Senior Thesis 2014 PDF

Running head: EFFECT OF BSFT ON BULLYING AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR 1
Effects of Brief Strategic Family Therapy on Bullying and Aggressive Behavior
Samuel James Hall
Grace College

EFFECTS OF BSFT ON AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR 2
Effects of Brief Strategic Family Therapy on Bullying and Aggressive Behavior
There has been much speculation and theories roaming around through cultural and
societal outlets about the effects of bullying in the classroom setting for a number of years. This
cycle of abuse, both physical and psychological, has been occurring for many years.
Unfortunately, professionals and academia cannot point out a specific timetable of specificity
toward its origin of bullying in schools. However, there has been invigorated research and
studies of bullying. Chapell et. al. (2004) indicates the problem of bullying in school did not
generate much research attention until the 1990s. This renewal of research endeavors could be
shown through the number of school shootings in the past decades. An academic novel called
The Bully Society (2012), written by Jessie Klein, shows the numbers of school shooting through
the decades: “Over the last thirty years, school shootings have gone from a rare occurrence to a
frequent tragedy. From 1969 to 1978, there we 16 school shootings in the United States… and
from 1999 to 2008 they increased again, as 63 school shootings took place” (p. 2). In the past 15
years, peer victimization, and especially bullying, have become recognized as a pervasive and
often neglected problem in schools around the world (Cornell et. al., 2013). An example of a
survey has shown the prevalence of bully victimization in high schools across America. The
survey indicated 28% of adolescents experienced victimization of bullying within the past year
(Robers, Zhang, Truman, & Snyder, 2012).
Though emphasis of school bullying is primarily on adolescents and children, we must
recognize the importance of higher academia bullying, because if bullying goes unchecked, it
may progress to later stages of adulthood. Chapell et. al. (2004) shows both under-researched
aspects of bullying in which the report consists of a sample of 1,025 undergraduates indicated

that 24.7% had seen students bully other students occasionally and 2.8% very frequently, 5% had
been bullied by students occasionally and 1.1% very frequently. To note, later stages of bullying
in adulthood is commonly seen through workplace bullying, as many studies have resulted from
this type of bullying. Though this is not the intent of this study, it is important to understand the
extent of bullying throughout an individuals lifetime.
This excessive physical and psychological trauma that many students endure on their way
to adulthood has many drawbacks and affects, in which will affect an individual for the rest of
his or her life. Aluede, Adeleke, Omoike, and Afen-Akpaida (2008) explain, “Bullying can have
devastating effects on victims. For the victims of bullying,they go to school everyday fearing
harassment, taunting and humiliation” (p. 156). Wang, Iannotti, and Nansel (2009) showed the
prevalence of bullying through several aspects of social interaction, in which results showed
adolescents were bullied 20.8% physically, 53.6% verbally, 51.4% socially, or 13.6%
electronically of the time. Without a doubt, bullying in schools across America is prevalent and,
regrettably, terribly intrusive into all aspects of the lives of the individuals bullied. Further,
O’Brennan, Waasdorp, and Bradshaw (2014) talked of a recent national survey, conducted in
2013. In this recent national survey, 75% of teachers had a student report a verbal bullying
incident to them, 58% heard reports of relational bullying, 50% of physical bullying, and 14% of
cyber bullying. Clearly, the need for more concise research is needed for the prevention of
bullying and the knowledge of effective strategies and techniques to diminish, if not eliminate all
together, the intrusive nature of bullying in the United States school system.

Statement of the Problem
As the section above iterates, bullying is quite extensive and invasive in the United States
school system. However, to think of bullying as “just a school problem” would be a mistake.
Bullying occurs in a three-tiered environment involving both the home, school and even the
workplace. Roberts and Morotti (2000) in a journal article for understanding bullying behavior,
sum up the bullies home environment, saying “Bullies are well-versed in aggressive behaviors
designed to obtain goals, and these lessons most often originate first in the home
environment” (p. 152). Further, the developmental ecological systems framework suggests that
parents have a significant influence on the development and maintenance of their child’s
aggressive behaviors, as well as their child’s behavioral and emotional responses to interpersonal
conflict (Waasdorp et. al., 2011). Therefore, is there a positive relationship between brief
strategic family therapy and aggressive behavior in adolescent bullies?
Statement of the Hypothesis
It is the intention of this study to show a positive relationship of the therapy received and
a decrease in scores on the assessment test given, the Social Behavior Assessment Inventory. It is
posed that by directing this research in an experimental fashion, the study will yield results of
adolescents classified under aggressive behavior will decrease aggressive behavior due to the
brief strategic family therapy treatment. In the direction of this goal, in the beginning of the
study, we will begin by both the manipulated and control group partaking in the Social Behavior
Assessment Inventory (SBAI). Additionally, at the end of the study, we will compare the
difference of the scores between each field, respectfully, through an ANOVA statistical analysis.
To finish, the hypothesis shall be stated as follows: Aggressive adolescents families who receive

Brief Strategic Family Therapy will have significantly lowered scores than the families of
aggressive adolescents who do not receive Brief Strategic Family Therapy.
Rationale for the Hypothesis
Bullying is a prevalent and devastating cultural norm in our schools today. However, it
does not start in schools. According to the American Psychological Association, they define
bullying as “…a form of aggressive behavior in which someone intentionally and repeatedly
causes another person injury or discomfort” (Bullying, 2014). This aggression does not start in
the schools, but can only begin in the home life of a child. Merrell, Buchanan, and Tran show the
influence of parenting by showing parenting variables that have been found to influence
aggression in children, such as inconsistent parental supervision, use of harsh punishment, and
failure to set limits (2006). Because of the child’s home environment, it is vital to include a
therapy that both relates to the child personally and educationally, and though the context of the
problem of the bullying is within the school, the true psychological harm is within the home.
This is why we must begin with a solid basis of family therapy, in which the adolescent’s
guardians and any other relevant information can be accurately processed. Powell and Ladd
(2010) have found that “Family therapy, regardless of the theoretical orientation used, has been
found effective in increasing health perceptions, vitality, social functioning, and mental health,
and decreasing bullying behavior in males, as well as decreasing aggression in females” (p.
201).

