent males: Examining differential outcomes 10 years

later in early adulthood. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(2), 141-157. doi:

10.1177/0093854809353051

Frisén, A., Jonsson, A., & Persson, C. (2007). Adolescent’s perception of bullying: Who is the

victim? Who is the bully? What can be done to stop bullying?. Adolescence, 42(168),

749-761

Glossary of Psychological Terms. (2014). Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http://www.apa.org/

research/action/glossary.aspx

Hawker, D. S., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years' research on peer victimization and

psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal

of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441-455

Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., & Simons-Morton, B.

(2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of

Early Adolescence, 21, 29–49

Hazler, R. J., Miller, D. L., Carney, J. V., & Green, S. (2001). Adult recognition of school

bullying situations. Educational Research, 43, 133–146

Impara, J. C., & Conoley, J. C. (1995). Social Behavior Assessment Inventory. In The Twelfth

mental measurements yearbook (pp. 962-964). Lincoln, Neb.: The Buros Institute of

Mental Measurements, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln

http://www.apa.org/


Johnson, R., & Kuby, P. (2003). Just the essentials of elementary statistics. Australia: Brooks/

Cole.

Jones, S. E., Bombieri, L., Livingstone, A. G., & Manstead, A. (2012). The influence of norms

and social identities on children's responses to bullying. British Journal Of Educational

Psychology, 82(2), 241-256. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02023.x

Kokkinos, C., & Panayiotou, G. (2004). Predicting bullying and victimization among early

adolescents: Associations with disruptive behavior disorders. Aggressive Behavior, 30(6),

520-533. doi:10.1002/ab.20055

Krettenauer, T., Asendorpf, J. B., & Nunner-Winkler, G. (2013). Moral emotion attributions and

personality traits as long-term predictors of antisocial conduct in early adulthood:

Findings from a 20-year longitudinal study. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 37(3), 192-201. doi: 10.1177/0165025412472409

Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1984). Boys who fight at home and school: Family conditions

influencing cross-setting consistency. Journal Of Consulting And Clinical Psychology,

52(5), 759-768. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.52.5.759

Marcus, N. E., Lindahl, K. M., & Malik, N. M. (2001). Interparental conflict, children's social

cognitions, and child aggression: A test of a mediational model. Journal of Family

Psychology, 15(2), 315-333. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.15.2.315

Margolin, A., Youga, J., & Ballou, M. (2002). Voices of Violence: A Study of Male Adolescent

Aggression. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 41(2),

215-231. doi: 10.1002/j.2164-490X.2002.tb00144.x


Menesini, E., Fonzi, A., & Smith, P. K. (2002). Attribution of meanings to terms related to

bullying: A comparison between teacher and pupil perspectives in Italy. European

Journal of Psychology of Education, 17, 393–406

Merrell, K. W., Buchanan, R., & Tran, O. K. (2006). Relational aggression in children and

adolescents: A review with implications for school settings. Psychology In The Schools,

43(3), 345-360. doi:10.1002/pits.20145

Monks, C. P., & Smith, P. K. (2006). Definitions of bullying: Age differences in understanding of

the term, and the role of experience. British Journal Of Developmental Psychology,

24(4), 801-821. doi:10.1348/026151005X82352

O'Brennan, L. M., Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2014). Strengthening bullying prevention

through school staff connectedness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1-11. doi:

10.1037/a0035957

Patten, M. L. (2000). Understanding research methods: An overview of the essentials. Los

Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Pub.

Perren, S., Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, E., Malti, T., & Hymel, S. (2012). Moral reasoning and

emotion attributions of adolescent bullies, victims, and bully-victims. British Journal of

Developmental Psychology, No-No. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02059.x

Powell, M. D., & Ladd, L. D. (2010). Bullying: A review of the literature and implications for

family therapists. American Journal of Family Therapy, 38(3), 189-206. doi:

10.1080/01926180902961662


Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying

as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group.

Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1–15

Santisteban, D. A., Suarez-Morales, L., Robbins, M. S., & Szapocznik, J. (2006). Brief strategic

family therapy: Lessons learned in efficacy research and challenges to blending

research and practice. Family Process, 45(2), 259-271. doi: 10.1111/j.

