Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence

1. Abstract

The Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence (ATIPV) scale is a specialized psychometric assessment instrument developed to evaluate adolescent cognitive orientations toward physical confrontation, normative beliefs supporting aggression, perceived social pressures, and self-efficacy regarding nonviolent conflict resolution strategies. Originally conceptualized by Ronald G. Slaby in 1989 within the framework of adolescent violence prevention research at the Education Development Center and subsequently adapted by the Houston Community Demonstration Project in 1993, this 14-item self-report questionnaire plays an integral role in contemporary youth violence prevention initiatives. The instrument is prominently cataloged within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) compendium of assessment tools for youth violence.

Administered primarily to middle school students across grades 6 through 8 (ages 11 to 14), the ATIPV captures multiple facets of social information processing, including beliefs about the necessity of retaliation, perceptions of peer and familial norms regarding fighting, awareness of physiological anger cues, and the perceived accessibility of peaceful problem-solving alternatives. Items are scored on a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Disagree a lot) to 4 (Agree a lot). Psychometric evaluations across urban and suburban educational cohorts have demonstrated moderate to strong internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients typically ranging from 0.70 to 0.81 across diverse samples. Validity studies demonstrate consistent negative associations with self-reported aggression, disciplinary referrals, and delinquent behaviors, alongside positive associations with social-emotional competence and peer mediation success.

2. Keywords

Youth violence, adolescent aggression, peer conflict resolution, normative beliefs about aggression, nonviolent conflict resolution, social information processing, middle school interventions, violence prevention, bullying, psychometrics

3. Authors

The primary development and empirical adaptation of the Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence scale stems from collaborative research across developmental psychology and urban public health:

• Ronald G. Slaby, Ph.D.: Senior Scientist and developmental psychologist at the Education Development Center (EDC), Inc., Newton, Massachusetts, and Lecturer on Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Dr. Slaby is a leading scholar in cognitive-behavioral determinants of aggression, youth violence prevention, and media effects on adolescent development.
• Houston Community Demonstration Project (1993): A community-level public health and violence reduction collaborative coordinated by the City of Houston Health and Human Services Department, Houston, Texas. The initiative adapted Slaby's original violence evaluation framework into a streamlined peer leader survey to evaluate community- and school-level conflict mediation outcomes.

4. Purpose

The primary objective of the Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence scale is to systematically assess an adolescent's endorsement of pro-violence norms versus their orientation toward and confidence in nonviolent dispute resolution. Interpersonal violence among adolescents remains a critical public health and educational concern. Longitudinal epidemiological data indicate that engagement in physical fighting during early adolescence significantly increases the risk of subsequent academic failure, juvenile justice involvement, severe weapon-carrying behaviors, and adult chronic antisocial patterns. Effective preventive interventions necessitate psychometrically sound instruments that can capture the malleable cognitive antecedents of aggressive behavior prior to the entrenchment of habitual violent scripts.

From a research perspective, the ATIPV functions as a responsive outcome measure for evaluating universal, selective, and indicated school-based violence prevention curricula, such as peer mediation programs, social-emotional learning (SEL) interventions, and cognitive-behavioral anger management protocols. Because the scale specifically delineates between the impulse to fight and the perceived normative pressure to retaliate, investigators can determine whether intervention effects are driven by improvements in individual de-escalation skills or changes in perceived peer-group approval. In clinical and educational practice, the instrument provides school counselors, psychologists, and interventionists with diagnostic insight into a student's specific cognitive vulnerabilities—such as intense fears of social victimization for walking away or familial directives mandating physical retaliation.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the ATIPV is a multidimensional cognitive schema termed normative orientation toward interpersonal peer violence, paired with conflict-resolution self-efficacy. Rather than measuring overt aggressive acts or emotional states like raw state anger, the scale quantifies cognitive-affective representations that legitimize, prescribe, or deter physical fighting among peers.

Normative Beliefs Supporting Physical Retaliation

This dimension encompasses an individual's internal standards regarding whether physical retaliation is justified, necessary, or expected in response to perceived disrespect, verbal provocation, or physical attack. Cognitions such as "It's OK to hit someone who hits you first" or believing that one must hit a peer who teases or "disses" them represent permissive retaliatory scripts. These beliefs reflect a behavioral rule system where failure to retaliate is construed as weakness, thereby maintaining violence as an acceptable mechanism for interpersonal status maintenance.

Social Stigma of Nonviolence and Fear of Victimization

A central psychological barrier to nonviolence in early adolescence is the anticipated social cost of desistance. Items addressing cowardice (e.g., being labeled "chicken") or the expectation that walking away invites further bullying tap into perceived peer vulnerability. This construct captures the social anxiety associated with perceived submissiveness in peer hierarchies, wherein physical fighting is viewed as a defensive imperative to prevent systemic victimization.