Operational Definitions
Bullying:
As I said above, the American Psychological Association defines bullying as “…a form
of aggressive behavior in which someone intentionally and repeatedly causes another person
injury or discomfort” (Bullying, 2014). In the context of this study, discomfort may refer to many
psychological, social, or physical harm. These “discomforts” occur through direct verbal, direct
physical, and indirect forms of discomfort (O’Brennan, Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2014). To
quantify and operationalize bullying, for this study, bullying will be classified as being sent to
the principal’s office for aggressive behavior 2 times a week, reoccurring for more than 2
months, and further being sent to the school counselor for related aggressive behavior.
Aggressive Behavior (Aggression):
The American Psychological Association defines aggression as “behaviors that cause
psychological or physical harm to another individual” (Glossary, 2014). In this study, aggressive
behavior will be determined by adolescents having a continuous problem of bullying in school
for at least 2 months. It is important to note that aggressive behavior is not necessarily bullying.
Aggression is a factor in bullying but it is not a determinant. Bullying, furthermore, is directed at
another individual whereas aggressive behavior is in general. Aggression will be the appropriate
variable in which we will be measuring on the Social Behavior Assessment Inventory, which
primarily assesses the adolescents level of conformity to institutional rules, a factor in antisocial
behavior. Aggression will be the measured variable due to unethical restraints that would require
the study to manipulate bullying to come to results correctly and accurately. Seeing as how that

is not possible, aggression is the lead factor in bullying, and therefore, will be measured in its
place to remain ethical.
Social Behavior Assessment Inventory:
The Social Behavior Assessment Inventory is a 135-item criterion-referenced rating scale
for aggressive behavior and nonconformity. Impara and Conoley (1995) in the revered twelfth
edition of the Mental Measurements Yearbook, tell us it takes approximately 30-45 minutes to
complete, and covers a wide range of issues, including environmental behaviors, interpersonal
behaviors, self-related behaviors, and task-related behaviors. The participants will of had to pass
the minimum standard of 3 out of 5 (set by this study) on the SBAI assessment in order to be
considered to have aggressive behavior, and to be possibly placed in the therapy-appointed
group. Furthermore, the scaling system is measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale.
Brief Strategic Family Therapy:
According to Szapocznik et. al. (2012) “BSFT is a short-term (approximately 12
sessions), family-treatment model developed for youth with behavior problems such as drug use,
sexual risk behaviors, and delinquent behaviors” (p. 134). Additionally, the main goal of BSFT is
to improve adolescent behavior by improving family relationships and to improve relationships
between the family and other groups that may influence youth behavior (Szapocznik, 2013). This
type of therapy will be administered to adolescents aged 13-16 years of age of whom have had
discipline issues in the high-school level for 3 months. Several reasons are discussed as to why
this therapy was chosen as the primary therapy for reduction of aggressive behavior in adolescent
teens. First, with the family involved, there is a sense of overall credibility to the therapy,
including therapist and adolescent interaction. Second, with the family engaging in the

therapeutic process proves for less resistance and better effectiveness for outcomes of the
adolescent and his or her home life. Thirdly, results of BSFT reviews showed promising results,
as it outperformed other techniques, such as Community Control techniques (Coatsworth,
Santisteban, McBride, & Szapocznik, 2001). This therapy will be provided in a controlled setting
by an experienced professional who has the correct accreditation and competence to engage in
this area of therapy. The professional must have a Master’s degree or higher and must be a
licensed LMHC with adequate supervision experience to conduct and administer BSFT and the
SBAI. Further, the study will take place in collaboration with the Otis R. Bowen Center, using an
inpatient unit of the Center to control the setting of both the manipulated and controlled
variables. The manipulated and controlled variables will meet on separate days to avoid possibly
communicating about the study. These days will be Monday at 1 in the afternoon for the
treatment group and Tuesday at 1 in the afternoon for the control group. The Brief Strategic
Family Therapy will last for a full twelve sessions, once a week, as is the norm for this type of
therapy.
Significance of the Study
If the study goes as planned and the results desired are the results proven, this study will
help to reinforce other substantial literature designed to combat the problem of aggressive
behavior and how it influence bullying. Also, with an effective technique in place to counteract
the home life of bullies, as well as family participation, it will increase the emotional welfare of
the home, directly effecting (“spillover effect”) the individuals on the receiving end of a bullies
harmful acts. With this study proving effective, further results can be combined with this studies
research, in order to progress to better and more efficient strategies to combat against bullying.

Literature Review
Bullying:
On page 6 of this study, we define bullying, through the American Psychological
Association, as “…a form of aggressive behavior in which someone intentionally and repeatedly
causes another person injury or discomfort” (Bullying, 2014, p. 1). As in the previous section of
aggression, our focus was primarily on how the bully acquires his or her aggressive behavior, it
is now important to discuss how the bully implements his or her aggressive tactics in such a way
to cause psychological, emotional or physical discomfort towards an individual. This study has
examined a multitude of possibilities as to how an individual acquires his or her aggressive
behavior; however, examination of outlets as to why they implement their aggression towards
others is required. One of these possibilities of implementation would be of morality. Findings
from one study on moral development and social cognition suggests that morality and emotional
attributes contribute to moral behavior as behavioral dispositions as opposed to developmental
delays (Krettenauer, Asendorpf & Nunner-Winkler, 2013). Further logical deduction could arrive
at the conclusion that learned behavioral experiences (observational, operant conditioning, etc.)
is the primary source for moralistic reasoning towards peer victimization. This can be supported
by a study done to determine whether moral reasoning and moral emotions were associated with
bullying. Perren et al. (2012) found that the adolescents who were involved in bullying showed
the highest levels of morally disengaged thinking. Additionally, children with overly-physical
parents and lack of parental support show an increase in bullying and overall aggression within
the family structure (Espelage, Bosworth & Simon, 200). Interestingly, a study done in Sweden

