DISSERTATION MSc ApplSocPsych (Ayon-2018)

Running head: PREDICTORS TO ATTITUDES TOWARDS VIOLENCE AMONG MEXICAN ADOLESCENTS

Predictors to Attitudes towards Violence among Mexican adolescents

– a psycho-socio-ecological View

Submitted to the School of Psychology

University of Sussex

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science in Applied Social Psychology

Brighton, United Kingdom

* * * * *

Candidate No. 162035

January 2018

Author Note:

Funding for this degree programme was made possible by the Chevening Scholarship,

an Award Funded by the U. K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

- PREDICTORS TO ATTITUDES TOWARDS VIOLENCE AMONG MEXICAN ADOLESCENTS -

This work is inspired by the hope and potential that youth can reach,

and motivated especially by those who have experienced violence.

Let’s find out together what is possible to do with that story that happened to you,

because that is a personal choice.

* * *

With gratitude and admiration to Werner,

for crossing our lives together

and for all of what you have reached as a self-learner.

With a special dedication to

Luis Manuel, Jose Manuel, Rita, and Mirella,

for teaching me to stand and encouraging me to find my wings.

To all of you with profound

Love and Respect.

2


Este trabajo ha sido inspirado por la esperanza y el potencial

que los jóvenes representan,

y motivado especialmente por aquellos

quienes han vivido experiencia de violencia.

Vamos a encontrar juntos lo que es posible hacer con la historia que te pasó,

porque esa es una elección personal.

* * *

Con gratitud y admiración a Werner,

por cruzar nuestras vidas

y por todo lo que has alcanzado como autodidacta.

Con especial dedicación a

Luis Manuel, José Manuel, Rita, y Mirella,

por enseñarme a estar parada y motivarme a encontrar mis alas.

A todos ustedes con profundo

Amor y Respeto.

3


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 6

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 7

Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 8

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 10

Methods ......................................................................................................................... 21

Participants........................................................................................................... 21

Measures............................................................................................................... 21

Demographic Measures ............................................................................... 21

Family Affluence Scale III............................................................................ 21

Context Characteristics ............................................................................... 21

Attitudes towards Violence Scale ................................................................. 21

Social Norms Measures ............................................................................... 21

Masculinity Norms ....................................................................................... 21

Social Identity Scales ................................................................................... 21

Attitudes Towards School Scale ................................................................... 21

Embodied Sense of Self Scale ...................................................................... 21

Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 30

Data Analysis........................................................................................................ 30

Results ............................................................................................................................ 33

4


Descriptives .......................................................................................................... 33

Participant experiences in their context ............................................................. 34

Pluralistic Ignorance ........................................................................................... 36

Predictors of Attitudes Towards Violence............................................................ 38

Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 42

Limitations ............................................................................................................... 45

Implications and Future Directions....................................................................... 47

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 50

References ...................................................................................................................... 51

APPENDIX A. SURVEY ............................................................................................................. 59

Youth Participant Survey ................................................................................................ 59

APPENDIX B. ETHICAL APPROVAL ....................................................................................... 63

APPENDIX C. COMPARATIVE TESTS .................................................................................... 65

APPENDIX D. ENDNOTES ........................................................................................................ 75

5


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Demographic Information of recruited participants. .................................................... 21

Table 2 – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis. ................................................................ 21

Table 3 – Descriptives and Intercorrelations for Theoretical Variables. ...................................... 35

Table 4 – Average Difference Between Means of Self and Perception of Other’s “Comfort with

violent Behaviour”. ....................................................................................................................... 37

Table 5 – Linear Model of Predictors of Attitudes towards Violence. ......................................... 39

6


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Geographical location of data collection sites. ............................................................ 21

Figure 2 – Mean Differences in Perception of Levels of “Comfort” with Violent Behaviour. .... 36

7


Abstract

Psychosocial changes in the adolescent make this a critical opportunity to build identity and shift

behaviour carried on into adulthood. The intensified influence of others on self-concept open a

valuable opportunity to influence behaviour through social norms. Previous research has

evaluated social norms confirming their effectiveness in intervention. Data from a self-reporting

survey was used with bootstrapping in both paired-samples t-test and hierarchical multiple

regression analyses. Findings confirm links between pluralistic ignorance and social norms in

overall effects. Being a victim, and endorsing or adhering to masculinity norms, revealed as the

strongest predictors of attitudes towards violence. This quantitative study serves as an

assessment of a diverse Mexican adolescent (convenient) sample from diverse contexts and

socio-economical ranges. Implications are discussed.

Keywords: peace psychology, youth violence, social norms, social identity, masculinity

norms, norms perception, Mexico, social change, embodiment, attitudes towards violence.

8


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation was only possible with the container that has held me for years, but

especially this year.

With great thankfulness, I want to distinguish the guidance and patience that my

supervisors provided me during this process:

Dr. Drury, I highly appreciate your care, attention, and reinforcement; Dr. Neville, I highly

appreciate your valuable materials (including the scales I was able to adapt with your guidance).

Most importantly, I value the eye-opening discussions and stimulation during our meetings.

Witnessing your smooth collaboration was very engaging. You have been meaningful in my

personal and professional growth. Your work inspires me and gives me hope.

My sincere gratitude to those who helped me finding schools and organisations. My

special gratitude to the youth participants and the coordinators of every school and organisation,

the genuine interest and commitment that many of you demonstrated increases my conviction

that meaningful steps are possible in our Mexican society. I hope that this research can be

instrumental in your work.

My appreciation to my helpful tutors and the School of Psychology for your listening and

providing a responsible tutor (PhD candidate Patricio Saavedra) to help us navigate the

difficulties in the program. Thank you to my classmates who were there hanging on with me!

A huge thank you to my husband who faced huge and lengthy medical difficulties but

who continues to impress me every time for his resilience and strength. I love you.

Thank you to the most wonderful loving family I belong to that compares to no other I

have ever seen.

9


Predictors to Attitudes towards Violence among Mexican adolescents

– a psycho-socio-ecological View

Unparalleled by any other transitional time in the individual, the adolescent endures acute

changes in every human sphere going from the biological, intra-physical, psychological, and

biological, to the socio-environmental-historical that mark the human life, for the most part,

permanently. This stage is also when the developing human being is most exposed to violence

(World Health Organization [WHO], 2018). Remarkably, the increase of white matter in the

frontal cortex makes the adolescent brain capable of cognitive functioning socially and

emotionally (Baird, 2008, p. 327), in preparation for the adult life. Therefore, a turning point in

which they drive from the inner-and-outer resources to enact actions and decisions with lasting

consequences. These inner-outer resources are shaped every day within the social context.

The heightened climate of violence that Mexican youth experience makes this subject an

extraordinarily urgent challenge to attend. It is a crossroads in which political interests, links

between the state and drug cartels, and a weakened economy leading to prominent inequality and

unemployment, have made youth a special opportune target in the context of violence (Ponce,

2016, p.64). Latin American countries 1 have been experiencing “exceptionally high” rates of

youth violence for decades (WHO, 2002, p.13). In Mexico, twenty homicides per every 100

thousand inhabitants were registered in 2016 (National Institute for Statistics and Geography

1

Together with African countries.

10


[INEGI], 2017) 2 , and about 38% of the homicide victims in the last decade were Mexican youth

by 2013 (The World Bank Group [WBG], 2018). Youth violence is one of the most prevalent

types of violence in the world, and a public health problem (WHO, 2017). Gottfredson and Bauer

(2007, p. 157) describe it as the “acts of interpersonal aggression, ranging in seriousness from

crimes against individuals (e.g., robbery, assault) to aggressive behaviours, such as hitting,

bullying, and, for younger students, biting and hurling objects at others”. The consequences are

beyond what is visible and reported (Brundtland, 2002). These involve harms in mental and

physical health (Doll, Bonzo, Sleet, Mercy, & Haas, 2007, p. 4) and increased public costs. In the

context of this research, I will refer to interpersonal violence as the abuse by one or more persons

toward another in order to control and dominate in a relationship with power differences

resulting in physical or verbal harm (Ayon, 2014, p. 4).

Close to 70% of the Mexicans consider the main problem is crime and insecurity in the

country (OCDE, 2017, p. 6). But acts of violence are not only generated by the state and drug

cartels, they are being re-created and perpetuated. The escalation has been possible due to a

“culture of violence” that, on the one hand, is being terrorised by media and political interests

(Correa-Cabrera, Garrett, & Keck, 2014, p. 1). On the other hand, it is the effects of this fearproducing

system, which are translated into reactive and normalized acts that are learned, which

become ingrained in the individual identity and are re-produced every generation. While the

actors of violence can be few in comparison to the total population of a nation, it is in the

extended society where action is effected, and where there is the urge of break and shift. In fact,

the widespread attitudes allow for frenzied proliferation, for silence and impotence, for apathy

2

The WHO defines “endemic” and “conflict” levels between 10 and 30 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants.

11


and paralysis. To tackle this problem, therefore, a well-rounded applied psychosocial approach

that is attentive to the individual, as well as the contextual, is key.

The aims of this research are twofold. First, to promote understanding of the sociopsychological

identity (going from individual to social-relational) and the normative lives of the

adolescent in a cultural context where they assimilate and form their habits and attitudes that

may give place to violence and aggression (non-constructive conflict). Second, I want to propel

force towards joint efforts from applied social psychology and positive peace psychology

(described by Galtung, 1964) as the integration of society (see McKeown, Haji, & Ferguson,

2016, p. xv), and emphasising the constructive potential of conflict in social contexts. I aim to

encourage these branches, in turn, to motivate actions that are more effective and grounded in

research, closing the gap theory-practice. The result of this approach and interdisciplinary cooperation

may lead to improved social programs and policy interventions that elevate positive

social change towards community cohesion, resilience, and well-being. In turn, these may

enhance dynamic processes where the individuals connect with the awareness of the implications

on the collective. Thereby, this could increase awareness and the sense of empowerment that

their own practices contribute to the social environment: Drury and Reicher (2009) describe it in

the crowd context, a “positive social-psychological transformation, related to a sense of being

able to (re)shape the social world” (p. 708).

As the main participants and recipients of violent acts, approaching the youth is an urgent

starting point. To direct the work through cost-effective approaches, research needs to contribute

to strategies that get to the depth of the youth nature.

The relevance of identity development in the stage of adolescence tracks back to early

theories of human development first stressed by Erik H. Erikson (1902-1994). This is the pivotal

12


stage where adolescent experiences changes, which shifts both, its self-perception as a distinct

being and its sense perception of who he or she is as an individual in the world. For adolescents,

this is thus a time to invest significant energy in re-creating that identity in view of the others

(Hine & Wood, 2010, p. 251). The sense of who we are comes to life through the eyes of others

and the social groups where we can have a reference point of what distinguishes us, what Han

defines as the “culture-dependent nature of the self” (Han & Northoff, 2009, p. 203). This is

based on aspects of symbolic interactionism (Blumer,1863-1931): In the way the individual

interacts with the social context, self-identity is formed (Kidd & Teagle, 2012, p. 64). Therefore,

identity is multidimensional and adaptively shaping in ongoing ways. That is, it helps us build a

fuller sense of who we are as we fix one image and grow while we spend time on our own,

compared to how we interact with our families, friends, and the larger society where we come to

learn and internalise symbolic meaning of human nature, relationships, and behaviour.

Nevertheless, this presents a pressure where the individual in face of others tries to self-assert a

personal identity while aiming to belong to the group, what Simmel (1957) proposed as an

ongoing struggle, relating to what Durkheim called the “homo-duplex” (Kidd & Teagle, 2012, p.

60). Thus, different situations will determine how we act. Ethnicity has often been linked to

identity, giving an explanation to the relevance of culture and how self-identity, when the

individual feels comfortable with it, may be an integrating factor, or a major risk in situations

where discomfort arises (Nicolson, 2014, p. 183). Notwithstanding its integrating power, it can

also be a source of division. For Parales Quenza (2009), anomie is the source or violence in Latin

American context (p. 851). Indeed, he stresses that

“National identification is perhaps the most important category of collective

identity because of the social and political effects; it is the process through which

13


members of an ethnic, cultural and/or political community who live in a defined territory

attain the idea of a shared destiny; national identity is the status of identification at a

particular historical moment” (p. 852).

His specific focus on Latin America is concerned with how the social structure is

disjointed, which draw a large history of segmentation and corruption that give way to violence

and “negative internalized stereotypes” (p. 853), which have prevented the formation of a

healthy society. He believes that Mexico is experiencing an identity crisis, which Cappello

(2005) describes as “impregnated with feelings of inferiority” (Parales, 2009, p. 858). Further,

these identifications come to be formed in communities, more specifically, in the school context.

For example, a study by Hidalgo-Rasmussen and Hidalgo-San Martín (2015) with 2,201 youth

on perceptions of country, county violence, and neighbourhood and school insecurity across

elementary, middle, and high schools in Mexico, stirred by concern for the drugs and trafficking

issues, found that youth understand the term violence as in the context of school bullying –

school insecurity. They identify municipal (county) violence as in where victims and observers

participate (perpetrators were not salient), while national violence did not show relevant

outcomes in their study (p. 775).