Nonviolent Self-Efficacy and De-escalation Competence

This positive dimension reflects an adolescent's belief in their agency and behavioral capacity to diffuse hostile encounters, resist peer pressure to enter dangerous environments, and communicate constructively under pressure. It incorporates social communication skills (talking an aggressor out of a fight), cognitive reframing (acknowledging alternative ways to manage anger), and refusal assertiveness when peers seek violent entertainment.

Perceived Familial Endorsement of Violence

Adolescents navigate dual microsystems consisting of the peer group and the family. The scale captures socialization factors by assessing whether students perceive their family as sanctioning physical retaliation (e.g., wanting them to hit back) versus establishing absolute boundaries against physical conflict regardless of peer provocation.

Self-Regulation and Affective Monitoring

The final underlying component taps into emotional metacognition—the capacity to identify physiological and subjective indicators of escalating frustration and the deployment of conscious relaxation or coping strategies before reaching behavioral disinhibition.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence scale is grounded in two primary theoretical foundations: the Social Information Processing (SIP) model formulated by Kenneth A. Dodge and John T. Crick, and Albert Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory.

Social Information Processing (SIP) Architecture

Dodge and colleagues conceptualize social behavior as the output of an iterative, six-stage cognitive sequence: (1) encoding of external and internal cues, (2) interpretation of mental representations, (3) clarification of goals, (4) response access or construction, (5) response decision, and (6) behavioral enactment. The ATIPV specifically targets Step 4 (response generation) and Step 5 (response decision). During Step 5, adolescents evaluate generated responses based on outcome expectancies, self-efficacy evaluations, and moral acceptability. Slaby and Guerra's empirical work demonstrated that antisocial and aggressive youth display persistent deficits across these evaluative stages—they selectively retrieve aggressive responses from long-term memory, anticipate positive social outcomes from physical dominance, and underestimate the likelihood of alternative resolutions.

Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory and Moral Disengagement

According to Social Cognitive Theory, human action is regulated through reciprocal interactions between personal cognitive factors, environmental influences, and behavioral patterns. A central mechanism is self-efficacy—the subjective belief in one's capability to execute behaviors necessary to achieve specific outcomes. The ATIPV operationalizes nonviolent conflict resolution not merely as the absence of aggressive impulse, but as the presence of robust self-regulatory efficacy. Furthermore, items measuring the acceptability of hitting back when struck first reflect moral justification and attribution of blame—two mechanisms of moral disengagement that decouple self-sanctioning mechanisms from violent conduct.

7. Validity

Empirical investigations supporting the ATIPV demonstrate solid construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity across adolescent cohorts.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by significant factor correlations aligning with theoretical predictions of social information processing. In validation cohorts evaluated under CDC youth violence compendium guidelines, scores on the ATIPV demonstrated robust negative correlations with standardized measures of physical aggression (e.g., the Peer Conflict Scale and Youth Self-Report externalizing scales, with correlations typically ranging between r = -0.38 and r = -0.52, p < .001). Conversely, the scale demonstrated positive correlations with standardized empathy measures, including the Interpersonal Reactivity Index perspective-taking subscale (r = 0.31 to 0.44, p < .01).

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Criterion-related validity has been demonstrated through both cross-sectional and prospective studies. Longitudinal assessments tracking middle school cohorts across multi-year intervals reveal that lower baseline scores on the ATIPV (indicating pro-violence attitudes and lower conflict self-efficacy) significantly predict subsequent disciplinary suspensions for fighting, physical assaults on school grounds, and self-reported weapon carrying, even after controlling for baseline socio-demographic covariates and prior conduct problems (odds ratios ranging from 1.45 to 2.10).

Discriminant Validity

The scale effectively discriminates between distinct youth populations. Cross-sectional studies show statistically significant differences in mean ATIPV scores when comparing non-delinquent middle school youth with adolescents recruited from juvenile justice diversion programs or specialized alternative education facilities for disruptive behaviors (Cohen's d effect sizes ranging from 0.65 to 0.88 standard deviations).

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence scale has been confirmed across school-based evaluation projects:

• Internal Consistency Reliability: In the initial validation datasets synthesized by Slaby (1989) and the Houston Community Demonstration Project (1993), the 14-item scale yielded an overall Cronbach's alpha coefficient of approximately α = 0.76 to 0.81. Subscale analyses focusing on the direct conflict response items demonstrate reliability coefficients consistently exceeding α = 0.72, meeting acceptable thresholds for group-level intervention research.
• Test-Retest Stability: Evaluation of control group participants across 8- to 12-week intervals in intervention field trials demonstrated test-retest reliability intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranging between r = 0.68 and r = 0.75, demonstrating acceptable temporal stability in the absence of active cognitive-behavioral intervention.
• Item-Total Correlations: Corrected item-total correlations across community-based samples indicate that all 14 items exhibit positive correlations with the composite score, with individual item-total correlations ranging from 0.28 to 0.58. Items directly referencing physical retaliation (e.g., Items 5 and 8) consistently present the highest discrimination indices.