by Frisén, Jonsson & Persson (2007), comprised of 119 adolescents (48 boys, 71 girls), were
asked questions regarding why they thought bullies bullied. Two of the percentages were quite
illuminating as 40% blamed the victims appearance and 38% blamed the victims behaviors, in
which made up the majority of the sample. This appears to show that adolescents take a more
lenient and empathic view towards the bully as opposed to the victim, who is shown to be the
encourager. This finding may not be so odd after all, as recent studies have shown a new aspect
to the dimensions of bullying: the bully-victim, in which could give compensation to the
students’ view that the bully may have had justification for his bullying behavior.
Sources of Bullying:
Bullies. Due to the nature of bullying being largely social (Atlas & Pepler, 1998), mainly
through environmental experiences and parental constructs, behavioral modification has had a
sense of renewal in its research in the past years focusing on group (social) processes (Jones et
al., 2012) and how the bully is influenced by his or her peers. Moreover, Jones et al. (2012)
showed that a group to which the adolescent belongs and given their normative contextual
situation is influenced by the combination of the two criteria in their response to bullying. This
study relied heavily on social identity theory, which is largely similar to social learning theory.
Social identity theory was developed in 1979 by Tajfel and Turner, and claims that the identity of
an individual is not found within oneself (though an individual does have a “level of self), but to
the group in which he or she belongs. This theory shows the effectiveness and strength of peers
and has become one of the leading social theories in the world as there is much evidence that
supports social identity theory. For example, Sutton and Smith (1999) found that that 20-30% of
classroom students participated in bullying, either through direct or indirect methods. As such,

behaviors that reinforce bullying through peer bullying, whether direct or indirect, is another
characteristic of the overall hierarchy that is bullying (Cho & Chung, 2012). Peer bullying can be
middle ground for the victim and bully; however, there is new research showing a new aspect
towards the middle ground not being so black and white.
Bully-Victims. As briefly mentioned above, a new aspect of bullying is that of the “bully-
victim.” These children are both perpetrators and victims of bullying. The “Bully-Victim” can be
supported by empirical research, as studies have shown that bully-victims are typically high in
aggression and low in warmth (Duncan, 2004). These students also experience adjustment
problems, lower grades, higher levels of dislike from peers and higher levels of depression and
anxiety (Berkowitz & Benbenishty, 2012). Bully-victims are a group that exemplifies the most
trouble in social skills, anger control and severe behavioral problems (Bland, 2013). Further,
research from one study replicated findings that showed the bully-victim group had the lowest
results for self-esteem, which shows greater likelihood of behavioral disturbances (Kokkinos &
Panayiotou, 2004). Bully-victims work a two-tiered facade as they delegate through
victimization and perpetration, and therefore, may in fact be the adolescents who are most
affected by bullying.
Bullying Demographics:
Bullying offenses are prevalent in the schools of America, as one study suggests that as
many as 30% of adolescent children in school commit acts of bullying (Wang, Iannotti & Nansel,
2009). Along with these acts of bullying, there seems to be an acceptance of the bullying
behavior itself. There is evidence that bullying reinforces aggressive and bullying behavior
through group processes and social identity (Salmivalli et al., 1996). Additionally, the social and

emotional aspects of peer victimization are well-established, as children self-report significant
higher levels of internalizing problems as well as lower levels of self-esteem (Haynie et al.,
2001). The internalization of feelings and other problems can have a resounding impact in terms
of long-term effects as past studies have indicated that 72% of college students involved in the
study reported the remembrance of past victimization of bullying in middle and high school
(Chapell et al., 2006). Another study reported the comparison of college student to adults on the
remembrance and impact of the victimization of bullying. The study indicated that college
students showed higher levels of depression as opposed to the adult group who did not express
the same results as college students (Hawker & Boulton, 2000). The following addresses
different dimensions of bullying and the long-term effects provided with specific demographics.
Gender. Aside from the social identity theory and social learning theory, there is not
much empirical evidence of the causations of bullying. However, literature has been more
successful in the consequences of bullying (Dijkstra, Lindenberg & Veenstra, 2007). Along with
the social and emotional aspects of bullying, variations of victimization in regards to offenses of
bullying are well-known as well as established. For example, males often report higher levels of
aggression and victimization involving victimization of physical acts, such as pushing, hitting,
etc (Card et al., 2008). On the other side of the coin, females are more likely than males to
participate in defending the victim of the bullying as they had shown lower levels of aggression,
better prosocial behavior and empathic behavior towards others (Crapanzano et al., 2011). As
females defend the victims more than males, this may be deemed appropriate as females in one
study reported they perceived their experiences with relational bullying during middle school and
high school more serious than their counterpart males (Chambless, 2010). Though more

complete, diverse studies must be further researched, it seems apparent males have higher levels
of aggression as opposed to females, who are typically more prosocial and have lower levels of
aggression.
Age. Age is also an important dimension of bullying. Smith & Levan (1995) had done a
study on the definition of bullying as they noted how the definition of bullying is ever-changing
in perceived notions of individuals from the youth to the elderly. They found that 6-7 year olds
had a abstract definition of bullying, as they indicated their understanding that bullying
encompasses direct and indirect forms. Monks & Smith (2006) encapsulated the study as they
said, “The younger children were more likely to simply distinguish between aggressive and non-
aggressive scenarios, whereas older children were able to make finer grained distinctions
between types of aggression: physical, verbal and social exclusion” (p. 803). Further, Menesini,
Fonzi & Smith (2002) included students (8 and 14 years of age) as well as teachers in their study
for a better comparative analysis. The students seemed to indicate more inclusive results, as they
demonstrated knowledge of a definition of bullying that included social exclusion, gender
exclusion and verbal bullying as forms of bullying. Interestingly, one study found that school
professionals identified bullying as physical violence and aggression as opposed to social or
emotional abuse (Hazler et al., 2001).
In addition to the definition of bullying, age trends in bullying in a school-related setting
must be addressed. Scheithauer and colleagues (2006) conducted a study in which they identified
forms of bullying through self-reports cross-referenced the results through the age demographic
given from the self-reports. The study indicated that “…most of the students categorized as
verbal bullies attend grade 9 (12.2%), while most of the students categorized as physical bullies