In this research, identity is assumed as a factor that influences attitudes and behaviour in

the way that adolescents come to terms with their sense of being participants in the social spheres

as individuals 3 (gender) in their community (e.g. school) and the larger society of which they are

part (e.g. nation). Both of these relate to a context in which the self relates to what is culturally

3

Social Identity, specifically in definition of Jenkins (1996) as “our understanding of who we are and of who other

people are, and, reciprocally, other people’s understanding of themselves and of others (which includes us) (Kidd &

Teagle, 2012, p. 25)

14


valued and adopted (Smith, Fischer, Vignoles, & Bond, 2013, p. 187), which may result into

attitudes that give form to behaviour. Thus, they are part of a shared identity where social norms

are contextualised, and there lies the latent frame of opportunity (Neville, 2015, p. 239; Neville,

Goodall, Gavine, Williams, & Donnelly, 2015) within a positive self and group concept.

Repeatedly, the more violence permeates the individual’s environment, the more it

increases the feelings of impotence and powerlessness, shame and despair (Brundtland, 2002),

getting into the psyche of who the individual is in the world. In order to shift the shared identity

into a potential for social change (e.g. Drury & Reicher, 2009, p. 722), we need to widen our

understanding of the inclusive internal-external context and relations of the individual – the

ongoing dynamics where social values and norms are created.

In response to the urge to reduce violence, preventative programs are being developed

and evaluated (Mexico Evalua, 2018). Increasingly, in other parts of the world, many studies

have focused on social identity and social norms 4 . These have been seen as an effective means to

understand more of the social context, and to approach preventative social evidence-based

interventions (see Doll, Bonzo, Sleet, Mercy, & Haas, 2007; Ganz, Neville, & Ward, 2017;

Neville, 2015; Paluck, Shepherd, & Aronow, 2016; Perkins, Craig, & Perkins, 2011; WHO,

2009), and public policy. Such an approach is especially fit for the adolescent, who is right at the

peak in the shift of relationships, learning to navigate peer pressure (Hine & Wood, 2010),

integrating self-identity in contrast with those of others, and reinforcing moral development

(Baird, 2008 p. 338). Institutions constitute a large frame for socialisation, whether that is the

4

Bicchieri (2006) proposed that “a norm can be formal or informal, personal or collective, descriptive of what most

people do, or prescriptive of behaviour. In the same social setting, conformity to these different kinds of norms

stems from a variety of motivations and produces distinct, sometimes even opposing, behavioural patterns”

(Reynolds, Subašić, & Tindall, 2015, p. 46).

15


family or other organised structures where societal circles are more clearly formed (e.g. schools

or civic organisations. These are channels for social influence and adoption of social norms.

As highlighted by previous research (see Turner, 1991), norm perceptions are dual. One

aspect of norms is what the individual assumes is the norm and thinks about it; the other aspect is

what the individual assumes that others around him or her believe is the norm, leading to

expected and recurrent behaviour. The individual, therefore, will be most attentive to behaviour

from those who are important to his or her in-group (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980, p. 57); in turn,

investing more in self-image towards them.

For the purposes of this research, social norms are assessed by measures of pluralistic

ignorance 5 and masculinity norms. Each of these explaining the two levels of the normative

influence on the individual – thoughts of the self and perceptions of the thoughts of others

(Neville, 2015, p. 239). Pluralistic ignorance is operationalised as the difference between these

two differences, in order to gauge to which extent the individual overestimation of positive

attitudes towards violence among others is salient (see Perkins et al., 2011; Prentice & Miller,

1993; Williams & Neville, 2013). A difference is expected. In this sense, a big difference may

explain feeling personal values are very different from those of others, whereas a small

difference may indicate feeling personal values are more in parallel to the personal. However, as

these others are influential to the adolescent, it may also indicate the degree to which he or she is

under pressure to conform to that norm and act accordingly to norm in violent behaviour. There

is a valuable support that pluralistic ignorance is a reliable measure of misinterpretation of

5

Pluralistic ignorance, defined by Bjerring, Hansen and Pedersen (2014) as “a situation of pluralistic ignorance

when a group of individuals all have the same attitude towards some proposition or norm, all act contrary to this

attitude, and all wrongly believe that everyone else in the group has a certain conflicting attitude to the proposition

or norm.” (p. 2446).

16


normative behaviour: Bjerring, Hansen, & Pedersen (2014) confirm that it is a reliable argument

in the estimation of behaviour. Attitudes, on their part, have also been confirmed to be linked

with behaviour (Glasman & Albarracín, 2006), contrary to previous arguments that denied their

relationship (see Schuman & Johnson, 1976).

A whole is more than the sum of its parts. Every human interaction combines the set of

biology, personality, experiences, beliefs, and ideas, of each human involved, via the body and

the mind, of which only external actions are witnessed. In a unique fashion, every interaction

mutually stimulates, strengthens, persuades further, and forms attitudes and behaviour that take

place in our societal spheres, and which in turn extend to others.

A close model of the all-encompassing human configuration was Bronfenbrenner (1974)

developmental approach ecological systems, considers the human development within five

different levels that affect the individual. Of these, the microsystem, the closest structure to

everyday life, includes the family, peers, and neighbourhood, where most human interactions

occur. This social life, nevertheless, is simultaneously influenced by the internal bio-psychic life

and psychology. Any human interaction and behaviour take place within this full complexity.

The body comes at the intercept of self (e.g. biology, personality, feelings) and other (e.g.

relationships), where social norms (e.g. interactions), gender, and identity (e.g. what is

recognised as feminine and masculine ways of portraying self-identity socially) converge within

a specific context, translated into behavioural actions. Our body makes ongoing actions prior to

thinking, for the most part. That is how we learn about ourselves (e.g. how we act and feel) and

about life. From a start point, the body registers memories from emotion and actions, which,

depending on the situation, can be strongly imprinted in the neural databank. Damasio (1994)

stressed the importance of the body and studied it as a somatic marker where “external or

17


internal stimuli initiate a body state… associated with pleasurable or aversive somatic markers”

(Baird, 2008, p. 329). Additionally, Critchley, Mathias, and Dolan (2001) argue that the right

anterior cingulate is identified as the place where “autonomic responses with behavioural effort”

are integrated (p. 329). These responses come from individual states are synthesised and guide

somatic (often automatic) behaviour. In effect, for Baird (2008), these are vital during adolescent

development, when these somatic markers are created, linking “visceral states” with their

(internal or external) context (p. 330). This facilitates preventing them from “committing

transgressions” as they establish links from previous experience and future feelings that can

result from behaviour. For example, these feelings are reflected in self-conscious body

behaviour. Continuously, these serve as markers for future (enacted) decisions. Relevant to social

situations and resulting behaviour, the body is the instrument to relate to others. Burkitt (1999, p.

147) described it as the centre for the “sense of personhood” and for defining our social identity

(Finlay & Langdridge, 2007, p. 176). Through our body, our gender is expressed, our personality,

our identity, and even our agreement or disagreement with social norms. Merleau-Ponty (1968

[1964]) proposed that “the body is at the heart of our flesh” (p. 188) being the interrelationship of

the self-perception and the integration with the outer environment, as well as our knowledge

about others (Spaulding, 2012, p. 432). One meaning for this research and the implications of

this work, for example, is that as one outcome, violence can paralise the core sense of agency

and the capacity for action, making it more difficult to make social changes. Another meaning is

that repeated somatic memory of physical action during conflict and violence can position the

individual in an iterative loop that results in an automatic reaction in similar contexts.

The study of the body was absent for a period of decades, lack of understanding seemed

to be just one reason (Shilling, 1993, p. 39). Recent interest has emerged mostly in relation to

18


health and wellbeing in women (see Teall, 2015), and embodiment 6 in the field of social

psychology, nearing more comprehensive theories, which include links with attitudes, social

perception and emotion (see Niedenthal Barsalou, Winkielman, Krauth-Gruber, & Ric, 2005).

This work asserts the value that studying the body (not separate to the study of the mind) has for

the development and depth of the social sciences, including peace psychology, when studying

social interactions (Niedenthal et al., 2005b), violence, and behavioural change. In this research

gap lies a summative importance of this work.

To balance the arguments presented as they relate to attitudes towards violence, I first

present the questions involved in this research. Next, the methods utilised to study them,

followed by a summary of results that reveal the relevance of these arguments in the specific

context of Mexico, within different contexts and with a diverse adolescent population. These

may help in furthering understanding of the social-psychological effect towards attitudes to

violence as a cause of potential effects implied in behaviour. Finally, I present a discussion of the

outcomes and limitations, and the conclusion, with the implications that this study may release in

support of applications and future research.

Keeping in consideration a psychosocial-ecological view of the human, the focus of this

research is to learn the identity and normative factors involved in attitudes that could be related

to violent behaviours among the Mexican population. Utilising a quantitative approach, I test two

6

Embodiment: so far described as “the sense of one’s own body” (Longo, Schüür, Kammers, Tsakiris, & Haggard,

2008, p. 979). However, research by Longo et al., and others (e.g. Winkielman, Niedenthal, Wielgosz, Eelen, &

Kavanagh, 2015).) continue to study improved approaches.

19


hypotheses. First, I focus on normative perceptions by testing the pluralistic ignorance effect in

this population:

1) Is there a significant difference in levels of discomfort towards violent behaviour

between the Mexican adolescent (self) and his or her peers (others), considering three

contexts – school, people’s houses, and against women?

Second, I focus on exploring the identity and socio-normative potential predictors of

attitudes towards violence (ATV) in twofold scopes: through embodied, community (school), and

national spheres of the self, and through the gender and social aspects of normative perception;

these are considered after controlling for demographic and contextual variables.

2) Can these specific identity and normative effects predict ATV after controlling for

demographic and contextual factors? And to what degree are these important

predictors? That is, how much extra variation can be explained by using these

theoretical variables as a final model?

Discussed next, are the research design and materials to answer these two fundamental

questions. A survey aimed at finding subjective and cause-effect relationships through statistical

systematic measures was used.

20


Methods

Participants

With a purpose to find a diverse range of Mexican youth, 24 institutions from nine states

were approached from a wide range of rural and urban areas, or through online search to avoid

under-representation. After initial contact via phone call or in person by direct contacts, a formal

invitation letter was sent through e-mail seeking confirmation to participate in a research project

on violence prevention. The study was carried on in five Mexican states (see Figure 1 with

highlighted states) i .

Figure 1 - Geographical location of data collection sites.

21


Participant institutions were offered an acknowledgement for their involvement in the

form of an independent report, based on results from their own group of participants, and

compensation of costs incurred for participating in research ii . See Table 1 for school populations

from which participants were invited iii .

School coordinators selected groups according to convenient particular academic

calendar constraints. Overall, 1,015 potential participants received firstly a verbal invitation,

followed by a print letter signed by the head teacher iv . As per ethical procedures approved by the

University of Sussex Sciences & Technology Cross-Schools Research Ethics Committee (C-

REC), adolescents under 16 years old were required to bring in the signed consent letter by their

parents, clearly indicating their approval or disapproval, in order to participate v . A sum of 287

parental permits was received from the different institutions.

A total of 273 participants completed the survey. From those with parental permission in

6 schools, 24 had declined, as everyone was informed that they could withdraw at any point from

the study, without affecting their grades.

While participants for the online survey version completed their gender information

N=167, a fault with coding in Qualtrics in the gender section prevented the input from

participants to being registered. Because of this, all original gender information for the online

version is missing (see in analysis section how this issue was dealt with).

Participants were aged between 12 and 18 years old, Mage =13.24 (SD = 1.63). From the

paper version N=106, 58% were females, and 40.4% were males. One-hundred and seventy-four

participants indicated that they lived with both of their parents, 71 lived with their mother, 15

with their father, two were adopted, and eight had a different arrangement.

22


Table 1

Demographic Information of recruited participants.

No.

Institution

Type

Level Type State Boys Girls Missing

Gender

Totl

Survey

version

1 After-school Middle-school Urban Chihuahua 12 19 31 Paper

organisation

2 After-school Middle-school Rural Oaxaca 8 9 1 18 Paper

organisation and High school

3 After-school Middle-school Urban Veracruz 3 8 11 Paper


4 After-school Middle-school Urban Jalisco 0 2 0 2 Online


5 School Middle-school Rural Jalisco 18 26 44 Paper

6 School High-school Semi- Jalisco unknown unknown 36 36 Online

Urban

7 School High-school Urban Jalisco unknown unknown 29 29 Online

8 School Middle-school Urban Morelos unknown unknown 55 55 Online

9 School Middle-school Urban Morelos unknown unknown 47 47 Online

A base survey circulated among schools, which included questions about the participant

profile and other characteristics in the context where the youth were growing up. Five schools

explicitly stated that their interest in participating in the survey was due to violence being present

in the lives of the youth vi .

Measures

The survey was a self-report measure composed of demographic questions and six other

previously validated scales. The scales were translated by the main researcher, see details on

translation treatment for scales where issues were found.

