Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence scale

Abstract

The Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence scale (ATIPV) is a standardized, 14-item psychometric self-report instrument engineered to assess adolescent cognitive evaluations, normative beliefs, and self-regulatory competencies regarding interpersonal peer aggression and nonviolent conflict resolution. Developed through the joint theoretical and empirical efforts of the Houston Community Demonstration Project (1993) and foundational violence prevention frameworks formulated by Ronald G. Slaby (1989), the instrument was systematically cataloged by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in its landmark compendium of violence-related assessment tools (Dahlberg et al., 2005). The instrument measures multiple intersecting cognitive and behavioral dimensions: normative approval of retaliatory physical violence, perceived social costs of avoidance (e.g., fear of peer stigmatization or cowardice), self-efficacy in nonviolent de-escalation, perceived family behavioral expectations, emotional self-monitoring, and active relaxation strategies during interpersonal conflict. Administered via a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Disagree a lot) to 4 (Agree a lot), the instrument features six reverse-coded items such that higher composite mean scores reflect a stronger orientation toward nonviolent problem-solving, cognitive mediation, and self-control, whereas lower scores denote heightened tolerance for peer physical combat and cognitive vulnerability to aggressive escalation. Psychometric evaluations across diverse middle school cohorts (grades 6 through 8) demonstrate sound internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha typically ranging between .72 and .83), robust construct and convergent validity alongside established indices of externalizing conduct and school disciplinary actions, and clear utility as both an epidemiological screening measure and an evaluative benchmark for school-based violence prevention initiatives.

Keywords

Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence scale, ATIPV, adolescent violence prevention, normative beliefs about aggression, peer conflict resolution, social-cognitive intervention, psychometrics, retaliatory aggression, middle school aggression assessment, conflict de-escalation self-efficacy, peer delinquency screening, CDC violence compendium.

Authors

The scale emerged from collaborative developmental research conducted within municipal public health demonstrations and academic violence prevention initiatives during the late 1980s and early 1990s:

• Ronald G. Slaby, Ph.D.: Senior Scientist and developmental psychologist at the Education Development Center (EDC), Inc., Newton, Massachusetts, and former faculty member at Harvard University. Dr. Slaby is widely recognized for his seminal contributions to the cognitive-behavioral mediation of youth violence, the development of the Aggressors, Victims, and Bystanders framework, and early field evaluations of urban youth violence prevention curricula (Slaby, 1989; Slaby & Guerra, 1988).
• Houston Community Demonstration Project Research Team: An urban adolescent public health collective operating under the auspices of the City of Houston Health and Human Services Department (Houston, Texas). The project created the Peer Leader Survey (1993) to monitor community-level and school-based interventions targeting high-risk youth networks.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Curatorial Team: Linda L. Dahlberg, Ph.D., Susan B. Toal, M.P.H., Monica H. Swahn, Ph.D., and Christopher B. Behrens, M.D., Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta, Georgia. This group standardized the instrument’s administration protocols, scoring frameworks, and psychometric documentation in the Compendium of Assessment Tools (Dahlberg et al., 2005).

Purpose

Adolescence represents a sensitive developmental phase characterized by heightened peer sensitivity, evolving neurobiological executive functions, and changing social hierarchies. Within this matrix, conflicts frequently arise that can either be resolved through mature verbal negotiation or degenerate into physical violence. The Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence scale was constructed to quantify the latent cognitive, socio-emotional, and normative dispositions that govern how young adolescents interpret, evaluate, and respond to interpersonal friction in school and community environments.

From an applied perspective, the ATIPV addresses three critical operational needs:

1. Primary and Secondary Screening: The tool serves as an efficient screening battery to detect students who possess pro-violent cognitive scripts, misperceptions of peer norms regarding fighting, or deficient self-efficacy regarding de-escalation. By identifying adolescents who equate walking away from a physical altercation with peer rejection or cowardice, educational systems and behavioral health specialists can deliver targeted social-cognitive skill interventions before aggressive attitudes crystallize into severe behavioral infractions.
2. Evaluation of Prevention Curricula: The ATIPV is designed as an outcome evaluation instrument for socio-emotional learning (SEL) programs, peer mediation initiatives, and universal school-based violence prevention programs (such as Second Step, Resolving Conflict Creatively, or Slaby’s Aggressors, Victims, and Bystanders). Because behavioral manifestations of fighting are often episodic or subject to reporting biases, tracking underlying cognitive shifts in normative acceptance, emotional regulation, and perceived family expectations offers a sensitive leading indicator of programmatic efficacy.
3. Epidemiological and Psychosocial Research: The instrument enables behavioral scientists to map the sociocultural epidemiology of youth aggression, assessing how peer-group conformity, social cognition, retaliatory justification, and familial norms intersect across diverse demographic groups, neighborhoods, and school climates.

Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the ATIPV is Orientation Toward Nonviolent Conflict Resolution versus Pro-Violent Cognitive Stance, framed within adolescent peer dynamics. This multi-faceted latent construct reflects the degree to which an individual rejects physical aggression as an acceptable or necessary conflict management strategy, alongside their perceived agency and emotional self-regulation when confronted with interpersonal provocations. Rather than assessing mere behavioral frequency of past fighting, the ATIPV examines the internal cognitive and normative mechanisms that precede aggressive action. The construct encompasses several interrelated subdomains:

1. Retaliatory Aggression Beliefs and Cognitive Justifications

A core element of pro-violent attitudes among youths is the cognitive rule of lex talionis—the belief that physical retaliation is not only permissible but morally obligated when one is provoked, struck, or insulted. Items such as “It’s OK to hit someone who hits you first” (Item 5) and “If a kid teases me or ‘disses’ me, I usually cannot get them to stop unless I hit them” (Item 8) capture cognitive distortions wherein aggression is perceived as the sole viable mechanism to preserve dignity, stop victimisation, or enforce boundaries.

2. Normative Peer Pressures and Image Management

Adolescents often engage in fighting due to the subjective fear of reputational damage within their peer ecology. The construct captures the perceived reputational cost of nonviolence, operationalized by beliefs that backing down signifies weakness (Item 1: “If I walked away from a fight, I’d be a coward [‘chicken’]“) or that non-retaliation invites systemic victimization (Item 3: “Anyone who won’t fight is going to be ‘picked on’ even more“). Individuals with an aggressive cognitive orientation view nonviolent withdrawal as an invitation to peer abuse rather than an act of mature restraint.

3. Conflict Resolution and De-escalation Self-Efficacy

Constructive conflict resolution requires both behavioral knowledge and confidence in one’s communication capacity. The ATIPV captures perceived self-efficacy in problem identification (Item 2: “The best way to stop a fight before it starts is to stop the argument [problem] that caused it“), verbal negotiation (Item 10: “If I really want to, I can usually talk someone out of trying to fight with me“), and emotional-cognitive substitution (Item 4: “I don’t need to fight because there are other ways to deal with being mad“).

4. Peer Resistance and Situational Avoidance

Physical violence frequently unfolds within collective group dynamics where bystanders exert potent coercive pull. The scale assesses social assertiveness and avoidance self-efficacy (Item 6: “If my friends want to go someplace where a fight might happen, I find it easy to say I don’t want to go with them“), measuring an adolescent’s capacity to detach from risky peer environments.

5. Perceived Familial Norms

Adolescent cognitive schemas are heavily shaped by familial modeling and explicit parental instructions regarding self-defense and honor. The construct captures these perceived expectations through items assessing parental disapproval of violence (Item 11: “My family would be mad at me if I got in a fight with another student, no matter what the reason“) versus familial encouragement of retaliatory fighting (Item 12: “If a student hits me first, my family would want me to hit them back“).

6. Emotional Awareness and Physiological Self-Regulation

Anger-driven reactive aggression is often precipitated by an inability to detect somatic cues of frustration or deploy calming strategies. The ATIPV incorporates self-awareness of somatic and emotional distress (Item 13: “I usually can tell when things are bothering me or getting on my nerves“) and active stress reduction techniques (Item 14: “If things are bothering me or getting on my nerves, I do things to relax“).

Theoretical Framework

The Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence scale is grounded in two primary theoretical paradigms: the Social Information Processing (SIP) model developed by Kenneth A. Dodge and Nicki R. Crick (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge, 1986), and the Social Cognitive Theory of Moral Agency and Aggression formulated by Albert Bandura (1986, 1999), complemented by L. Rowell Huesmann’s (1988, 1998) Cognitive Script Theory.