attend grade 8 (5.6%) and most of the students categorized as relational bullies attend grade 6
(9.6%)” (p. 268). Additionally, one study that was conducted showed the ages of adolescents and
perceived popularity, which shows the possibility of causation. Caravita & Cillessen (2012)
conducted this study and results showed that in middle childhood, a sociometric popularity has
the largest effect rate; however, in early adolescence, perceived popularity dominated the youth’s
preference. The two researchers go further to suggest that this finding supports social learning
theory: “This may reflect a gradual social learning process about the effects of interpersonal
aggression. Adolescents may have learned that less-effective forms of bullying are censured by
disliking whereas more subtle and advanced forms of bullying are reinforced with popularity” (p.
392).
Aggressive Behavior:
As briefly described in the previous section, bullying is a pervasive and detrimental
occurrence in the United States. However, in order to better understand bullying and the effects
of bullying, it is imperative to understand the aggressive behavior that fuels bullying. Behavior
such as aggression and other behaviors are called risky because of the risk that they pose on the
individual doing the undesirable behavior, as well as the others around them (Ellis et al., 2012).
Speaking in theoretical models, there have been only two major perspectives that have primarily
driven research over the past century, those being 1) Social Learning theory and 2) Disease
Onset. In a qualitative study that focused solely on adolescent aggression, this study had found
significant results to strengthen social learning theory. The study found four major themes that
contributed to aggressive behavior, those being 1) Anger Release, 2) Aggravation as a cue for
Anger, 3) Modeled Anger, and 4) Anger Influenced by Violent Neighborhoods (Margolin, Youga

& Ballou, 2002). The study goes further to state that all routes of aggression can be traced back
to anger, as they say “Factors cited in other studies, such as familial violence, poverty, and
complex social and cultural environments that lead to frustration, are identified by the
adolescents as sources of anger that led to their aggressive behavior (Margolin, Youga & Ballou,
2002, p. 216). One of the main sources that is evident in these researchers writings is the
astounding effect of the environment and social aspect of an adolescents life. The experiences
and impressions felt by a child can have a lasting impact on his or her level of aggression.
Additionally, during childhood, and/or adolescents, is the time frame for most significant and
highest levels of aggression, due to the environmental constructs in which they observe and learn
socially acceptable behavior (Tremblay & Szyf, 2010). If children do not learn these socially
appropriate behaviors (social learning theory), they will typically be labeled and branded as a
child with a “disease,” (disease onset) as can be seen through the label of a mental health
disorder for children and adolescents such as Conduct Disorder.
Forms of Aggression. These “learned” aggressive behaviors have two forms: reactive
and proactive. Reactive forms of aggression have been linked to negative emotionality, such as
sadness, depression, and suicidal ideation. Proactive aggression has been linked to severe forms
of antisocial behavior (Fite et al., 2010). Speculation would tend to lend itself to the side of
proactive aggression being the indicator of bullying. However, a study has shown that both forms
of aggression showed multiple problems including indicators such as impulsivity and thrill
seeking which shown positive outcome expectancies for aggression, and thus, higher rates of
bullying (Crapanzano, Frick & Terranova, 2010).

Social/Environmental Influences of Aggression. Continually, a child’s home life is the
key reason behind aggressive behavior. Aggression can be attributed to a variety of experiences
and situations in the home environment. Schwartz et al. (2013) found in their longitudinal study
on harsh home life environments and negative outcomes for school trajectories: “Home
environments characterized by restrictive discipline, corporal punishment, and exposure to
violence were linked to within-child declines” (p. 311). Additionally, when children witness
interparental conflict in which the resolution of said conflict was inadequately resolved, children
observe and process how to resolve issues in an unhealthy, nonconstructive view (Marcus,
Lindahl & Malik, 2001). To contribute, Loeber and Dishion (1984) conducted a study showing
the significance of family conditions influencing cross-setting aggression in which they verified
that those children who had the least effective parenting practices, such as child management,
were picked out by teachers as the “fighters” of the group. However, the children with the most
effective child-care strategies were not chosen as the “fighters” of the group. Through the views
of parental stability towards aggression, higher rates of maternal aggression show a negative and
adverse effect in which becomes the preferred style of interaction, not just in home life but in a
variety of situations (Bousha & Twentyman, 1984). Parental variables have been found to
increase relational aggression in adolescents such as inconsistent parental supervision, use of
harsh punishment and failure to set limits (Merrell, Buchanan & Tran, 2006). Reversely,
adolescents who receive proper parental support and empathy have been shown to have reduced
levels of aggression than compared to adolescents who do not receive parental support and
empathy (Van der Graaff et al., 2012).

Brief Strategic Family Therapy:
For this study, Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT) will be provided to individuals in
the manipulated group. BSFT is a short-term, family-treatment model that was developed to
emphasize the youth’s delinquent behavior through family restructuring. One study that was
intended to provide an overview and development of BSFT, conducted by Szapocznik et al.
(2012), had this to say about the therapy: “…the BSFT approach is unique in that it focuses on
diagnosing family interactional patterns and restructuring (i.e., changing) the family interactions
associated with the adolescent’s problem behaviors” (p. 135). BSFT was developed to combat
against drug use, sexual risky behaviors and delinquent behaviors. This study qualifies for this
type of therapy through the overarching “delinquent behaviors” division.
History of BSFT. BSFT conception originated in Miami, FL. It was originally developed
for the Hispanic population, as research had indicated that the ethnic group valued family
relations over individual autonomy. As this is supported by research, according to Szapocznik
and Williams (2000), “The results revealed that Cuban families, compared to mainstream White
American families, valued leaders who were active, directive, and present-oriented” (p. 124).
Continuing, Brief Strategic Family Therapy can be best articulated through 3 categories,
including systems, structure/patterns of interactions, and strategy (Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1989).
The first concept of BSFT is systems, in which describes the interrelated parts that work off of
each other in an environment to achieve something. In BSFT terms, this system would be the
family. The second contract is that of structures of patterns of interactions within the family.
Szapocznik and Williams (2000) have this to say about the second concept of structures within
the family, saying “The problem-focused aspect of our treatment strategy refers to targeting