9. Factor Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) have examined the latent structure of the 14-item ATIPV instrument.

Exploratory Factor Analytic Findings

Principal axis factoring with oblimin and varimax rotations typically yields a three- to four-factor solution explaining between 48% and 56% of the total variance:

• Factor 1: Pro-Violence & Retaliatory Norms (Items 1, 3, 5, 8, 9): Captures the belief that violence is an unavoidable, socially mandated response to provocation. Items exhibit factor loadings ranging from 0.52 to 0.74.
• Factor 2: Peaceful Conflict Resolution & Communication Self-Efficacy (Items 2, 4, 6, 7, 10): Reflects cognitive confidence in verbal de-escalation, peer refusal, and alternative anger expressions. Factor loadings range from 0.46 to 0.69.
• Factor 3: Familial Norms Regarding Confrontation (Items 11, 12): Isolates perceived parental directives concerning fighting back versus nonviolent desistance, with loadings exceeding 0.60.
• Factor 4: Affective Self-Awareness & Emotional Regulation (Items 13, 14): Captures personal awareness of physical agitation and active relaxation, loading between 0.55 and 0.78.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Fit

When evaluated via confirmatory factor analysis, a multidimensional hierarchical model—incorporating a higher-order "Nonviolent Orientation" factor overarching the primary latent dimensions—demonstrates adequate goodness-of-fit in adolescent populations (χ²/df < 2.5, Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.92 to 0.95, Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] = 0.90 to 0.93, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = 0.045 to 0.058). A single-factor unidimensional model exhibits poorer fit indices, confirming that while the total composite score provides a valuable operational index, the scale draws from distinct social, familial, and behavioral competencies.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence (ATIPV)
• Primary Author / Year: Ronald G. Slaby (1989); Adapted by the Houston Community Demonstration Project (1993)
• Assessment Format: Standardized self-report paper-and-pencil or digital survey questionnaire
• Target Population / Age Range: Middle school students; primarily grades 6 through 8 (approximate ages 11 to 14 years)
• Number of Items: 14 distinct declarative statements
• Response Options: 4-point Likert-type scale:
  • 1 = Disagree a lot
  • 2 = Disagree a little
  • 3 = Agree a little
  • 4 = Agree a lot
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes
• Reverse-Scoring: Six items are framed such that endorsement represents pro-violence attitudes and must be reversed prior to computing composite totals:
  • Item 1: "If I walked away from a fight, I'd be a coward ('chicken')." (Reverse-coded: 1 → 4, 2 → 3, 3 → 2, 4 → 1)
  • Item 3: "Anyone who won't fight is going to be 'picked on' even more." (Reverse-coded)
  • Item 5: "It's OK to hit someone who hits you first." (Reverse-coded)
  • Item 8: "If a kid teases me or 'disses' me, I usually cannot get them to stop unless I hit them." (Reverse-coded)
  • Item 9: "If a kid at school hits me, it is harder to report them to a teacher or other adult than it is to just hit them back." (Reverse-coded)
  • Item 12: "If a student hits me first, my family would want me to hit them back." (Reverse-coded)
• Scoring Algorithm:
  1. Invert the response scores for Items 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 12 (1 becomes 4, 2 becomes 3, 3 becomes 2, 4 becomes 1).
  2. Retain the raw response scores (1 to 4) for Items 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 14.
  3. Sum the point values of all answered items.
  4. Divide the sum by the total number of completed items (excluding skipped or blank items) to yield a mean index ranging from 1.00 to 4.00.
• Score Interpretation:
  • Higher Mean Scores (approaching 4.00): Indicate robust knowledge, high self-efficacy, and a positive orientation toward resolving interpersonal conflicts nonviolently.
  • Lower Mean Scores (approaching 1.00): Indicate substantial cognitive endorsement of physical retaliation, lower conflict resolution efficacy, and an elevated violent attitude orientation.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence scale was developed under federal and municipal research demonstration initiatives and has been placed in the public domain. It is published in the open compendium Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, and Influences Among Youths: A Compendium of Assessment Tools, produced by the Division of Violence Prevention at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC Compendium, 2005, pp. 29–30; ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED486261).

There are no licensing fees, copyright royalties, or formal administrative costs associated with using the ATIPV for non-commercial educational, clinical, or academic research purposes. Researchers are expected to provide standard academic citation to Ronald G. Slaby (1989) and the Houston Community Demonstration Project (1993) in resulting scholarly reports and publications.

12. References

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the preparation 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., & 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

Guerra, N. G., & Slaby, R. G. (1990). Evaluative factors in social problem solving by aggressive boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 18(3), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00916565

Houston Community Demonstration Project. (1993). Peer Leader Survey. City of Houston Health and Human Services Department. (Unpublished assessment instrument).

Slaby, R. G. (1989). An evaluation of a violence prevention program: Health program for urban youth. Education Development Center, Inc. (Unpublished project report).

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

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)