Demographic measures. Information about age, gender, educational level, family living

arrangements was requested. Participants responded to “please check the groups you belong to”

from eight options, including church, sports, extracurricular activities, gang, etc. Data was used

23


because previous research demonstrated links with group belonging and high levels of emotional

intelligence and resilience among Mexican adolescents (Ruvalcaba, Gallegos, Borges, &

Gonzalez, 2017).

Family Affluence Scale III (FASII: Currie et al., 2008; FASIII: Hartley, Levin, & Currie,

2016). The FAS III was used to measure household socio-economic status. Originally this scale

consists of six items. The sixth item, Does your family have a dishwasher at home? was dropped

given that the survey was known to be administered to a large population in areas where no such

household goods would be available vii . Five items were used, which assessed the adolescent’s (or

his/her family’s) ownership of (i) number of autos, (ii) individual bedroom, (iii) full bathroom(s),

(iv) computers, and (v) holiday trips. The coefficient for internal consistency reliability was α =

0.43 viii . The mean score was 2.09, with SD = 0.5 ix .

Context characteristics. Other predictors considered in this study were whether

participants perceived they were experiencing a context of violence and whether they considered

they had been victims of violence. These items were included because recurrent evidence by

research from the World Health Organisation (2017) has demonstrated that both, being exposed

to violence being a victim have been identified as critical elements in becoming a perpetrator of

violence. Considering the potential ambiguity of how these experiences may be perceived,

participants were asked these questions using a Likert scale range.

Community Violence. This item was measured on a 5-point scale in response to “I

consider there is violence in my community” within the values of 1 = Yes, very much, 2 = Yes,

somewhat, 3 = Don’t know, 4 = No, not really, and 5 = No, definitely not.

Victim of Violence. This item is consistent with previous literature measuring ATV (Funk,

Elliot, Urman, Flores, & Mock, 1999). “Have you been a victim of violence?” was included

24


within this scale and equally measuring a 4-point measurement: 1 = No, 2 = Maybe, 3 =

Probably, 4 = Yes.

Attitudes towards Violence Scale (ATVS – Adolescent version; Funk, Elliot, Urman,

Flores, & Mock, 1999). This is a 16-item instrument with four reversed items x , which was

adapted by (Williams & Neville, 2013) to substitute the word ‘guns’ for ‘knives’. There is some

relevance in using this term to the Mexican context and so this version of the scale was used. To

emphasise the purpose, however, the word weapon was added to one item: “It’s good to have a

knife or other weapon”.

The Spanish version was reverse translated and then compared agreement within the two

versions xi . Scores for ATV are obtained using four levels: No = 1, Maybe = 2, Probably = 3, Yes

= 4, with more positive attitudes towards violence revealed by higher scores. Internal consistency

was Cronbach’s α = 0.79. The mean score was 1.70, with SD = 0.44.

Social Norms Measures. Two sets of social norms scales were used:

Pluralistic Ignorance (PI – Williams & Neville, 2013; Prentice & Miller, 1993).

Adolescent participants’ perceptions of self, versus those of their peers’, with respect to

judgements and adherence to the social norm were assessed. Williams and Neville, (2013)

adapted the scale from Prentice and Miller (1993) utilising question forms; for this survey, a

statement form was used.

Three items for each pair (others different from self) were in relation to violence for the

contexts school, homes, and against women (e.g. “I am not bothered by violent behaviour at

people’s homes” contrasting to “The regular student at my school is uncomfortable by violent

behaviour at people’s homes”). The scale by Prentice and Miller (1993), which originally

assessed alcohol consumption on campus, included items for alcohol and drug consumption, one

25


for each. These were kept in the scale given the Mexican context in which violence is often

experienced (see Appendix C for full list p. 60).

Semantic difficulties in English-to-Spanish translation for the word “comfortable” were

found. An informal form of Public Participation Involvement was used through consulting with

teachers and coordinators from one school and one organisation (via virtual call) previous to the

orientation call. Next, they consulted the wording of this and other items with a few adolescent

participants at random with the intention to check for the understanding among the target

participants. Three expressions were considered and the phrase not “feeling bothered by” was

preferred over the other two, as it seemed to be the closest equivalent to “comfortable”. In

keeping with previous literature, these expressions will be used interchangeably here.

As described as an endnote in the first paragraph of this section, for each dimension (self

and other), a dummy item was added following the original statements in school violence: “I am

affected by violent behaviour at school”. However, these two extra items were not included in

the final analyses, as they were not part of the original scale. This resulted in five items analysed

for each dimension, 7-point (completely disagree = 1 to completely agree = 7), Likert-type

instrument. The Spanish version was reverse-translated and then compared agreement between

the two versions. Analyses were executed utilising the three items directly related to violence

(school, people’s homes, and against women).

Masculinity Norms (MN; Rogers, Updegraff, Santos, & Martin, 2017)

This was a 10-item measure (adapted by Rogers et al. (2017) from the Adolescent

Masculinity Ideology in Relationships Scale by Chu, Porche, & Tolman, 2005) with a 7-point

Likert-type instrument (completely disagree = 1 to completely agree = 7). Two dimensions assess

adherence to traditional masculinity norms (self-appraisal; e.g. “it is necessary for me to fight

26


others in order to gain respect”) and endorsement to these (other-appraisal; e.g. “it is necessary

for a boy to fight others in order for him to gain respect”). From this survey, the subscale of

physical toughness factor items was used, as they were the most relevant items for measuring

attitudes related to violence. Two reverse scored items from the original scale were included for

each dimension (adherence or endorsement). Internal consistency related to adherence was

Cronbach’s α = .72. The mean score for the five combined items was 2.10, with SD =1.22, while

the items related to endorsement was α = .72, for the combined items, the mean score was 2.13,

and SD = 1.19.

Social Identity Scales. (based on Doosje, Ellemers, & Spears, 1995)

In-group identification was measured using 4-items assessing components in three

dimensions: cognitive, evaluative, and affective. These were adapted to two domains of

experience for the participants in this survey to assess the school context and the national

context, resulting in eight total items related to social identity. Scores ranged from completely

disagree = 1 to completely agree = 7.

A confirmatory factor analysis (principal axis) was conducted for construct validity on

the eight items. To evaluate potential correlation between the factors (Pearson’s productmoment),

the direct oblimin rotation was used. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the

sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = .76, which is beyond the middling statistic (i.e. .80

is meritorious according to Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999). Individual KMO values ranged

between .69 and .80 – all between middling and meritorious statistic. Eigenvalues for both

factors were above Kaiser’s criterion of 1 (see Table 2) and explained 56% of the cumulative

variance. Inflections in the scree plot indicated retaining 2 or 3 factors (see Appendix C, p. 59)

because the third eigenvalue was significantly close to 1. Nevertheless, two factors were retained

27


as the structure for most items demonstrated a clean loading into two separate factors, except for

one item. “I identify myself with other Mexicans” loaded very weakly (< .4) into both factors, and

was eliminated from the analyses (see Table 1 for loadings after rotation). Two separate sets of

predictor variables were created – using 3 items for national identification, and 4 items for school

identification. The mean score for the four combined items for school identity was 5.54 with SD

=1.17, with Cronbach’s α = .67. The three items related to national identity had a Cronbach’s α

= .72, and the three combined items for national identity had a mean score 5.94, SD =1.15.

Table 2

Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis using

Oblimin Rotation of Social Identity questionnaire. (N=223)

Item

Rotated Factor Loadings

School

National

Q 02. I am pleased to be a member of this school 0.37 -0.21

Q 09. I see myself as a member of this school 0.41 -0.16

Q 64. I identify with other members of this school 0.69 0.01

Q 77. I feel strong ties with the members of this school 0.80 0.13

Q 01. I see myself as Mexican -0.09 -0.70

Q 16. I am pleased to be a Mexican 0.02 -0.83

Q 27. I identify with other Mexicans a 0.38 -0.37

Q 38. I feel strong ties with Mexico 0.17 -0.45

Eigenvalues 3.32 1.16

% of variance 41.53 14.43

Cronbach’s α 0.67 0.73

Note: Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation converged in 11 iterations.

Factor loadings > .40 appear in boldface. a Item deleted from analyses. Adapted from Doosje et

al. (1995)

28


Attitudes to School Scale. (ATSS; DEECD, 2014)

This measure was used to determine the youth’s appraisal of the context they experience

and the potential relationship with attitudes towards violence. 10-items composed the scale, 5

assessing positive emotions (e.g. “I feel cheerful at school”) and 5 negative (reverse score

performed; e.g. “I feel uneasy at school”) ranged from completely disagree = 1 to completely

agree = 7. Cronbach’s alpha assessing internal consistency scored α = .87. The mean score for

the ten combined items was 5.35 with SD =1.18.

Embodied Sense of Self Scale. (ESSS; Asai, Kanayama, Imaizumi, Koyama, & Kaganoi,

2016). To assess the relationship of attitudes to violence with another integral part of the self, its

embodied dimension – or the body-action self. The original scale is composed of 25 items in 3

factors (Asai et al., 2016, p. 9) xii : ownership, narrative, and agency. For purposes of

simplification, a selection of items potentially closest to the subject of violence 12 items were

utilised: 7 items from narrative factor (e.g. “My personality changes depending on the setting

and the situation”), which measures uniformity of identity – a focus subject in this research; 3

items from agency factor (e.g. “I sometimes bump into things or people when I am out walking”),

selected because of their relationship with self-control; and 2 from ownership factor (e.g.

“Sometimes my existence seems to lack sense of reality”), which reflects sense of existence.

These three dimensions are interrelated to construct a unified self. A Likert-type scale coding

ranged from completely disagree = 1 to completely agree = 5. Coefficient for internal consistency

reliability was α = 0.77. The mean score for the combined scale was 3.02, with SD = 0.77.

29


Procedure

Each institution assigned a pair of coordinators who would be in charge of all

communications with the main researcher and of conducting the survey in their sites. A virtual

call followed, which used a training-mode agenda to learn about the context each institution and

to go through each material together xiii . Surveys were completed individually or in small-group

sessions in the corresponding sites where youth regularly attend for academic classes or other

activities (e.g. music practice). The current study drew on 166 online surveys and 99 cases of

inputted data from the scanned surveys in paper version after assessing the progress of survey

completion, (using a cut-off point of 94%) 7 .

Data analysis.

All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 24. The missing gender data for online

participants version was imputed. A Missing Value Analysis was utilised to calculate the trends

of male and female respondents from the paper version. The decimal results were rounded to one

or two – the values for females and males correspondingly, based on the number of parent

permits (identifying female and male names) per school. These, in turn, were cross-validated

with the numbers of males and females that each school had estimated. Based on these

calculations, 60.5% were females, and 39.5% were males from the online version, resulting in an

estimated gross total of 59.6% females and 39.7% males. Given the different sources of gender

data from the online and paper versions, analyses on gender were completed separately selecting

cases per survey-version.

7

Total scanned surveys were initially 106 before progress completion analysis.

30


Descriptive statistics, reliability, and correlation coefficients were measured. Inspection

of assumptions was performed after necessary items were reversed. Z-scores were calculated for

skewness and kurtosis using the z-distribution, and the obtained z-value derived from ratio of

skewness to determine their statistical significance (z > 1.96) to compare to a normal distribution

for all combined variables, and for all individual items for pluralistic ignorance. All the measures

revealed issues with skewness (except for the Family Affluence combined measure). The score

for measures with skewness ranged from z = -10.42 (average low was z = -6.60) to z = 12.49

(average high was z = 7.74). Fewer problems with kurtosis were found, as only two measures

presented this (the 3 combined items for social identity (national) scale and the item “I am not

bothered by violent behaviour against women” from pluralistic ignorance scale). Not

surprisingly, these two measures had the highest number of outliers (14 and 15, respectively).

Similarly, all combined items were found with outliers. The labelling rule (see Tukey, 1993;

Hoaglin, Iglewicz, & Tukey, 1986; and Hoaglin & Iglewicz, 1987) was effected to calculate a

standardized statistic for outlier trimming, calculating g-values based on the lower (25%) and

upper (75%) quartiles. Nonetheless, this technique does not always work with non-normal data,

as it was in this case. An additional revision to outliers based on frequencies for each item

demonstrated that responses were not particularly unusual based on responses to the actual

questions asked. Therefore, robust tests were performed instead.

Two types of theoretical analyses with three-thousand bootstrap samples replaced the

sampling distribution to correct biases and violation of assumptions using point estimates with

bias-corrected accelerated (BCa) effect of 95% confidence intervals (CI). The confidence interval

is the reference source for statistically significant effects in this method.

31


Test one was a paired-samples t-test to assess the differences between mean conditions in

perceptions of self and perceptions of others’ social norms associated with pluralistic ignorance.

Comparisons estimated levels of comfort with violence in three contexts: school, people’s

houses, and against women. Results were compared with the non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed-

Rank test. First, an overall effect was calculated, second, a gender effect selecting the paper

version (with original data), and then the online version with gender data imputed.