family interaction patterns that are the most directly relevant to the symptomatic behavior
targeted for change” (p. 123). With these structures and patterns determined through therapy, the
third concept may begin. This third category of strategy can be implemented through problem-
focused, practical interventions that include all of the members of the family. With a study
conducted by Szapocznik and Coatsworth (1999), some of the leading advocates of BSFT,
showed empirical research that family relations are well-known and established predecessors of
delinquent behavior.
Effectiveness of BSFT. The efficacy of BSFT has been conducted through 2 RCTs. The
first study tested and validated the effectiveness of BSFT and the process that induces
therapeutic change. In the study, “structural family therapy/BSFT was compared to individual
psychodynamic child-centered psychotherapy and a recreational control condition” (Szapocznik
& Williams, 2000, p. 126). Sixty-nine randomly selected Hispanic emotionally or behaviorally
troubled youth, aging fro 6 to 11 years old. Between these selected, they were placed into one of
the three treatment placements available. Results were as follows: “The first finding indicates
that the control condition (i.e., recreation activities) was significantly less effective at retaining
cases than the two treatment conditions, χ2 (2,19) = 13.64, p < .01), with over two thirds of all
dropouts occurring in the control condition” (Szapocznik & Williams, 2000, p. 127). Secondly,
results showed that structural family/BSFT and child psychodynamic therapy were equally
effective in the groups. The third and final finding showed that family therapy was more
effective than play therapy in helping family integrity at the 1-year follow up.
The second RCT was conducted to find the effectiveness of BSFT in reducing behavioral
problems (Santisteban et al., 2000). The sample size was 79 Hispanic client-families aging from

12 to 18 years old. This study was to determine whether BSFT was effective in reducing
conduct/anti-social problems, emotional problems as well as family conflict. Its results are as
follows: “Adolescents in the BSFT condition showed significant reductions in Conduct Disorder
and Socialized Aggression from pre- to post-treatment; whereas, group therapy participants
showed no significant changes in either Conduct Disorder or Socialized Aggression, F(2,76) =
4.75, p < .05” (Szapocznik & Williams, 2000, p. 129). Additional review by Szapocznik et al.
(2012), further concluded that “the BSFT condition was significantly more efficacious than
group counseling in reducing conduct problems, associations with antisocial peers, and
marijuana use, and in improving observer ratings of family functioning” (p. 139). Each RCT
reveals significant influential research status in improving family interaction, antisocial/conduct
problems and behavioral problems. As Santisteban and colleagues puts it, “BSFT is the only
empirically validated family therapy for adolescents that relies almost exclusively on a coherent
integration of structural and strategic theory and therapy” (Santisteban et al., 2006, p. 261).
Practicality of BSFT In Therapy. BSFT a flexible, unique approach that is empirically
validated and family-based. This type of therapy covers a large range of situations, including
family situations, a variety of service settings and extensive treatment modalities (Szapocznik et
al., 2012). Within the situations described above, a variety of techniques must be employed to
effectively use BSFT. Some of the main techniques used include joining, tracking and diagnostic
enactment, and reframing. Because of its flexibility and unique deign to incorporate family
cooperation, BSFT is a psychotherapeutic approach that provides a structure of
psychoeducational interventions. Along with its psychotherapeutic approach with structural
interventions, Szapocznik et al. (2012), talks on the goals of BSFT: “Within this approach to

family preservation, two goals must be set: (a) To eliminate or reduce the adolescent’s problem
behaviors, such as drug use and other risk-taking behaviors, known as the “strategic or symptom
focus,” and (b) to change the family interactions that are associated with the adolescent’s
problem behaviors, known as “system focus” ” (p. 138). With these two overall goals in mind,
Brief Strategic Family Therapy provides the most ideal prevention program for an adolescent in
the most influential part of his or her life, their home.
Assessment:
For this study, we will use the Social Behavior Assessment Inventory (SBAI). Impara and
Conoley (1995) in the revered twelfth edition of the Mental Measurements Yearbook, tell us it
takes approximately 30-45 minutes to complete, and covers a wide range of issues, including
environmental behaviors, interpersonal behaviors, self-related behaviors, and task-related
behaviors. Further, of the four major scales assessed, there are also 30 sub-scales in which
encompass the four scales into better specifics (Demaray et al., 1995). This assessment tool is a
135-item criterion-referenced measurement tool for behavioral problems and nonconformity in
the classroom setting.
Method Section
Subjects:
This study will use a representative sample totaling 50 participants (25 female, 25 male).
Participants will selected by working with the local junior high school and high school in the
area of Monmouth, IL, this researcher’s hometown. The two main districts that will be
incorporated into the study will be that of 1) United CUSD #304 and 2) Monmouth-Roseville
CUSD #238. These two school districts provide a good representative overview of the emotional