1545-5300.2006.00094.x

Santisteban, D. A., Szapocznik, J., Perez-Vidal, A., Kurtines, W. M., Coatsworth, J. D., &

LaPerriere, A. (2000). The efficacy of brief strategic/structural family therapy in

modifying behavior problems and an exploration of the role that family functioning plays

in behavior change. Manuscript in preparation, University of Miami, Center for Family

Studies

Scheithauer, H., Hayer, T., Petermann, F., & Jugert, G. (2006). Physical, verbal, and relational

forms of bullying among German students: age trends, gender differences, and correlates.

Aggressive Behavior, 32(3), 261-275. doi:10.1002/ab.20128

Sutton, J., & Smith, P. K. (1999). Bullying as a group process: An adaption of the participant role

approach. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 97–111

Ragatz, L. L., Anderson, R. J., Fremouw, W., & Schwartz, R. (2011). Criminal thinking patterns,

aggression styles, and the psychopathic traits of late high school bullies and bully-

victims. Aggressive Behavior, 37(2), 145-160. doi:10.1002/ab.20377


Robers, S., Zhang, J., Truman, J., & Snyder, T. (2012). Indicators of school crime and safety:

2011 (NCES 2012–002 NCJ 236021). Washington, DC: National Center for Education

Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice

Roberts, W. r., & Morotti, A. A. (2000). The bully as victim: Understanding bully behaviors to

increase the effectiveness of interventions in the bully–victim dyad. Professional School

Counseling, 4(2), 148-155

Schwartz, D., Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2013). The link

between harsh home environments and negative academic trajectories is

exacerbated by victimization in the elementary school peer group.

Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 305-316. doi:10.1037/a0028249

Smith, P. K., & Levan, S. (1995). Perceptions and experiences of bullying in younger pupils.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 489–500

Szapocznik, J., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1999). An ecodevelopmental framework for organizing the

influences on drug abuse: A developmental model of risk and protection. In M. Glantz &

C. R. Hartel (Eds.), Drug abuse: Origins and interventions.(pp. 331–366). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association

Szapocznik, J., & Kurtines, W. M. (1989). Breakthroughs in family therapy with drug abusing

problem youth. New York: Springer


Szapocznik, J., & Williams, R. A. (2000). Brief strategic family therapy: Twenty-five years of

interplay among theory, research and practice in adolescent behavior problems and

drug abuse, 3(2), 117-134. Retrieved April 07, 2014, from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1480650/#__ffn_sectitle

Szapocznik, J., Schwartz, S. J., Muir, J. A., & Brown, C. (2012). Brief strategic family therapy:

An intervention to reduce adolescent risk behavior. Couple And Family Psychology:

Research And Practice, 1(2), 134-145. doi:10.1037/a0029002

Szapocznik, J. (2013, October 10). Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT). Retrieved March 18,

2014, from http://www.childtrends.org/?programs=10979

Tan, S. (2011). Marital and family therapy. Counseling and psychotherapy: A Christian

perspective (pp. 283-321). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

The baby sitters club - Movie Review. (2007, August 13). Retrieved April 28, 2014, from

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/the-baby-sitters-club

The gender police [Introduction] (2012). In J. Klein (Author), The bully society: School

shootings and the crisis of bullying in America's schools (pp. 1-10). New York, NY: New

York University Press

Tremblay, R. E., & Szyf, M. (2010). Developmental origins of chronic physical aggression and

epigenetics. Epigenomics, 2(4), 495-499. doi: 10.2217/epi.10.40

Van der Graaff, J., Branje, S., De Wied, M., & Meeus, W. (2012). The moderating role of

empathy in the association between parental support and adolescent aggressive and

delinquent behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 38(5), 368-377. doi:10.1002/ab.21435

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1480650/#__ffn_sectitle

http://www.childtrends.org/?programs=10979

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/the-baby-sitters-club


Waasdorp, T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Duong, J. (2011). The link between parents' perceptions of the

school and their responses to school bullying: Variation by child characteristics and the

forms of victimization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2),

324-335. doi:10.1037/a0022748

Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the

United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45,

368–375

senior thesis 2014 pdf

Documents