Test two was a hierarchical multiple regression (HMR) to explore the degree to which

theoretical variables would explain the incremental variance in attitudes towards violence.

Dummy variables were created for the categorical predictive variable victim and computed

variables for the calculated difference (perceived other-norm contrasted with self-norm) for each

of the three individual items related to pluralistic ignorance 8 . Variables were entered in three

models, thus escalating the level of variance shared. Demographic variables were entered for

Block 1. Block 2 contained experience with violence items. Block 3 consisted of nine theoretical

variables: a combined embodied sense of self, combined attitudes towards school, combined

social identity national (3 items), combined social identity school (4 items), combined

masculinity norms endorsement, combined masculinity norms adherence, and the three

difference items related to pluralistic ignorance. As highlighted in these lines, to increase the

power of reliability and validity, theoretical variables were combined, except for the three

pluralistic ignorance items, for which the difference was used, see Table 5.

8

Being bothered by violence the contexts: school, people’s houses, against women.

32


Results

This section will present descriptive statistics with correlations, followed by data

treatment. Next, two performed tests analysing the theoretical variables are displayed. Results

are presented for overall effects and gender effects using the paper (not imputed) data.

Descriptives

Descriptive statistics for all theoretical variables, means, standard deviations, intercorrelations

(Pearson product-moment) and internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α) are pivoted in

Table 3. All theoretical variables presented in Table 3 violated the assumption of homogeneity of

variance, except for ESSS. About half of the correlations are statistically significant. Of these,

more than half share a small correlation (28 variables); ten share a moderate correlation; and

three are highly correlated. The most frequent positive level of association was found among the

PI items. Higher positive values of comfort with violence at school were related to greater

comfort with violence at people’s homes in both measures, personal and those perceived from

others. Correspondingly, these explain statistically significantly 78% and 79% of the variability.

Nevertheless, these do not concern a multicollinearity issue. The highest positive correlation was

found between masculinity norms endorsement and masculinity norms adherence, which

statistically explains 80% of the variability. Masculinity norms endorsement was found with

small associations to greater levels of pluralistic ignorance, except for personal comfort with

violence against females. The other 5 PI items, however, do explain between 48% and 55% of

the variability in masculinity norms. Finally, 69% of the dependent variable, ATV, is explained

by each of both aspects of masculinity norms, as each of these share a high correlation as well.

Scores for all measures were adequately reliable as indicated by Cronbach’s alpha values. Alpha

33


values for both PI conditions (self and others) are displayed in combined fashion; however, these

items were utilised independently in both statistical tests.

Scrutiny of progress by participant made apparent one case with 10% completion, and

seven additional cases with the completion of 60%, who also omitted responses for the most

important scales in this research. They were dropped for this reason. Two cases had extreme

response bias all along. This resulted in ten omitted participants xiv , or 263 usable cases.

Demographic data results showed that out of the 273 who completed the survey, 211 were

in school. Yet, only 50% of the total indicated that they belonged to school group, 29.4%

(N=80); indicated that they belong to a church group; 11% (N=30) were part of a sport group;

5.9% (N=16) indicated that they were part of a group of extracurricular activities; 2.2% (N=6)

indicated that they were part of a gang group; none reported being part of other associations; and

only one person indicated being part of other type of group. From the total 25.7% (N=70) of

them were involved in a job (most recurrent ones included business store worker, helper at the

family business, house cleaner, babysitter, football player, mechanic, and maintenance worker).

Participant experiences in their context

Youth estimated their perceptions of violence in their community; 13.2% (N=36)

indicated “yes, very much”, 54.8% (N=149) selected “yes, somewhat”, 12.5% (N=34) “I don’t

know”, 15.4% (N=42) “No, I don’t think so”, and 3.3% (N=9) “No, definitely not”. Whereas

most of them have experienced some kind of violence in their community, the great majority had

not been victims of violence. Seventeen percent (N=47) stated clearly that they had been victims

of violence themselves. Others were not so certain, 14% (N=38) selected “maybe”, and 1.8%

(N=5) “probably”.

34


Table 3

Descriptives and Intercorrelations for Theoretical Variables. N=251 a

. Variables M SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1 Attitudes Towards Violence 1.70 0.45 0.69 - -.18 -.08 .48 ** .48 ** -.24 .20 ** .22 ** .15 * -.02 .18 ** .21 ** .07

2 Social Identity (National) 5.98 1.14 0.72 - .42 ** -.09 -.15 .22 ** -.14 -.09 -.06 -.09 .01 .06 .04

3 Social Identity (School) 5.55 1.15 0.67 - .03 -.12 .45 ** -.15 .05 -.06 -.03 -.02 .03 .05

4

5

Masculinity Norms

(endorsement)

Masculinity Norms

(adherence)

2.14 1.21 0.72 - .64 ** -.08 .17 ** .26 ** .23 ** .19 ** .30 ** .23 ** .23 **

2.11 1.22 0.72 - -.19 .15 * .17 ** .12 .15 * .20 ** .14 * .14 *

6 Attitudes Towards School 5.38 1.17 0.87 - -.33 -.05 -.17 -.12 -.07 -.04 -.10

7 Embodied Sense of Self 3.01 0.76 0.77 - .14 * .15 * .02 .05 -.03 -.01

8

9

10

11

12

13

Personal comfort with violence

(at school)

2.93 2.03 - .61 ** .37 ** .30 ** .19 ** .19 **


(at home)

2.69 2.06 - .43 ** .26 ** .27 ** .22 **


(against females)

2.00 1.96 - .27 ** .14 * .33 **

Perceived comfort with violence

(at school)

3.24 1.84 - .63 ** .38 **


(at home)

3.12 1.84 - .50 **


(against females)

2.68 1.88 -

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). a After Listwise Missing Values treatment.

Mean "comfort with violence"


Pluralistic Ignorance

As discussed previously, because outliers were kept, and because normality assessed by

Shapiro-Wilk’s tests was violated for all six items (test were significant at the p < .05 level) a robust

analysis was conducted using bootstrapping xv . Results from bootstrapped 3 X 3 paired-samples t-test

were verified with results from non-parametric tests Wilcoxon signed-rank test (see footnote in Table

4). Results using the online version and a non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test are reported more

extensively in the Appendix C section (see p.65).

The hypothesis testing whether the perception of other’s tolerance towards violence would be

higher than participant’s own tolerance was assessed using individual items. Values for all three

contexts and conditions confirmed a considerable difference between other’s comfort with violence

and own comfort, which followed the expected direction on the assessment of pluralistic ignorance

bias (see Figure 2). Trends by context seem to have the highest acceptance in the school context and

the least acceptance in the context of violence against women.

Figure 2 - Mean Differences in Perception on Levels of "Comfort” with Violent Behaviour

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

3.78

3.51

3.24 3.17

2.96 2.95

2.95

2.70 3.11

2.56 3.05

2.48

2.70

2.70

1.99 2.46

1.65 1.60

0.00

at school at people's homes against Women

Overall (Self) Overall (other) Females (self) Females (other) Males (self) Males (other)

Note: Overall effects are based on online and paper version data. Gender effects are based on paper version data only.


Gender differences indicate that male participants seem to have greater comfort than their

female counterparts do in all three contexts. This result echoes previous research in which males were

found to have higher comfort with violence as well (Williams & Neville, 2013).

As shown in Table 4, the bootstrapped t-test indicated that in two of the three tests for overall

effects, there was evidence of pluralistic ignorance. A significant difference was found in the

difference for comfort with violence at people’s homes, and in all three conditions for violence against

women. Results are clear in item-specific values comparing comfort with violence between own and

perception of other’s comfort with overall and gender effects.

Table 4

Average Difference Between Means Self and Perception of Other's "Comfort with Violent Behaviour".

Resampling Bootstrap for Paired-Samples t-Test Performed.

Context

At school

Other’s

comfort

Own

comfort

Differences between other’s comfort versus own comfort

M (SD) M (SD) Mean SE 95% CI t df Cohen’s

d

Overall 3.23 (1.84) 2.97 (2.06) 0.26 0.15 [-0.023, 0.548] 1.84 a 258 .11

Males 3.85 (1.89) 3.20 (2.14) 0.65 0.38 [-0.097, 1.452] 1.67 39 .26

Females 2.88 (1.80) 2.63 (2.01) 0.25 0.31 [-0.354, 0.891] 0.82 55 .11

At home

Overall 3.10 (1.85) 2.73 (2.08) 0.37 0.15 [0.073, 0.649] 2.52 *a 258 .16

Males 3.55 (1.84) 3.00 (2.14) 0.55 0.43 [-0.295, 1.369] 1.25 39 .20

Females 3.07 (1.97) 2.54 (1.91) 0.54 0.34 [-0.164, 1.245] 1.59 1 55 .21

Against

females

Overall 2.66 (1.88) 2.01 (1.96) 0.65 0.14 [0.382, 0.905] 4.71 ***a 258 .29

Males 2.70 (1.96) 1.61 (1.29) 1.88 0.29 [0.552, 1.639] 3.70 **a 39 .58

Females 2.42 (1.64) 1.70 (1.64) 0.72 0.28 [0.149, 1.290] 2.65 *a1 55 .35

Note: Overall effects are based on paper version and online version surveys together (n=259). Gender results are based on paper data

only, (n=51) females and (n=40) males. Statistically significant at * p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

When calculating with nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test: a Statistically significant. Between bootstrapped resample pairedsamples

t-Test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test, discrepancy was found only in overall effect at school. When compared to online version:

1 Statistically significant – see Appendix C for full results (p. 65).

37


Predictors of Attitudes Towards Violence

As Table 5 illustrates, a hierarchical multiple regression helped determine if the addition of

variables improved the prediction of ATV beyond the demographic and contextual variables.

Assessment of assumptions for HMR through Durbin-Watson statistic analysis indicated 1.95 for

analysis including gender (both survey versions), and 1.89 for effects from paper version only, both

confirming that independence of error residuals was met in both cases. No multicollinearity was found

in ATV values observed in correlation coefficients. Only one case of Studentized deleted residuals was

greater than ±3 standard deviations, but no issues were found with leverage values > 0.2, or Cook’s

distance > 1. The error residuals reached normal distribution as specified by Q-Q Plots and histograms.

These were compared with unstandardized predicted values, which revealed homoscedasticity of

residuals (equal error variances). Combined, these procedures indicate that most assumptions were

met, making the great majority suitable to fit in the regression model with valid results.

Partial regression plots, and plots of standardized (error differences) versus Studentized

residuals revealed that linearity was very weak in all variables – all r 2 values were below .05. Hence,

considering existing outliers, HMR with bootstrapping replacement was used to test the hypothesis that

incremental variance in social identity (national and school), social norms (pluralistic ignorance and

masculinity endorsement/agreement), attitudes towards school, and embodied sense of self, would

explain increments of variance in attitudes towards violence. All of the variables are statistically

significantly associated with positive attitudes towards violence, although to different degrees and in

different directions.

38

Social Norms

Victim


Table 5

Linear Model of Predictors of Attitudes towards Violence with 95% Bias Corrected accelerated

confidence intervals (CI). CIs and SE based on 3,000 bootstrap samples.

S

t

e

p

1

2

3

(Constant)

Age

Model 1

Demographic predictors

Attitudes Towards Violence

Model 2

Context predictors

Model 3

Theoretical predictors

Predictor variable B β B β B β

Family Affluence

Group belonging

Job

Gender a

Community violence

Victim = Maybe (dummy)

Victim = Probably (dummy)

Victim = Yes (dummy)

ESSS

Attitudes Towards School

Social Identity (National)

Social Identity (School)

Masculinity (Endorsement)

Masculinity (Adherence)

Pluralistic Ignor. Violence School

(Difference other – self)

Pluralistic Ignor. Violence Houses

(Difference other – self)

Pluralistic Ignor. Violence against

women (Difference other – self)

1.326 **

(1.60, 1.61)

0.022 ***

(0.022, 0.023)

0.059 **

(0.057, 0.060)

0.038 ***

(0.037, 0.039)

0.183 **

(0.185, 0.180)

0.099 **

(0.101, 0.097)

1.255 **

(1.495, 1.506)

0.08 0.016 ***

(0.016, 0.017)

0.07 0.067 **

(0.066, 0.069)

0.10 0.037 ***

(0.036, 0.037)

0.18 0.156 **

(0.159, 0.154)

0.11 -0.089 **

(0.091, 0.087)

0.013 ***

(0.012, 0.014)

0.168 **

(0.165, 0.171)

0.845 **

(0.838, 0.852)

0.109 **

(0.107, 0.112)

1.403 **

(1.586, 1.604)

0.06 0.005 ***

(0.005, 0.006)

0.08 0.044 **

(0.043, 0.046)

0.09 0.032 ***

(0.031, 0.033)

0.15 0.062 **

(0.064, 0.060)

0.10 0.130 **

(0.132, 0.128)

0.03 0.011 ***

(0.010, 0.012)

0.13 0.121 **

(0.118, 0.123)

0.24 0.414 **

(0.408, 0.421)

0.10 0.070 **

(0.068, 0.072)

0.015 **

(0.014, 0.016)

-0.062 ***

(-0.063, -0.061)

-0.040 ***

(-0.041, -0.039)

0.021 ***

(0.020, 0.022)

0.092 ***

(0.091, 0.092)

0.084 ***

(0.083, 0.085)

-0.022 ***

(-0.022, -0.021)

0.018 ***

(0.017, 0.018)

0.016 ***

(0.015, 0.016)

0.02

0.05

0.08

0.06

0.14

0.02

0.09

0.12

0.06

0.03

-0.16

-0.10

0.05

0.25

0.23

-0.11

0.09

0.08

R 2 adjusted .07 .14 .38

ΔR 2 .07 .07 .24

ΔF 12578.337 16571.123 34536.740

Note: β is the standardised regression coefficient. All SE Bs are <0.005. CIs reported in parentheses. ESSS = Embodied Sense of Self. Predictor

statistically significant at * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. a Gender data from both version surveys – paper and online.