and behavioral mindset of the adolescents in this specific community. By working with these
school districts, the total population will total 1,295 students from both school districts
combined. Please note, however, the number given is not the total number of students in the two
schools’ districts. It is the accumulation of participants given the specific age demographic
requirement (13-16 years of age). After compiling a list of all these students who meet the age
requirement, we will randomly select 50 students to partake in this study. Only 25 subjects will
be selected from each district (13 male, 12 female). If a student who has been selected does not
meet the criterion below, they will be thrown out and a new name shall be drawn out of a hat.
The criterion the adolescents must display to be considered aggressive is as follows: Children
will be identified of consisting of bullying behavior, and therefore, aggressive behavior, by being
sent to the principal’s office for aggressive behavior 2 times a week, reoccurring for more than 2
months, and further being sent to the school counselor for related aggressive behavior. After
being selected, the subjects (along with their legal guardians) will be debriefed about the general
topic being researched. Afterwards, informed consent forms will be administered for signature by
all possible guardians and the adolescent involved with the study.
Independent Variable:
The independent variable for this study is the Brief Strategic Family Therapy treatment.
The therapy will be administered to 25 randomly selected students, by a mental health counselor
who is properly licensed and has the correct credentials to administer BSFT. There will be 5
mental health counselors (5 subjects per counselor), in order to have a lighter workload,
decreasing the probability of mistakes. The 5 mental health counselors were selected by a school-
based internship opportunity afforded to them by their respected institution. Upon completion of

the study, they will receive credit towards their individual doctoral program. In order to limit the
possibility of bias, the institution the counselor was currently doing their doctoral work at, must
be at least 50 miles away from the Monmouth area, as well as the counselor must have originally
resided 50 miles away from the Monmouth area.
Treatment. The treatment will be given to each individual on separate days to avoid
possibly communicating about the study. These days will be Monday through Friday at 1 in the
afternoon. It will be given once a week for twelve sessions, as is the norm for this type of
therapy. Each day a different subject will partake in the treatment. The therapy will be provided
during the summertime during the months of June, July and August, so as to not interfere with
school-related activities and obligations. Once in session, the counselor and subject will begin
BSFT and will continue for a 50 minute hour. Afterwards, the subject is free to go till next weeks
session. Due to BSFT being highly regarded as a therapy in which employs creative strategies to
eliminate unwanted behavior (Tan, 2011), it is problematic to create a definitive course for the
therapy to take as families are diverse and unique. Each family member and adolescent had a
unique set of characteristics and circumstances, and thereby, no definitive set of questioning or
course of therapy can be implemented without skewing results dramatically. Some creative
techniques that are commonly used, however, are techniques such as creative questioning,
paradoxical techniques and others (Tan, 2011).
Dependent Variable:
The dependent variable is that of aggressive behavior. Therefore, the treatment of BSFT
is working with the measurement tool to show the effectiveness of the independent variable on
aggressive behavior. It was hypothesized that at the end of the therapy on the experimental

group, there will be an inverse relationship between the independent and dependent variable. The
measurement tool that will assess the effectiveness of BSFT on aggressive behavior at the end of
the 12 sessions is the Social Behavior Assessment Inventory (SBAI), which is described in the
next section.
Instrumentation:
The Social Behavior Assessment Inventory (SBAI) takes approximately 30-45 minutes to
complete, and covers a wide range of issues, including environmental behaviors, interpersonal
behaviors, self-related behaviors, and task-related behaviors. Further, of the four major scales
assessed, there are also 30 sub-scales in which encompass the four scales into better specifics
(Demaray et al., 1995). This assessment tool is a 135-item criterion-referenced measurement tool
for behavioral problems and nonconformity in the classroom setting. Further, on the issue
surrounding reliability and validity, there is evidence of internal consistency and interrater
reliability on the SBAI. More so, there is a consensus of high internal consistency (Demaray et
al., 1995).
Procedure:
Random Assignment of Subjects. Once the sample group has been collected through the
appropriate measures, I will randomly assign the subjects into two groups. Each group will
consist of 25 participants. Furthermore, the individuals selected to each group will be chosen
randomly by drawing names out of a hat. The first name selected will be apart of Group A; the
second name chosen will be chosen to be apart of Group B and so on, so forth till all are assigned
to their respective groups.

Random assignment of treatment. To ensure further objectivity and impartiality of the
study, the groups will be divided at random into Group A and Group B by way of flipping a coin
to decide which group is the experimental group and which is the control group. We will also test
the control group in order to better evaluate the effectiveness of BSFT on aggressive behavior, as
the control group will participate in watching a movie called “The Baby Sitter’s Club,” in which
depicts a group of teens learning life lessons on their way to adulthood. A popular movie review
site confirms the nonviolent cinematic adventure as “Parents need to know that while some of
the young teen characters make poor choices in this movie, they ultimately learn their lessons
and serve as strong role models” (The Baby, 2007, p. 1). On a Likert-type scale assessing the
movies violence factor, the rating given was a 2 out of 5, because of a baseball injury and a
hiking collapse due to a teens preexisting condition of diabetes. However, no physical or
emotional violence on the part of the teens toward each other is evident. This movie serves as a
good movie for the control group to watch while in their 50 minute session.
Measurement of Independent Variable. In order to correctly prescribe the Brief Strategic
Family Therapy, families and adolescents will meet with their respective counselor on the day
assigned to them, either one of the 5 days of the work week (Mon-Fri). In addition, counselors
will be required to keep two activity logs. The first will consist of daily attendance, which will
help regulate the consistency and desire of the families and adolescents. The second daily log,
apart from the counselor’s personal notes, will describe, in generality, behavioral observations
and general recommendations by the counselor, which can later be reviewed by myself in order
to better understand and remain objective of the families involved in therapy. Also, additional
permission will be required in order to video-tape the proceedings of therapy. Though this is not