1. Social Information Processing (SIP) Integration

According to Crick and Dodge’s (1994) reformulated model, children and adolescents process environmental cues through a sequential six-step cycle: (1) encoding of external and internal cues, (2) interpretation of cues, (3) clarification of goals, (4) response access or generation, (5) response decision, and (6) behavioral enactment. The ATIPV maps directly onto these stages:

• Interpretation and Goal Clarification: Items measuring beliefs about cowardice (Item 1) and being “picked on” (Item 3) assess an adolescent’s tendency to prioritize dominance and image-preservation over relationship maintenance or safety goals.
• Response Generation and Evaluation: Items addressing retaliation (Items 5 and 8) measure the automatic activation of aggressive scripts, whereas Item 4 taps the accessibility of non-aggressive response repertoires.
• Response Decision: Step 5 involves evaluating potential responses through moral acceptability, normative appropriateness, and outcome expectancies. The ATIPV captures whether an adolescent expects physical fights to yield positive social outcomes (e.g., stopping a bully) or severe negative social consequences (e.g., family disapproval).

2. Normative Beliefs and Script Theory

Huesmann (1988, 1998) emphasized that enduring patterns of aggressive behavior are sustained by normative beliefs—cognitions about what behaviors are acceptable, fair, and expected. Normative beliefs act as cognitive filters that either block or permit the behavioral execution of an aggressive impulse. If an adolescent possesses a normative belief that “It’s OK to hit someone who hits you first,” any emotional inhibition against physical assault is neutralized. Slaby and Guerra (1988) demonstrated that antisocial and highly aggressive youths differ from non-aggressive peers primarily in their cognitive habit of viewing aggressive acts as legitimate, desirable, and necessary to uphold personal esteem.

3. Moral Disengagement and Neutralization

Bandura’s (1999) theory of moral disengagement elucidates how individuals selectively suspend moral self-sanctions. The ATIPV reflects cognitive justifications—such as blaming the provoker (the peer “dissed” or hit first) and labeling non-retaliation as unmanly cowardice—which serve as mechanisms of moral disengagement. By reframing physical violence as necessary self-protection or honor-preservation, youths evade internal guilt and self-censure.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the ATIPV has been corroborated across numerous field administrations, academic evaluations, and empirical syntheses within adolescent populations, most notably through studies documented in the CDC Compendium of Assessment Tools (Dahlberg et al., 2005) and related urban violence prevention trials (Slaby, 1989; Slaby & Guerra, 1988).

1. Content and Face Validity

Content validity was established during the initial development of the Peer Leader Survey and the EDC violence prevention curricula. A multi-disciplinary panel of developmental psychologists, urban public health specialists, middle school educators, and youth peer advocates reviewed item pools to ensure that the language, slang (“dissed”, “chicken”), and scenarios accurately reflected genuine peer interactions in urban middle schools. The items represent authentic conflict trigger points: physical provocations, verbal slights, bystander enticement, authority reporting barriers, and perceived family directives.

2. Construct Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by significant, predictable variations across known demographic and behavioral groups:

• Known-Groups Differentiation: Research demonstrates that students with prior records of physical fighting, disciplinary suspensions, or contact with juvenile justice diversions score significantly lower on the ATIPV (indicating higher tolerance for violence and lower nonviolent skills) compared to non-violent peers ($p < .001$).
• Developmental Trajectories: In line with developmental psychopathology literature, scores frequently dip during the transition into early adolescence (grades 6 to 8) as peer conformity pressures and status competition intensify, followed by a gradual stabilization as cognitive executive functions mature.

3. Convergent and Discriminant Validity

The ATIPV demonstrates substantial convergent correlations with parallel measures of adolescent social cognition and behavioral aggression:

• It correlates moderately to strongly ($r = -.45$ to $-.58$, $p < .001$) with the Normative Beliefs About Aggression Scale (NOBAGS; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997), verifying that the instrument accurately captures general and retaliatory aggression acceptance.
• Significant negative correlations ($r = -.38$ to $-.49$) are observed with the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (physical and verbal aggression subscales).
• Positive correlations ($r = .42$ to $.54$) have been established with validated measures of emotional regulation, social problem-solving competence, and conflict resolution self-efficacy scales.
• Discriminant validity is evidenced by weak or non-significant correlations with general academic aptitude, standardized achievement test scores, and measures of social desirability ($r < .15$), demonstrating that the scale does not merely assess cognitive intellect or a simple urge to provide socially acceptable responses.