39


In the first step, demographic variables were entered. Age, family affluence (SES), and the

number of groups the respondent belongs to, were independently associated with positive attitudes

towards violence (albeit weakly) 9 .

Quite the opposite was found, however, with relationships based on gender and on whether the

respondent has a job; both parameters seem to be associated with ATV in the opposite direction

expected. That is, because these are dichotomous variables, and because both being a male and not

having a job are coded as zero, a positive result indicates a higher score when compared to its

counterpart coded 1 (female in the gender variable, yes in the job variable). Since both coefficients

resulted positive, females score .13 higher in ATV in relation to males, and those who have a job

score .06 higher in ATV in relation to those who do not have a job. Only 7% was explained at this level

predicting ATV.

The second step involved context variables: community violence and being a victim of

violence (the latter one as a dummy variable). An almost null association of community violence was

found with ATV; in contrast, being a victim of violence was the opposite. Indeed, this was the strongest

of all predictors after accounting for demographic parameters. The victim variable was used as a

dummy as it has more than two categories (the reference category is No = 0, N = 176). Up to this point,

the variance explained 9% strength of association between the predictors and ATV.

Results in the final model for these predictors indicate that those who consider the possibility

of having suffered as victims score higher in ATV than those who know for certain that they have not

been victims of violence. Interestingly, those who affirm having been victims score .07 more (N=47),

and those who think they have probably been victims score .41 (N=5), while the least certain ones

9

Reliability for Family Affluence was very low. Therefore, consider caution with results from SES variable.

40


score .12 (N=38). It seems relevant to keep the number of participants in mind to draw any

conclusions. Perceiving oneself having suffered at least some degree of violence is positively related to

ATV, especially for those who feel they were probably victims.

The final model tested all theoretical variables to confirm or explore their role as predictors of ATV.

Considering all predictors, this model helped explain 24% of the variance in ATV. Either R 2 and adjusted R 2

for the overall model were 38%. The full model accounting for demographic variables, contextual

environment, and theoretical variables, statistically significantly predicted attitudes towards violence

F(5, 809244) = 12578.337, p < .001. The coefficient matrix indicated the highest positive

relationships between predictors and ATV were being a victim of violence and stronger endorsement

and adherence to masculinity norms.

From the two prior models reported thus far, variables in both previous models dropped in their

ability to predict ATV at this point, but the gender factor increased. Again, this was different from the

direction expected. Being a victim of violence remained relevantly associated. This is in line with the

expected outcomes, as well as with previous research related to violence (WHO, 2017; McAlinden,

2014; Wolke & Skew, 2012, p. 105), where victims use protective factors such as inhibition of fear and

apathetic indifference (Howe, 2005, p. 102 and 178), thus, intensifying positive attitudes towards

violence. A potential response to their experience, is reacting by promoting punitive approaches

towards those with whom they interact.

41


Discussion

The present research considered a wide-ranging human approach to understanding sociopsychological

identity and normative aspects that may influence perception and attitudes leading to

potentially violent behaviour. Through quantitative methods, a survey and two tests were conducted to

respond to two questions. I present the results for the first question next:

1) Is there a significant difference in levels of discomfort towards violent behaviour between

the Mexican adolescent (self) and his or her peers (others), considering three contexts – school,

people’s houses, and against women?

Results for the first question showed expected differences between levels of discomfort

towards violent behaviour when comparing the respondent answers with those of others in two of the

three overall effects. Adolescent participants misjudged their own level of discomfort with those of

others in all three contexts, which was the expected result. Of these, overall effects were significant in

the context of houses and against females. They were not significant in the school context, where also

the difference reveals to be narrower when compared with the contexts of people’s houses and against

females. Nevertheless, the significance level seems to be closest when looking at its CIs; this may

reflect less disproportion between the perception and the norm.

In these Mexican communities, these numbers may point to higher discomfort in reduced social

contexts where the respondent may assume that the relationship is more personal and where he or she

could have a higher internalised judgment about the individual acting violently. This was especially

revealing in a violent situation against females.

Consistent with previous research, a much more noticeable difference was captured from male

respondents, equivalent to higher over-estimation of the norm in every context. Interestingly, in the

female situation, they have an overwhelmingly higher difference compared to any other context. Not

42


only that, their own self-comfort to violence appears to be significantly lower than that of the female

respondents. This may explain much of the gender violence that is recurrent in the Mexican society, as

males may turn to violent behaviour against women due to high misjudgement of what the accepted

norm is in terms of behaviour towards females.

It is imperative to keep in mind that the effects reported in this test had different sample sizes.

The overall effects are based on paper and online results, which is only the 41% of the total sample.

For this reason, presented results for gender may be at odds when significance levels that are not

statistical. They nevertheless do expose the importance of approaching communities alike to these ones

with a social norms approach that address pluralistic ignorance. In other words, a social program with

this approach would be relevant for these communities, especially concerning interpersonal violence

occurring in the house context. This may have implications for the behaviour at home where violent

behaviour may be repeated by young citizens who seem to hold larger misperceptions of social norms

at home and against females (e.g. Ganz, Ward, Neville, & Kassanjeec, 2018).

Next, the second question involved theoretical variables after controlling for demographic

variables (age, gender, group belonging, and having a job) and context variables (community violence

and being a victim), in order to find out:

2) Can the specific identity and normative effects of the theoretical variables involved (i.e.

embodied, community, and national spheres of the self, and the gender and social aspects) predict

ATV? To what degree are these important predictors? which would help explain how much extra

variation do they explain in the final model.

Salient results indicating that female respondents report having higher positive attitudes

towards violence. After learning from the previous test that precisely women reveal being more

43


concerned about violent behaviour in all contexts, finding higher attitudes towards violence could

explain that males, often being the ones more exposed to violence, experience a conflict to fit in the

norm and may indicate internal resistance to adopt that norm. Since more females than males report

the existence of violence in their community, they may perceive more danger. Balanced this with the

fact that females are frequently targets of violence, this may reveal a trend in which female

adolescents, feeling vulnerable, feel that a resource to defend themselves is adopting punitive

approaches. This, paired with victim results, confirm that slightly more women seemed to have been

victims. At this point, it is important to consider the wording of this question, given that four options

(no, maybe, probably, yes) allow for ambiguity. In both cases, probably was the most salient. This may

reflect the normalisation of underreported experiences of victims, due to potential threats or because of

difficulty to accept that as part of their self-identity.

Finding more positive attitudes towards violence among those who work was also revealing.

However, considering that violence is often more recurrent in contexts where there is more stress in

terms of the living conditions, thus a product of societal constraints, many of these adolescents may

find themselves caught in the stresses of subsisting and pressured to help their families. These may

overstretch their limits. At the same time, experiencing the responsibility of a job could expose them to

further norms to which they feel they need to conform. Interestingly, from this sample, more males

than females work, which may reveal potential factors that males face, and reasons that may lead them

to act violently, such as responsibility pressures.

Finally, the highest predictor of ATV, masculinity norms, was very illuminating in two ways.

First, confirming previous findings in the literature, observations indicate that holding masculinity

norms do represent a high factor in ATV. Unsurprisingly, more boys in this sample reported holding

masculinity norms. Therefore, it holds that those who identify with masculine behaviour could be more

44


prone to reflect violent behaviour. The second illuminating factor is that the difference between the

reports of endorsement (referring to others) compared to reports of adherence (referring to self) reflect

strong similitudes with the pluralistic ignorance effect. Once more, social norms, now explained under

a more specific dimension (masculinity), stress the importance of this approach to shift attitudes that

may lead to violent behaviour.

Noticing that results in this research highlight the social aspect remind us of their importance.

However, this is not to undermine the self-identity biopsychological aspect involved. In my view, the

Embodied Sense of Self Scale, while appearing as a minimal predictor, it is significant and does bring

to attention the need for a more established scale and other measures of research that can reflect the

importance of this link.

Limitations

Results from this study enlighten literature and point to crucial approaches to shift behaviour in

the adolescent Mexican society. Notwithstanding, it is important to keep these results with caution

given the strong limitations under which this research was conducted. The most salient limitations lie

in the end sample due to recruitment difficulties, in how they self-identify due to differences in the

Mexican context, and in technical issues related to measures and during the analysis phase.

There was a lack of representative sample. Follow through reporting from schools made clear

that six out of nine institutions/schools had difficulties obtaining parental permission despite

personalized follow up by coordinators. Most of these participants have never participated in a survey,

not to mention research related to violence (which was made clear in the invitation). Either lack of

interest specifically in the survey, lack of parental involvement in youth’s schooling, or concern that

45


their children would be put at risk of threats (suspicion of hidden scam through the invitation) or other

forms of danger (e.g. children being kidnapped by narco-gangs) were reported by the schools xvi .

Other factors that add to lack of representation is the fact that belonging to a school or

organisation makes these youth already better positioned in society (e.g. Haslam, Jetten, Postmes, &

Haslam, 2009), than the rest of youth. Also, the striking difference in numbers among the states and

institutions. The mestizo (European mixed identities) hold very different views and experiences than

those of indigenous identities (Eller, Cakal, & Sirlopu, 2016, p. 298), just one example is the state of

Oaxaca, where the experience of violence can be experienced differently. These issues indicate that the

actual sample in this study can report only to a limited degree the characteristics that lie in the actual

Mexican population, it also means that results cannot be generalised to other populations.

Additionally, while a national identity in a survey related to violence was inquired, a very

different outcome could be if the participants could have had a point of reference with another nation

(for example if compared to the U.S. population just as a close point of reference), where they could

have gauged the national identity as linked to more or less violence. Thus, links to national identity and

violence cannot be drawn with this limitation. Along these lines, the current shifting situation in

Mexico may also present a problematic question in identity, especially at the national border. The north

state of Chihuahua, for example, commented that they had been witnessing “many recent deportations

happening” (personal comment), which are reflected in the population shift and may have an impact in

youth being conflicted when asked if they identify as Mexicans.

Lastly, technical difficulties posed substantial obstructions. The fact that this was a selfreported

survey, may give different results from other types of research. The lack of an appropriate

measure of embodiment makes brings a challenge to link back to the important effect of this aspect in

attitudes and behaviour. Moreover, technical difficulties with gender information being lost for the

46


majority of the sample, which responded online, made it difficult to have a real picture of the

differences in gender.

Implications and Future Directions

This research offers a number of contributions to the current literature and for practice. First, it

offers a diverse sample, not based only on university students. Especially, it focuses on adolescents of

diverse backgrounds within the diversity of the Mexican states. Thusly, it offers a special terrain to

study social norms to test assumptions learned in the literature and with the possibility to expand to

related links such as masculinity norms and social identity. In specific, it confirmed pluralistic

ignorance effects in related aspects of violence, such as masculinity norms. With this, it opens the

potential to address potentially cost-effective approaches to the critical pervasive issue of violence in

Mexico (for example, through the involvement of campaigns that instigate similar acts inspired in

positive peace psychology among citizens). With these, this study brings attention to the need of

practice in social psychology – a heightened value to the field becoming involved in the community, in

action, in influencing the lives of individuals. Finally, it invites to extend in an interdisciplinary fashion

to aspects that could further evolve explanations of human behaviour and action based on the brain

with an integrative comprehension on the body.

Results for this study enlighten the literature in several ways and point to crucial approaches to

shift behaviour in the adolescent. Future research is critical for the Mexican context, and for this field,

presenting a promising value for practice.

Research in schools both facilitates reaching a large population and presents a challenge to

work with underage participants. Increased adaptable ways to work with schools are critical, especially

when it comes to international research. Assumptions of cultural respect need to account for the

47


perspective of the locals and what they consider makes them being respected and valued. International

research that bridges collaboration and heightened understanding and support of such a personal, local,

and global subject, is extremely important in our current world as shared difficulties need for ongoing

mutual support. Increased communication and understanding need to exist both ways in order to work

for all involved. There will be more shared benefits than hindrances when working in synchrony. For

this, increasing public participation is key, and perhaps a point in parallel can be drawing from

knowledgeable fellows in other fields (e.g. anthropology, youth work, Mexicans in similar fields

familiar with the context) and increasing thus the force towards real utility.