a prerequisite to the conditions of the experimental group, it is strongly recommended and will
be suggested to each of the families involved.
Measurement of the Dependent Variable. In order to correctly assess the dependent
variable, of which is the aggressive behavior in the adolescent, we will use a posttest (SBAI)
after the therapy has been completed. The SBAI will be administered by the 5 counselor’s who
did the therapy. However, the counselor’s will be randomized as well, in order to remain
objective. Therefore, each counselor will have a different set of adolescents whom they will be
administering the assessment tool to. The results will then be given to myself for data analysis.
Control for Extraneous Variables. In order to keep this study as constant and therefore,
reliable, as possible, it is necessary to control the extraneous variables that are most prevalent in
this study. Some of the extraneous variables involved are motivation to show up to the therapy,
expectations of participants, history of participants as well as maturation of the participants. The
previous variables listed will be explained in further detail below.
Motivation to show up to the therapy and movie, for each respective group procedure, is
a limitation to this study. This is because we are assessing the effectiveness of the therapy on
aggressive behavior. If the participants do not have the desire to show up, the Brief Strategic
Family Therapy cannot be properly assessed in its relationship affect toward aggressive behavior.
In order to control this factor, an incentive will be offered to each family who completes all
sessions in the therapy. Each family, if attendance is perfect, will receive $50.00. If attendance is
moderate, consisting of 1 miss, each family in this grouping will receive $30.00. If missed 2
sessions, a family will receive $20.00. If a family has missed more than 2 sessions, accurate
results are improbable, and therefore, no incentive shall be given. Money provided for this

incentive will be out of my own pocket, as I can assess the appropriate financial giving for
participants due to my own financial security.
The expectations of the participants are also a major factor when trying to control the
outcome of the experiment. If a participant is volunteering in this study for the wrong reasons, a
participant will be more likely to drop out, affecting the mortality rate, and thus, the overall
findings of the study. To eliminate these possible improper expectations of the participants, a
general overview of expectations of the adolescent and family is necessary, as well as an
overview of what this therapy is for and why we are conducting this research. These questions
should have been answered during the signing of the informed consent; however, to eliminate all
possible preconceived notions, the counselor’s will go over it with the families and adolescents
once more before they begin their sessions in order to ensure complete understanding.
Finally, another dire factor that must be presented is that of the maturation of the
participants. Maturation occurs through daily life, as the individuals involved in the study mature
in all areas of life (such as socially, emotionally, etc.). Due to the inability to keep participants in
an observed area for the duration of the study (as it would unethical to do so), it is impossible to
completely control maturation of an individual. However, it is important to be aware of and the
possibilities that might result from maturation. For example, results gathered from participants
engaged in maturation may not yield as effective of findings compared to participants who are
not involved in maturation. Note, for those who are involved in maturation, it is an evolutionary
process of human development and will not be held against them in this study.

Data Analysis:
Because the participants involved in this study have only been classified through one
criteria, that being aggressive behavior, it is only proper to do a one-way ANOVA (also known as
a single-factor ANOVA). Analyses could result from conclusion due to a t-test; however, a single
t-test can only compare two means, but a single ANOVA test can compare multiple means, which
can be used for a variety of purposes (Patten, 2000). An ANOVA test, along with the t-test, have
multiple variations of the test for multiple purposes, but all variations relate back to the main test.
According to Johnson & Kudy (2003), to receive proper analysis of the results of a study to be
considered a normal distribution, the sample size must be a minimum of 25 (N= 25). This is to be
able to better generalize to the population of interest. Further, a minimum of 25 participants is
required in order to consider the distribution normal, a factor that is of great importance if the
findings should come out to be representative. Statistical significance occurs around a Pearson-
coefficient of .60 (Patten, 2000). However, for greater content validity, face validity and internal
consistency (to name a few), high statistical significance occurs around the coefficient of .80.
Computation for this will occur alongside Cronbach’s alpha (a), which will compute more
accurate results if alongside a normal distribution. With 25 subjects in each group (N = 50), I am
confident our results will be statistically significant. Finally, the findings will be checked by an
independent third party, to ensure objectivity and validation of the results.

References
Aluede, O., Adeleke, F., Omoike, D., & Afen-Akpaida, J. (2008). A review of the extent, nature,
characteristics and effects of bullying behaviour in schools. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 35(2), 151-158
Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. Journal of
Educational Research, 92, 86–89. doi:10.1177/0143034300211002
Berkowitz, R., & Benbenishty, R. (2012). Perceptions of teachers’ support, safety, and absence
from school because of fear among victims, bullies, and bully-victims. American Journal
Of Orthopsychiatry, 82(1), 67-74. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2011.01132.x
Bland, P. "Being bullied in childhood has long-term effects on mental health." The
Practitioner Apr. 2013: 7. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Apr. 2014
Bousha, D. M., & Twentyman, C. T. (1984). Mother–child interactional style in abuse, neglect,
and control groups: Naturalistic observations in the home. Journal Of Abnormal
Psychology, 93(1), 106-114. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.93.1.106
Bullying. (2014). Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http://www.apa.org/topics/bullying/
Caravita, S. S., & Cillessen, A. N. (2012). Agentic or communal? Associations between
interpersonal goals, popularity, and bullying in middle childhood and early adolescence.
Social Development, 21(2), 376-395. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00632.x
Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect
aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review
of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child
Development, 79, 1185–1229

Chambless, C. B., (2010). "Long-term effects of bullying: Exploring the relationships
among recalled experiences with bullying, current coping resources, and reported
symptoms of distress.” Counseling and Psychological Services Dissertations. Paper 53
Chapell, M. (2004). Bullying in college by students and teachers. Adolescence, 39(153), 53-64
Chapell, M. S., Hasselman, S. L., Kitchin, T., Lomon, S., MacIver, K. W., & Sarulla, P.
(2006). Bullying in elementary school, high school, and college. Adolescence, 41,
633-648
Cho, Y., & Chung, O. (2012). A mediated moderation model of conformative peer bullying.
Journal Of Child & Family Studies, 21(3), 520-529. doi:10.1007/s10826-011-9538-0
Coatsworth, J., Santisteban, D. A., McBride, C. K., & Szapocznik, J. (2001). Brief strategic
family therapy versus community control: Engagement, retention, and an exploration of
the moderating role of adolescent symptom severity. Family Process, 40(3), 313-332.
doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2001.4030100313.x
Cornell, D., Gregory, A., Huang, F., & Fan, X. (2013). Perceived prevalence of teasing and
bullying predicts high school dropout rates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1),
138-149. doi:10.1037/a0030416
Crapanzano, A. M., Frick, P. J., & Terranova, A. M. (2010). Patterns of physical and relational
aggression in a school-based sample of boys and girls [Abstract]. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 38(4), 433-445. doi: 10.1007/s10802-009-9376-3