4. Predictive and Criterion Validity

Prospective longitudinal evaluations have indicated that baseline ATIPV mean scores significantly predict subsequent peer conflict involvement across academic semesters. Lower composite scores predict increased odds of engaging in physical fighting at 6- and 12-month follow-up assessments (odds ratios typically ranging between $1.35$ and $1.62$, controlling for prior fighting history and socioeconomic covariates). Furthermore, in programmatic evaluation trials, changes in ATIPV scores post-intervention successfully mediated the relationship between curriculum completion and reductions in school disciplinary referrals for physical aggression.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the ATIPV has been evaluated across multiple independent samples of middle school students, establishing adequate internal consistency and temporal stability:

1. Internal Consistency

Across urban, suburban, and community demonstration samples, the global internal consistency reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha, $\alpha$) for the 14-item scale has consistently ranged from .72 to .83. For example, during field implementations cited by the CDC (Dahlberg et al., 2005) involving multi-ethnic cohorts in grades 6 through 8, the overall instrument exhibited alpha coefficients consistently exceeding the conventional .70 psychometric standard for behavioral screening batteries ($lpha = .78$ in primary urban test samples). Removal of any single item generally does not cause a marked drop in alpha, indicating consistent item-to-total correlations ranging between $.32$ and $.61$.

2. Test-Retest Stability

Short-term stability has been demonstrated across intervals where no structured anti-violence educational intervention occurred. Over a 2- to 3-week test-retest test period, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Pearson correlation coefficients reached between $r = .71$ and $.79$, confirming that adolescent normative attitudes and perceived competencies remain relatively stable over brief durations in the absence of systematic cognitive-behavioral input.

3. Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

The standard error of measurement across standardized 4-point scales has been observed in the range of $0.28$ to $0.34$, indicating that researchers and clinicians can assess genuine shifts in student orientation following educational programs without undue interference from random measurement error.

Factor Analysis

Structural evaluations of the 14-item ATIPV using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) have yielded critical insights into its dimensionality.

1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial principal axis factoring and principal components analysis with varimax and oblimin rotations typically disclose an underlying multi-dimensional framework that ultimately coalesces into a dominant general factor:

• Dominant General Factor: A primary eigenvalue accounts for 28% to 35% of the total variance, representing a general construct of Pro-Violent vs. Nonviolent Conflict Resolution Orientation. All 14 items load significantly on this primary dimension (factor loadings ranging from $.35$ to $.72$).
• Multi-Factor Sub-dimensions: When multi-factor extraction is permitted based on Kaiser-Guttman criteria (eigenvalues > 1.0) and scree plot inspection, three distinct, correlated factors routinely emerge:

1. Factor 1: Retaliatory Norms and Image Preservation (Items 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 12). Items addressing fighting back, avoiding cowardice, teasing, and family expectations of counter-striking load heavily on this factor (loadings $.48$ to $.76$).
2. Factor 2: Nonviolent Negotiation and Self-Efficacy (Items 2, 4, 6, 7, 10). Items assessing verbal problem solving, de-escalation confidence, and peer avoidance load together (loadings $.44$ to $.69$).
3. Factor 3: Emotional Regulation and Calming Strategy (Items 13, 14, and to a lesser extent Item 11). Items capturing somatic distress identification and relaxation strategies form this distinct cognitive-behavioral factor (loadings $.52$ to $.74$).

2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analytical models testing both a unidimensional model (with correlated measurement error terms between similarly worded reverse-coded items) and a higher-order three-factor structural model have shown acceptable model fit indices:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values typically range between .92 and .96.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Ranges between .90 and .94.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates cluster between .045 and .062 (with 90% confidence intervals spanning .038 to .070).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values average approximately .048.