Research in social norms has presented promising results in other youth settings, this work

confirms its promise for the Mexican context as it will not only support the gap in literature

internationally but also increase the wellbeing in the living conditions of citizens in a critical state of

harm. Longitudinal studies will strengthen the rigour in evidence and increase the value of costeffective

interventions. Continued research with the Mexican population in comparison with other

populations will also help confirm knowledge in how the link attitudes-behaviour works in the

adolescent and increase veracity. Holding the future, it is meaningful to work with the young Mexican

population, as this can signify an avenue to avoid an increased climate of conflict that would

undermine further the development and the accomplishments fo far in civility and democratisation

(Marc, Willman, Aslam, Rebosio, & Balasuriya, 2013, p. 147).

Views of the human being have been divided for most of the history of psychology influenced

since the time of Descartes (1596-1650), with some increasing recent interest in holistic perspectives.

Advancing research further, a scale or combined measure needs to be created for embodiment and

sense of self, which can reflect the aspects involved in brain-body behaviour, with an inclusive

approach learning from the field of social psychology, social neuroscience, and sociology, and having

48


the ecology of the human experience. As previous literature has exposed, more systematic and

operational measures of the embodiment are necessary to conduct empirical research (Longo, Schüür,

Kammers, Tsakiris, & Haggard, 2008, p. 979) in such a way that can reach wider situational contexts

and applications to the human experience.

Attention has been placed in involving social psychology in the national and local policymaking

arena (Brown et al., 2012, p. 227). Furthering this ability where social psychologists are

positioned given their capacity to analyse and evaluate, there is a need for stronger field-centred social

psychology that can participate in promoting peace, including discourses that start at the individual

level, where these attitudes and behaviours can be shifted from the root to fulfil a living applied

discipline. That is, it is vital getting involved in the action of practical usefulness for the lives of

individuals who make society, and who are the initial and the final participant in violence.

49


Conclusion

Underlining a psychosocial-ecological perspective to understand paradigms that reinforce

attitudes that may lead to violent behaviour, analyses with a distinct convergence of context and

approach were made available. These offer further evidence that social norms are central in the

dynamics of attitudes, and a worthwhile effort for both research and intervention. Social norms

approach to reduce violence have been considered for decades (Acklin, 1995, p. 1). Yet, they need to

be integrated into the larger contextual and cultural discourse (Brion-Meisels & Garnett, 2016, p. 249),

especially in societies where violent behaviour is highly proliferated by the media and authority forces,

which represent a striking contrast in power relations. These figures may instigate violence and

essentialist 10 views, and with it, in-group bias and prejudice. Thus, stronger cohesion is key.

Manifest violent behaviour is only a hint of a more complex challenge that individuals and

societies confront. Its actors extend well beyond victims-perpetrators, and its consequences extend

well beyond what is seen in a random eventuality. While at different degrees, it involves all members

of society and there lies the responsibility to take action at the individual level. For social change

towards a more cohesive society, this emphasises the need to reach a point in which the individuals can

see themselves as capable of effecting transformation, extended beyond short-lived unanimity, into

resilient continuous acts reaching to the collective identity. Drury and Reicher (2009) explain it as a

dynamic process involving “the actors’ own practices in intergroup contexts” (p. 708). To influence

these dynamics, social norms denote an encouraging prosperous avenue that concerns actions across

interventions, public policy, and research.

10

Essentialism: holding a belief that “all members of a given social category are the same” (Peter B. Smith et al., 2013, p.

313)

50


References

Acklin, M. W. (1995). Understanding and Preventing Violence. The American Journal of Psychiatry,

152(1), 141. http://doi.org/10.2307/2074491

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior (1st ed.).

Englewood Cliffs, N.J., U.S.A.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Asai, T., Kanayama, N., Imaizumi, S., Koyama, S., & Kaganoi, S. (2016). Development of embodied

sense of self scale (ESSS): Exploring everyday experiences induced by anomalous selfrepresentation.

Frontiers in Psychology, 7(JUL), 1–12. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01005

Ayon, L. (2014). Raising social awareness among Mexican adolescents about aggression through

Creative Movement and Peace Education. California State University, East Bay.

Baird, A. A. (2008). Adolescent Moral Reasoning. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral Psychology

Vol. 3 - The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Brain Disorders, and Development. (3rd ed., pp.

323–341). Cambridge, MA.: A Bradford Book | The MIT Press.

Bjerring, J. C., Hansen, J. U., & Pedersen, N. J. L. L. (2014). On the rationality of pluralistic

ignorance. Synthese. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0434-1

Brion-Meisels, G., & Garnett, B. R. (2016). Toward an integrated theory of relational youth violence:

Bridging a gap among the theory, research, and practice of bullying prevention. Contemporary

School Psychology, 20(3), 240–253. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-015-0080-8

Brown, R., De Visser, R., Dittmar, H., Drury, J., Farsides, T., Jessop, D., & Sparks, P. (2012). Social

psychology and policymaking: Past neglect, future promise. Public Policy Research, 18(4), 227–

234. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-540X.2012.00670.x

Brundtland, G. H. (2002). Violence Prevention: A Public Health Approach. JAMA, 288(13).

Chu, J. Y., Porche, M. V., & Tolman, D. L. (2005). The Adolescent Masculinity Ideology in

51


Relationships Scale - Development and Validation of a New Measure for Boys. Men and

Masculinities, 8(1), 93–115. http://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X03257453

Correa-Cabrera, G., Garrett, T., & Keck, M. (2014). Administrative surveillance and fear: Implications

for U.S.-Mexico border relations and governance. European Review of Latin American and

Caribbean Studies, 96(96), 35–53.

Currie, C., Molcho, M., Boyce, W., Holstein, B., Torsheim, T., & Richter, M. (2008). Researching

health inequalities in adolescents: The development of the Health Behaviour in School-Aged

Children (HBSC) Family Affluence Scale. Social Science and Medicine, 66(6), 1429–1436.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.024

DEECD. (2014). The Attitudes to School Survey. Retrieved from

http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/principals/management/Pages/performsurveyat.aspx

Doll, L. S., Bonzo, S. E., Sleet, D. A., Mercy, J. A., & Haas, E. N. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of Injury

and Violence Prevention. Atlanta, GA.: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived Intragroup Variability as a Function of Group

Status and Identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

http://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1995.1018

Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (2009). Collective psychological empowerment as a model of social change:

Researching crowds and power. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 707–725.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01622.x

Eller, A., Cakal, H., & Sirlopu, D. (2016). Identity, Contact, and Health Among Majority and Minority

Ethnic Groups in Mexico and Chile. In Understanding Peace and Conflict Through Social

Identity Theory (pp. 295–315). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29869-6

52


Finlay, L., & Langdridge, D. (2007). Embodiment. In W. Hollway, H. Lucey, & A. Phoenix (Eds.),

Social Psychology Matters (pp. 173–198). Maidenhead, U.K.: Open University Press.

Funk, J. B., Elliot, R., Urman, M. L., Flores, G. T., & Mock, R. M. (1999a). Attitudes Tw Violence

Scale - A Measure for Adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(No. 11), 1123–1136.

Funk, J. B., Elliot, R., Urman, M. L., Flores, G. T., & Mock, R. M. (1999b). The Attitudes Towards

Violence Scale - A Measure for Adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(11), 1123–

1136.

Ganz, G., Neville, F. G., & Ward, C. L. (2017). Applying behavioural science to issues of public health

in South Africa : The case for social norms intervention. South African Journal of Science, 113(5),

1–5. http://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2017/20160217

Ganz, G., Ward, C. L., Neville, F. G., & Kassanjeec, R. (2018). Social norms and child discipline:

Findings from a cross-sectional study Gary Ganz. In Press.

Glasman, L. R., & Albarracín, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A metaanalysis

of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 778–822.

http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778

Gottfredson, D. C., & Bauer, E. L. (2007). Interventions to Prevent Youth Violence. In L. S. Doll, S. E.

Bonzo, D. A. Sleet, J. A. Mercy, & E. N. Haas (Eds.), Handbook of Injury and Violence

Prevention (pp. 157–181). Atlanta, GA.: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

Han, S., & Northoff, G. (2009). Understanding the self: a cultural neuroscience approach. Progress in

Brain Research (Vol. 178). Elsevier. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(09)17814-7

Hartley, J. E. K., Levin, K., & Currie, C. (2016). A new version of the HBSC Family Affluence Scale -

FAS III: Scottish Qualitative Findings from the International FAS Development Study. Child

Indicators Research, 9(1), 233–245. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-015-9325-3

53


Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & Haslam, C. (2009). Social identity, health and well-being: An

emerging agenda for applied psychology. Applied Psychology, 58(1), 1–23.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00379.x

Hidalgo-Rasmussen, C., & Hidalgo-San Martín, A. (2015). Violencia e inseguridad contextual

percibida y roles en bullying en escolares mexicanos (Incomplete). Revista Latinoamericana de

Ciencias Sociales, Niñez Y Juventud, 13(2), 767–779.

http://doi.org/10.11600/1692715x.13215021214

Hine, J., & Wood, J. (2010). Working with Young People: Emergent Themes. In J. Wood & J. Hine

(Eds.), Work with Young People (2nd ed., pp. 247–255). London, U.K.

Hoaglin, D. C., & Iglewicz, B. (1987). Fine-Tuning Some Resistant Rules for Outlier Labeling.

Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82(400), 1147–1149.

Hoaglin, D. C., Iglewicz, B., & Tukey, J. W. (1986). Performance of Some Resistant Performance

Rules for Labeling Outlier. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 991–999.

http://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1986.10478363

Howe, D. (2005). Child Abuse and Neglect - Attachment, Development, and Intervention. London:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Hutcheson, G. D., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The Multivariate Social Scientist: Introductory Statistics

Using Generalized Linear Models.

INEGI. (2017). Datos Preliminares Revelan que en 2016 se registraron 23 mil 953 homicidios.

Comunicacion Social | Comunicado de Prensa.

Kidd, W., & Teagle, A. (2012). Culture & Identity (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Longo, M. R., Schüür, F., Kammers, M. P. M., Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2008). What is

embodiment? A psychometric approach. Cognition, 107(3), 978–998.

54


http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.004

Marc, A., Willman, A., Aslam, G., Rebosio, M., & Balasuriya, K. (2013). Societal Dynamics and

Fragility - Engaging Societies in Responding to Fragile Situations. New Frontiers of Social

Policy. Washington: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank.

McAlinden, A.-M. (2014). Deconstructing Victim and offender Identities in Discourses on Child

Sexual Abuse: Hierarchies, Blame and the Good/Evil Dialectic. British Journal of Criminology,

54(2), 180–198. http://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azt070

McKeown, S., Haji, R., & Ferguson, N. (Eds.). (2016). Social Identity and Peace Psychology: An

Introduction. In Understanding Peace and Conflict Through Social Identity Theory -

Contemporary Global Perspectives (Peace Psyc, pp. xv–xx). Bristol, U.K.: Springer.

http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29869-6

Mexico Evalua. (2018). México Evalúa presenta programas de prevención de violencia y delitos en el

país - México Evalúa. Retrieved January 14, 2018, from

http://mexicoevalua.org/2017/05/31/mexico-evalua-presenta-programas-de-prevencion-deviolencia-y-delitos-en-el-pais/

Neville, F. G. (2015). Preventing Violence Through Changing Social Norms. In P. Donnelly & C. Ward

(Eds.), Oxford Textbook of Violence Prevention: Epidemiology, Evidence, and Policy (pp. 239–

244). Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199678723.001.0001

Neville, F. G. (2015). Preventing Violence Through Changing Social Norms. In Oxford Textbook of

Violence Prevention: Epidemiology, Evidence, and Policy (pp. 1–18).

Neville, F. G., Goodall, C. A., Gavine, A. J., Williams, D. J., & Donnelly, P. D. A. I.-O. http://orcid.

org/000.-0001-7377-4507. (2015). Public health, youth violence, and perpetrator well-being.

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 21(3), 322–333.

55


http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pac0000081

Nicolson, P. (2014). A Critical Approach to Human Growth and Development. London, U.K.: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005a). Embodiment

in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Pers Soc Psychol Rev, 9(3), 184–211.

http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_1

Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005b). Embodiment

in Attitudes , Social Perception, and Emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(3),

184–211. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_1

OCDE. (2017). Estudio de la OCDE sobre Integridad en Mexico | Aspectos Claves - Adoptando una

Politica firme contra la currupcion. OCDE Mejores Politicas para una Vida Mejor.