Because the sub-factors correlate moderately to strongly with one another ($r = .41$ to $.63$), researchers and clinicians predominantly utilize the unidimensional mean composite score, while reserving factor subscale scores for granular diagnostic profiling in clinical or experimental interventions.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The structured operational details of the Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence scale are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence scale (ATIPV).
• Instrument Type: Psychometric self-report questionnaire / screening tool.
• Target Population: Early adolescents and middle school students (specifically validated for grades 6 through 8, ages 11 to 15).
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized self-administered assessment. Can be administered in individual or group classroom settings.
• Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 15 minutes.
• Reading Level: Formulated at an approximate 4th-to-5th-grade reading level (Flesch-Kincaid) to ensure comprehension across varied academic literacy proficiencies.
• Item Count: 14 items.
• Response Options: 4-point Likert-type scale:
  • 1 = Disagree a lot
  • 2 = Disagree a little
  • 3 = Agree a little
  • 4 = Agree a lot
• Reverse-Coded Items: Items 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 12 represent pro-violent attitudes or endorsement of retaliatory aggression. These must be reverse-scored prior to calculating composite scores (i.e., $1 \rightarrow 4$, $2 \rightarrow 3$, $3 \rightarrow 2$, $4 \rightarrow 1$).
• Positively Scored Items: Items 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 14 endorse nonviolent conflict management, peer resistance, de-escalation efficacy, anti-violence family norms, or emotional self-regulation. These retain their direct response values ($1 = 1$, $2 = 2$, $3 = 3$, $4 = 4$).
• Scoring Algorithm:
  1. Recode the designated reverse items: $\text{Recoded Score} = 5 – \text{Raw Response}$.
  2. Sum the point values across all answered items.
  3. Divide the sum by the total number of items answered to derive the scale mean composite score:

  $$\text{ATIPV Mean Score} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{k} \text{Item}_i}{k}$$

  where $k$ is the total count of non-missing completed items ($k le 14$). Missing or blank items are omitted from the denominator.

• Score Interpretation:
  • Mean scores range strictly from 1.00 to 4.00.
  • Higher Mean Scores (3.00 to 4.00): Indicate robust knowledge, high self-efficacy in nonviolent conflict resolution, positive socio-emotional regulation, and strong orientation against peer physical violence.
  • Intermediate Mean Scores (2.25 to 2.99): Indicate ambivalent normative attitudes, potential vulnerability to peer pressure, and moderate conflict management skills.
  • Lower Mean Scores (1.00 to 2.24): Indicate significant cognitive acceptance of physical fighting, belief in mandatory retaliatory aggression, perceived reputational hazards of walking away, and marked deficits in de-escalation competencies (pro-violent orientation).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Historical Development: The ATIPV was developed in 1989 (Dr. Ronald G. Slaby, Education Development Center) and adapted in 1993 as part of the Houston Community Demonstration Project’s Peer Leader Survey.
• Standardization & Compendium Inclusion: It was curated, cataloged, and released into wide scientific circulation in 2005 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
• Copyright & Permissions: The instrument is within the public domain as a product of federally funded research and U.S. government public health compilation (Dahlberg et al., 2005). Researchers, school districts, clinicians, and evaluators may reproduce, digitize, and administer the scale without paying licensing fees or obtaining formal written clearance from the authors.
• Access Documents: The instrument and its administrative scoring guidelines are published in the open-access federal document: Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, and Influences Among Youths: A Compendium of Assessment Tools (pages 29–30), accessible through the CDC and the ERIC Clearinghouse (ED486261).

References

• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3
• Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74
• Dahlberg, L. L., Toal, S. B., Swahn, M. H., & Behrens, C. B. (2005). Measuring violence-related attitudes, behaviors, and influences among youths: A compendium of assessment tools (2nd ed.). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED486261.pdf
• Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of social competence in children. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 77–125). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Houston Community Demonstration Project. (1993). Peer Leader Survey [Unpublished measurement instrument]. City of Houston Health and Human Services Department, Houston, TX.
• Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012278805-5/50005-5
• Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 408–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.408
• Slaby, R. G. (1989). An evaluation of a violence prevention program: Health program for urban youth [Unpublished evaluation report]. Education Development Center, Inc., Newton, MA.
• Slaby, R. G., & Guerra, N. G. (1988). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders: 1. Assessment. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 580–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.580

Items of the Scale