Paluck, E. L., Shepherd, H., & Aronow, P. M. (2016). Changing climates of conflict: a social network

experiment in 56 schools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States

of America, 113(3), 566–571. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514483113

Parales Quenza, J. C. (2009). National Identity, Anomie and Mental Health in Latin America. Current

Sociology, 57(6), 851–870. http://doi.org/10.1177/0011392109342222

Perkins, H. W., Craig, D. W., & Perkins, J. M. (2011). Using social norms to reduce bullying: A

research intervention among adolescents in five middle schools. Group Processes & Intergroup

Relations, 14(5), 703–722. http://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210398004

Peter B. Smith, Fischer, R., Vignoles, V. L., & Bond, M. H. (2013). Understanding Social Psychology

Across Cultures - Engaging with Others in a Changing World (2nd ed.). London, U.K.: Sage

Publications Ltd.

Ponce, A. F. (2016). Cárteles de droga, violencia y competitividad electoral a nivel local: Evidencia del

56


caso mexicano. Latin American Research Review, 51(4), 62–85.

http://doi.org/10.1353/lar.2016.0049

Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some

consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

64(2), 243–256. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.243

Reynolds, K. J., Subašić, E., & Tindall, K. (2015). The problem of behaviour change: From social

norms to an ingroup focus. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(1), 45–56.

http://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12155

Rogers, A. A., Updegraff, K. A., Santos, C. E., & Martin, C. L. (2017). Masculinity and school

adjustment in middle school. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 18(1), 50–61.

http://doi.org/10.1037/men0000041

Ruvalcaba, N. A., Gallegos, J., Borges, A., & Gonzalez, N. (2017). Extracurricular activities and group

belonging as a protective factor in adolescence. Psicología Educativa, 23(1), 45–51.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2016.09.001

Schuman, H., & Johnson, M. P. (1976). Attitudes and behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, (10524).

Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/attitudes.html

Shilling, C. (1993). The Body in Social Theory (2nd ed.). London, U.K.: Sage Publications.

Slutkin, G. (2013). Violence is a Contagious Disease. Contagion of Violence: Workshop Summary, (1),

94–111.

Spaulding, S. (2012). Introduction to debates on embodied social cognition. Phenomenology and the

Cognitive Sciences, 11(4), 431–448. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-012-9275-x

Teall, T. L. (2015). A Quantitative Study of the Developmental Theory of Embodiment: Implications to

Health and Well-Being.

57


The World Bank Group. (2018). Mexican Youth: Authors and Victims of Violence. Retrieved January

14, 2018, from http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/03/05/mexican-youth-authorsand-victims-of-violence

Tukey, J. W. (1993). Exploratory Data Analysis: Past, Present and Future.

http://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.4710230408

Turner, J. C. (1991). Social Influence. Berkshire, U.K.: Open University press.

WHO. (2009). Changing cultural and social norms that support violence Series of briefings on

violence prevention. In Violence Prevention - The Evidence.

WHO. (2017). Violence Info – A global knowledge platform for preventing violence. Retrieved

January 5, 2018, from http://apps.who.int/violence-info/

WHO. (2018). WHO | 10 facts about violence prevention. Retrieved January 13, 2018, from

http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/violence/en/

Williams, D. J., & Neville, F. G. (2013). Mentors in Violence Prevention: Evaluation of the pilot in

Scotish High Schools. St. Andrews Fife, Scotland.: Scottish Violence Reduction Unit.

Winkielman, P., Niedenthal, P., Wielgosz, J., Eelen, J., & Kavanagh, L. C. (2015). Embodiment of

cognition and emotion. APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 1: Attitudes

and Social Cognition., 1, 151–175. http://doi.org/10.1037/14341-004

Wolke, D., & Skew, A. J. (2012). Family factors, bullying victimisation and wellbeing in adolescents.

Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3(1), 101–119.

World Health Organization. (2002). World Report on Violence and Health: Summary. Geneva: WHO

Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

58


APPENDIX A. SURVEY

Youth Participant Survey

Dear youth participant, we appreciate your voluntary participation in this research. Your voice and experience are

important. Please listen carefully to the audio with instructions and follow the directions. If you have any

questions, please ask the facilitator of this study. Keep in mind that including these ideas here does not mean that

researchers endorse them or agree with them. Remember: we are interested in what you really think not what you

think we or others want to see. Your answers will not be distributed or shared with anyone else other than the

study team. Your responses will be treated with respect, no matter what your responses are.

Today’s Date: ______/______/______ Age: _______ I identify myself as (Gender): ____________

• Are you in school? Yes No What is the last grade you completed? _______________________

Institution/Organization/School name ______________________________________________________

• Do you have a job? Yes No What is your job? _________________________________________

• Please check the groups you belong to: ___ School ___ Church ___ Sports ___ Extracurricular activities

___ Gang ___ Job ___ Associations Specify: __________________________________________________

• I consider that there is violence in my community (please circle one):

Yes, very much Yes, somewhat Don’t know No, not really No, definitely not

• Which of the following best describes who you live with? (please circle or fill in as necessary):

Both parents One parent _____________ Adopted family Other arrangement:________________

• Does your family own a car, van, or truck? Please

specify

No Yes, one Yes, two or more

• Do you have your own bedroom for yourself?

Yes No

Please

None One Two More than two

• How many computers does your specify family own?

(including desktop, laptop, tablets, not including game

consoles or smartphones)

None One Two More than two

• How many full bathrooms

(room with a bath/shower or both) are in your

home?

• How many times did you and your family travel

out of Mexico for a holiday/vacation last year?

None Once Twice More than twice

Please circulate the number to indicate to what degree

do you agree or disagree with these statements:

Strongly

Disagree

Strongly

Agree

1. I see myself as Mexican 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. I am pleased to be a member of this school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

59


About you: circle the number that is closest to

how you feel about other people’s behavior in

your school.

Strongly

Disagree

Strongly

Agree

3. I feel comfortable with violent behaviour at school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. I feel comfortable with violent behaviour in people’s homes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. I feel comfortable with violent behaviour against females 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. I feel comfortable with alcohol drinking habits of most

students at school

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. I feel comfortable with drug consumption habits of most

students at school

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. I identify with other Mexicans 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How do you see others? Circle the number that is

closest to how others feel about common

behaviour of the majority in your school.

8. The average student at my school feels comfortable

with violent behaviour at school


with violent behaviour in people’s homes


with violent behaviour against females

11. The average student at my school feels comfortable with

alcohol drinking habits of most students at school

12. The average student at my school feels comfortable with

drug consumption habits of most students at school

Strongly

Disagree

Strongly

Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. I am pleased to be a Mexican 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How do you feel about your school? Circle the number

to evaluate what is closest to your regular experience.

Strongly

Disagree

Strongly

Agree

14. I feel positive at school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. I feel cheerful at school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. I feel relaxed at school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. I feel energized at school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. I feel happy at school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. I feel uneasy at school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20. I feel negative at school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21. I feel frustrated at school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22. I feel tense at school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23. I feel depressed at school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24. I see myself as a member of this school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

What do you think about boys?

Strongly

Disagree

Strongly

Agree

25. A boy cannot gain respect if he backs down from a fight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26. If a boy has a problem with someone, he should be willing to fight

them.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27. It is necessary for a boy to fight others in order for him to gain

respect.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

60


28. Fighting others is something a boy has to do in order to prove

himself to his friends.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29. If someone wants to fight a boy, he should try to walk away. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30. I cannot respect a friend who backs down from a fight. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31. If I have a problem with someone, I am willing to fight them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32. It is necessary for me to fight others in order to gain respect. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33. Fighting others is something I have to do in order to prove myself

to my friends.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34. If someone wants to fight me, I try to walk away. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

35. I feel strong ties with Mexico 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Now, a few questions about your thoughts and perspectives about some actions related to violence.

Please pay attention to the text and select one option from the right side words from each statement.

36. It’s bad to have a knife. No Maybe Probably Yes

37. Parents should not tell their kids to fight if they have to. No Maybe Probably Yes

38. It’s okay to carry a knife if you live in a rough neighbourhood. No Maybe Probably Yes

39. I think it’s too dangerous for people my age to carry a knife. No Maybe Probably Yes

40. If a person hits you, you should not hit them back. No Maybe Probably Yes

41. People who use knives get respect. No Maybe Probably Yes

42. I’m afraid of getting stabbed. No Maybe Probably Yes

43. I’d feel safer if I had a knife. No Maybe Probably Yes

44. If a person tries to start a fight with you, then you should not walk away. No Maybe Probably Yes

45. I would join a gang. No Maybe Probably Yes

46. People with knives are not cool. No Maybe Probably Yes

47. Parents should tell their kids to fight if they have to. No Maybe Probably Yes

48. I try to stay away from places where I could get hurt. No Maybe Probably Yes

49. Teenagers who are in gangs know what they are talking about. No Maybe Probably Yes

50. It’s good to have a knife. No Maybe Probably Yes

51. It’s okay to beat up a person for bad-mouthing me or my family. No Maybe Probably Yes

52. It’s not okay to carry a knife, even if you live in a rough neighbourhood. No Maybe Probably Yes

53. If a person hits you, you should hit them back. No Maybe Probably Yes

54. People who use knives don’t get respect. No Maybe Probably Yes

55. It’s okay to do whatever it takes to protect myself. No Maybe Probably Yes

56. It’s a good idea to hang out with people in gangs. No Maybe Probably Yes

57. If a person tries to start a fight with you, then you should walk away. No Maybe Probably Yes

58. People with knives are cool. No Maybe Probably Yes

59. Have you been victim of violence yourself? No Maybe Probably Yes

60. I would not join a gang. No Maybe Probably Yes

Strongly

Disagree

Strongly

Agree

61. I identify with the other members of this school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Strongly

Strongly

Finally, a few questions about you.

Disagree

Agree

62. Sometimes I feel that I no longer know my own personality. 1 2 3 4 5

63. No matter how hard I concentrate, unrelated thoughts intrude upon my thinking. 1 2 3 4 5

61


64. I tend to drop things when I carry things around. 1 2 3 4 5

65. It seems like the person I was in the past

and the person I am today are completely different.

1 2 3 4 5

66. Sometimes it feels like my body is jerky like a robot. 1 2 3 4 5

67. My personality changes depending on the setting and the situation. 1 2 3 4 5

68. I have been told that my voice is too loud. 1 2 3 4 5

69. Sometimes my existence seems to lack a sense of reality. 1 2 3 4 5

70. I feel like sometimes people misunderstand my personality. 1 2 3 4 5

71. I sometimes bump into things or people when I am out walking. 1 2 3 4 5

72. When a song gets stuck in my head, it is really hard to turn it off. 1 2 3 4 5

73. I sometimes recall things that make me smile to myself. 1 2 3 4 5

Strongly

Disagree

Strongly

Agree

74. I feel strong ties with the members of this school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

For a similar project, would you tell us your thoughts about what do you think can be done

to improve the school culture with respect to bullying and violence?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND HELP IN THIS STUDY.

Your insight will be very helpful to improve understanding and application of programs for youth like you in Mexican communit ies.

If you are interested in learning about the results, you can contact us at ma797@sussex.ac.uk

62


APPENDIX B. ETHICAL APPROVAL

Certificate of Approval

Sciences & Technology C-REC

crecscitec@admin.susx.ac.uk

Reference Number ER/MA797/1

Title Of Project A Study of Attitudes Towards Violence Among Mexican Youth

Principal Investigator (PI): John Drury

Student Xxxxxx Xxxx

Collaborators

Duration Of Approval 3 months

Expected Start Date 24-Mar-2017

Date Of Approval 24-May-2017

Approval Expiry Date 03-Aug-2017

Approved By David Reby

Name of Authorised Signatory Anna Hobbs

Date 24-May-2017

*NB. If the actual project start date is delayed beyond 12 months of the expected start date, this Certificate of

Approval will lapse and the project will need to be reviewed again to take account of changed circumstances

such as legislation, sponsor requirements and University procedures.

Please note and follow the requirements for approved submissions: Amendments to protocol

* Any changes or amendments to approved protocols must be submitted to the C-REC for authorisation

prior to implementation.

Feedback regarding the status and conduct of approved projects

* Any incidents with ethical implications that occur during the implementation of the project must be

reported immediately to the Chair of the C-REC.

Feedback regarding any adverse(1) and unexpected events(2)

* Any adverse (undesirable and unintended) and unexpected events that occur during the implementation

of the project must be reported to the Chair of the Science and Technology C-REC. In the event of a

serious adverse event, research must be stopped immediately and the Chair alerted within 24 hours of

the occurrence.

Monitoring of Approved studies

The University may undertake periodic monitoring of approved studies. Researchers will be requested to report

on the outcomes of research activity in relation to approvals that were granted (full applications and

amendments).

Research Standards

63


Failure to conduct University research in alignment with the Code of Practice for Research may be investigated

under the Procedure for the Investigation of Allegations of Misconduct in Research or other appropriate

internal mechanisms (3). Any queries can be addressed to the Research Governance Office:

rgoffice@sussex.ac.uk

(1) An "adverse event" is one that occurs during the course of a research protocol that either causes physical or

psychological harm, or increases the risk of physical or psychological harm, or results in a loss of privacy

and/or confidentiality to research participant or others.

(2) An "unexpected event" is an occurrence or situation during the course of a research project that was a)

harmful to a participant taking part in the research, or b) increased the probability of harm to participants

taking part in the research.

(3) http://www.sussex.ac.uk/staff/research/rqi/policy/research-policy

64


APPENDIX C. COMPARATIVE TESTS

Table 1

Paired samples t-TEST (with bootstrapping) - paper Respondents - males

Bootstrap for Paired Samples Test

Pair

2

Pair

3

Pair

4

PI- 10. The regular student at

my school is not bothered by

violent behaviour at school. - PI-

3. I am not bothered by violent

behaviour at school.



violent behaviour in people’s

homes. - PI- 4. I am not

bothered by violent behaviour in

people’s homes.



violent behaviour against

women. - PI- 5. I am not

bothered by violent behaviour

against women.

Bootstrap a

Std. Sig. (2-

BCa 95%

Confidence

Interval

Mean Bias Error tailed) Lower Upper

0.65 0.00 0.38 0.09 -0.10 1.45

0.55 -0.01 0.43 0.22 -0.30 1.37

1.09 0.00 0.29 0.01 0.55 1.64

a. Unless otherwise noted, bootstrap results are based on 3000 bootstrap samples

Effect

size, d=

0.26362

0.19768

0.58464

65


Table 2

Paired samples t-TEST (with bootstrapping) - paper Respondents - females

Pair

2

Pair

3

Pair

4

PI- 10. The regular student at my

school is not bothered by violent

behaviour at school. - PI- 3. I am not

bothered by violent behaviour at

school.



behaviour in people’s homes. - PI-

4. I am not bothered by violent

behaviour in people’s homes.



behaviour against women. - PI- 5. I

am not bothered by violent

behaviour against women.


Mean

Bias

Std.

Error

Bootstrap a

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

BCa 95%

Confidence

Interval

Lower

Upper

effect

size,

d=

0.25 0.01 0.31 0.44 -0.35 0.89 0.11

0.54 0.01 0.34 0.12 -0.16 1.25 0.21

0.72 0.00 0.28 0.01 0.15 1.29 0.35


66


Table 3

Paired samples t-TEST (with bootstrapping) - online Respondents - males

Pair

2

Pair

3

Pair

4

PI- 10. The regular

student at my school

is not bothered by

violent behaviour at

school. - PI- 3. I am

not bothered by


school.

PI- 11. The regular


is not bothered by

violent behaviour in

people’s homes. - PI-

4. I am not bothered

by violent behaviour

in people’s homes.

PI- 12. The regular


is not bothered by

violent behaviour

against women. - PI-



against women.


Mean

Bias

Std.

Error

Bootstrap a

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

BCa 95%

Confidence

Interval

Lower

Upper

Effect

Size d=

0.42 1.67 0.17 0.08 0.75 2.45 96.00

0.24 2.13 0.22 -0.19 0.67 1.10 96.00

0.49 2.12 0.21 0.07 0.92 2.30 96.00


67


Table 4

Paired samples t-TEST (with bootstrapping) - online Respondents - females

Pair

2

Pair

3

Pair

4

PI- 10. The regular


is not bothered by


school. - PI- 3. I am

not bothered by


school.

PI- 11. The regular


is not bothered by

violent behaviour in

people’s homes. -

PI- 4. I am not

bothered by violent

behaviour in

people’s homes.

PI- 12. The regular


is not bothered by

violent behaviour

against women. - PI-



against women.

Mean

Paired Samples Test

Std.

Deviation

Paired Differences

Std.

Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower

Upper

t

df

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

effect size

d=

0.13 1.90 0.24 -0.35 0.61 0.55 63.00 0.59 0.07

0.02 2.48 0.31 -0.60 0.63 0.05 63.00 0.96 0.01

-0.08 2.36 0.29 -0.67 0.51 -0.26 63.00 0.79 -0.03

68


Table 5

Wilcoxon signed-rank test – paper version results - males

Normally

Distributed: Yes N=40

Null

Hyp

Sig. (2

sided

test)

Posit

Differences

N=

Neg

Differences

N=

No. of

ties N=

Test

Stat

Std Test

Stat z=

Median

Difference

= N=

PI Q10 - Q3

(SCHOOL) retain 0.095 11 16 13 120 -1.671 0.0000 40

PI Q11 - Q4

(HOUSES) retain 0.195 12 18 10 170 -1.295 0.0000 40

PI Q12 - Q4

(WOMEN) reject 0.001 3 17 20 15 -3.399 0.0000 40

69


Table 6

Wilcoxon signed-rank test – paper version results - females

Normally Distributed: Yes N=56

Null

Hyp

Sig. (2

sided

test)

Posit

Differences

N=

Neg

Differences

N=

No. of

ties N=

Test

Stat

Std

Test

Stat z=

Median

Difference

= N=

PI Q10 - Q3

(SCHOOL) Retain 0.404 13 21 22 249 -0.835 0.0000 56

PI Q11 - Q4

(HOUSES) Retain 0.100 13 23 20 229 -1.645 0.0000 56

PI Q12 - Q4

(WOMEN) Reject 0.004 4 27 25 104.00 -2.844 0.0000 56

70


Table 7

Wilcoxon signed-rank test – overall results - males

Normally

Distributed:

Yes

Null

Hyp

Sig. (2

sided

test)

Posit

Differences

N=

Neg

Differences

N=

No. of

ties N=

Std Test

Stat z=

Median

Difference

= N=

Test Stat

PI Q10 - Q3

(SCHOOL) Retain 0.215 31 41 32 1,095.00 -1.239 0.0000 104

PI Q11 - Q4

(HOUSES) Retain 0.494 35 38 31 1,227.00 -0.684 0.0000 104

PI Q12 - Q4

(WOMEN) Reject 0.002 14 40 50 379 -3.151 0.0000 104

71


Table 8

Wilcoxon signed-rank test – overall results - females

Normally

Distributed: Yes N=

Null

Hyp

Sig. (2

sided

test)

Posit

Differences

N=

Neg

Differences

N=

No. of

ties N=

Std Test

Stat z=

Median

Difference

= N=

Test Stat

PI Q10 - Q3

(SCHOOL) Reject 0.045 97 66 96 7,881,000 2.001 259

PI Q11 - Q4

(HOUSES) Reject 0.010 102 68 89 8,916.50 2.586 259

PI Q12 - Q4

(WOMEN) reject 0.000 106 33 120 7,156.00 4.85 259

72


Table 9

Wilcoxon signed-rank test – online results - males

Normally

Distributed:

Yes

Null

Hyp

Sig. (2

sided

test)

Posit

Differences

N=

Neg

Differences

N=

No. of

ties N=

Test

Stat

Std Test

Stat z=

Median

Difference

= N=

PI Q10 - Q3

(SCHOOL) Retain 0.737 20 25 19 488 -0.336 0.0000 64

PI Q11 - Q4

(HOUSES) Retain 0.719 23 20 21 502.5 0.359 0.0000 64

PI Q12 - Q4

(WOMEN) Retain 0.139 11 23 30 211.5 -1.478 0.0000 64

73


Table 10

Wilcoxon signed-rank test – online results - females

Normally

Distributed: Yes N=

Null

Hyp

Sig. (2

sided

test)

Posit

Differences

N=

Neg

Differences

N=

No. of

ties N=

Test

Stat

Std Test

Stat z=

Median

Difference

= N=

PI Q10 - Q3

(SCHOOL) Retain 0.231 22 33 42 628 -1.199 0.0000 97

PI Q11 - Q4

(HOUSES) Reject 0.020 20 40 37 602.5 -2.324 0.0000 97

PI Q12 - Q4

(WOMEN) Reject 0.016 15 37 45 426.5 -2.407 0.0000 97

74


APPENDIX D. ENDNOTES

i

schools/organisations from the states of Baja California, Guerrero, Mexico State, and Michoacan, did

not follow through or rejected participation – in grey colour).

ii

Participant institutions were offered two options to compensate participants: First, an in-kind

compensation for the youth participants through a raffle, allowing a winner for each state at the end of

the research project. Second, institutions were suggested to offer points to participants in one of their

courses related to the topic of research and to distribute the assigned funds (£50) equally among

participant institutions. A significant majority expressed concern for the participant compensation

option (e.g. credit for Amazon purchase that the school could help students retrieve, in equal amount

for each state), as previous similar experiences seemed to bring problems with youth feeling a sense of

unfairness when only one winner is benefitted.

iii

In Mexico, middle-schoolers range between 12 and 15 years old, and high schoolers are range

between 15 and 18 years old.

iv

This institution letter accompanied the researcher’s recruitment invitation and consent letter to

parents, which was delivered to their children between one to two weeks before implementing the

survey. The language school and one middle school made only verbal invitations.

v

At one high school, academics decided to follow that same procedure for those 16 and older as well.

vi

The most prominent concerns among were significant increase in violent behaviour (3 schools),

intrafamiliar violence (1 school), high levels of community violence including criminal gangs (1

organisation), and generalized violence in the country (1 school). Three schools declared that students

had recently participated in some type of violence prevention event; two schools declared having held

75


one more than five months ago (e.g. usually a talk); two declared they did not know; and two declared

that the participants had never participated in anything related to violence prevention.

vii

As per the Development and Validation Study (DVS; see Hartley et al., 2016), this item was among

those aimed to reflect trends in family consumption patterns in developed countries such as Europe

and the U.S.A. Instead, the item How many bathrooms (room with a bath or shower) are in your

home? was included.

viii

As this was a validated scale, and the confirmatory factor analysis loaded all items into one factor,

the full scale was kept, even though the item “Do you have your own bedroom for yourself” loaded

negatively, and the item “How many times did you and your family travel out of Mexico for a

holiday/vacation last year?” had a low score .316. It is advised to keep in mind the probability of Type

I error.

ix

This average is comparable with the average student profile descriptions provided by institutions,

where five of these declared being of economically marginalized areas and three mentioned having

low academic profile. Participants from only one school in Jalisco were described as being of highmiddle

class.

x

Considering ethical research for underage human participants (especially those under sixteen years

old), dummy items were added in two of the scales to counterweight the negative impact that this

survey could have, given the survey’s general weight on negative statements related to violence (see p.

62-63 in appendix A for Attitudes Towards Violence and Pluralistic Ignorance items).

xi

For each statement that could be termed as influencing negative violence, a positive one was added,

resulting in eight extra items. These were dropped from the main analyses, leaving the original

questions remaining.

xii

a search in previous literature for the sense of self-identity in embodiment was performed. With only

recent study of the body in psychology, there were very limited options to study this construct through

76


a validated scale and not through clinical assessments, fitness, or that focused only on women.

Therefore, a decision to explore an initial relationship using this scale was made.

xiii

This was possible for six institutions; the remaining three had only one person in the call. (via

Skype, WhatsApp, Facebook, and other media). This had no particular difference as to the number of

participants they could recruit. Before the call all were provided with the materials, including a printed

script and an audio version of the Guidelines for Questionnaire Facilitators. Its purpose was to deliver

homogeneous detailed information for the participants during implementation of the survey: basic

information for consent and what they will be coming across in the survey. Depending on the

infrastructure of each school, some utilised the recording, others read the script as they were

completing the survey. Even so, this did not guarantee homogeneous experience for participants in

such diverse contexts for each institution. During a survey and feedback interview for coordinators

after implementing the survey, it came clear that not all of them followed the script verbatim (e.g. three

schools revealed the person in the call was not present during survey implementation). Considering

this potential situation in which information or details in directions might be missed, the requirements

were intentionally cross-posted on the different materials (invitation letters for parents, virtual call,

head teacher letter, survey and audio guidelines, as well as in online and paper introductions in the

survey itself). These emphasised the importance of allowing participation only for youth with parental

consent as well as their own consent, and the requirement to guarantee participant’s anonymity and

data protection. Because of limitations in equipment, some institutions completed surveys in groups of

four; others with 30 or more participants. All required participants provided consent either in their

parent’s letter (for the paper version participants), or online before completing the survey.

xiv

Additional reduction was performed in some analyses, however, depending on the options available

while performing analytical tests – listwise or analyses by analyses. Sample sizes are reported

accordingly in the results report.

xv

Boxplot surveillance identified outliers. The item “I am not bothered by violence against women”

made visible 7 outliers between 1.5 and 3 box lengths from the upper edge of the box, and 8 extreme

outliers (more than 3 times the interquartile range from a quartile). Assessment of the data did not

77


reveal these outliers to be particularly uncharacteristic; rather, they were judged as an indicator of

higher differing views by participants.

xvi

This latter concern was manifest regardless of official letters from the school (and from the official

letters signed at the University of Sussex), and in spite of explaining the purpose of the survey

(violence prevention). Two schools reported “student apathy/lack of motivation”, and one organization

ended up with just two participants, namely “lack of trust” being the reason. A different organisation in

a different state declared that students “did not accept because they were frightened due to so much

formality” in the process of the research. Furthermore, one organisation in the south of Mexico had

experienced two curfews during the time of this research. Class suspensions were proceeding for

several weeks due to threats from organized crime related to political parties and localities being

shielded by civilians.

78

DISSERTATION MSc ApplSocPsych (Ayon-2018)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?