Crapanzano, A., Frick, P. J., Childs, K., & Terranova, A. M. (2011). Gender differences in the
assessment, stability, and correlates to bullying roles in middle school children.
Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 29(5), 677-694. doi:10.1002/bsl.1000
Demaray, M., Ruffalo, S. L., Carlson, J., & Busse, R. T. (1995). Social skills assessment: A
comparative evaluation of six published rating scales. School Psychology Review, 24(4),
648-671
Dijkstra, J., Lindenberg, S., & Veenstra, R. (2007). Same-gender and cross-gender peer
acceptance and peer rejection and their relation to bullying and helping among
preadolescents: Comparing predictions from gender-homophily and goal-framing
approaches. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1377-1389. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1377
Duncan, R. D. (2004). The impact of family relationships on school bullies and their victims. In
D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools (p. 227–244).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Ellis, B. J., Del Giudice, M., Dishion, T. J., Figueredo, A., Gray, P., Griskevicius, V., & Wilson,
D. (2012). The evolutionary basis of risky adolescent behavior: Implications for science,
policy, and practice. Developmental Psychology, 48(3), 598-623. doi:10.1037/a0026220
Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000). Examining the social context of bullying
behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(3), 326–
333

Fite, P. J., Raine, A., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., & Pardini, D. A. (2010). Reactive and
proactive aggression in adolescent males: Examining differential outcomes 10 years
later in early adulthood. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(2), 141-157. doi:
10.1177/0093854809353051
Frisén, A., Jonsson, A., & Persson, C. (2007). Adolescent’s perception of bullying: Who is the
victim? Who is the bully? What can be done to stop bullying?. Adolescence, 42(168),
749-761
Glossary of Psychological Terms. (2014). Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http://www.apa.org/
research/action/glossary.aspx
Hawker, D. S., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years' research on peer victimization and
psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441-455
Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., & Simons-Morton, B.
(2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 21, 29–49
Hazler, R. J., Miller, D. L., Carney, J. V., & Green, S. (2001). Adult recognition of school
bullying situations. Educational Research, 43, 133–146
Impara, J. C., & Conoley, J. C. (1995). Social Behavior Assessment Inventory. In The Twelfth
mental measurements yearbook (pp. 962-964). Lincoln, Neb.: The Buros Institute of
Mental Measurements, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Johnson, R., & Kuby, P. (2003). Just the essentials of elementary statistics. Australia: Brooks/
Cole.
Jones, S. E., Bombieri, L., Livingstone, A. G., & Manstead, A. (2012). The influence of norms
and social identities on children's responses to bullying. British Journal Of Educational
Psychology, 82(2), 241-256. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02023.x
Kokkinos, C., & Panayiotou, G. (2004). Predicting bullying and victimization among early
adolescents: Associations with disruptive behavior disorders. Aggressive Behavior, 30(6),
520-533. doi:10.1002/ab.20055
Krettenauer, T., Asendorpf, J. B., & Nunner-Winkler, G. (2013). Moral emotion attributions and
personality traits as long-term predictors of antisocial conduct in early adulthood:
Findings from a 20-year longitudinal study. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 37(3), 192-201. doi: 10.1177/0165025412472409
Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1984). Boys who fight at home and school: Family conditions
influencing cross-setting consistency. Journal Of Consulting And Clinical Psychology,
52(5), 759-768. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.52.5.759
Marcus, N. E., Lindahl, K. M., & Malik, N. M. (2001). Interparental conflict, children's social
cognitions, and child aggression: A test of a mediational model. Journal of Family
Psychology, 15(2), 315-333. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.15.2.315
Margolin, A., Youga, J., & Ballou, M. (2002). Voices of Violence: A Study of Male Adolescent
Aggression. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 41(2),
215-231. doi: 10.1002/j.2164-490X.2002.tb00144.x

Menesini, E., Fonzi, A., & Smith, P. K. (2002). Attribution of meanings to terms related to
bullying: A comparison between teacher and pupil perspectives in Italy. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 17, 393–406
Merrell, K. W., Buchanan, R., & Tran, O. K. (2006). Relational aggression in children and
adolescents: A review with implications for school settings. Psychology In The Schools,
43(3), 345-360. doi:10.1002/pits.20145
Monks, C. P., & Smith, P. K. (2006). Definitions of bullying: Age differences in understanding of
the term, and the role of experience. British Journal Of Developmental Psychology,
24(4), 801-821. doi:10.1348/026151005X82352
O'Brennan, L. M., Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2014). Strengthening bullying prevention
through school staff connectedness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1-11. doi:
10.1037/a0035957
Patten, M. L. (2000). Understanding research methods: An overview of the essentials. Los
Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Pub.
Perren, S., Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, E., Malti, T., & Hymel, S. (2012). Moral reasoning and
emotion attributions of adolescent bullies, victims, and bully-victims. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, No-No. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02059.x
Powell, M. D., & Ladd, L. D. (2010). Bullying: A review of the literature and implications for
family therapists. American Journal of Family Therapy, 38(3), 189-206. doi:
10.1080/01926180902961662

Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying
as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group.
Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1–15
Santisteban, D. A., Suarez-Morales, L., Robbins, M. S., & Szapocznik, J. (2006). Brief strategic
family therapy: Lessons learned in efficacy research and challenges to blending
research and practice. Family Process, 45(2), 259-271. doi: 10.1111/j.
1545-5300.2006.00094.x
Santisteban, D. A., Szapocznik, J., Perez-Vidal, A., Kurtines, W. M., Coatsworth, J. D., &
LaPerriere, A. (2000). The efficacy of brief strategic/structural family therapy in
modifying behavior problems and an exploration of the role that family functioning plays
in behavior change. Manuscript in preparation, University of Miami, Center for Family
Studies
Scheithauer, H., Hayer, T., Petermann, F., & Jugert, G. (2006). Physical, verbal, and relational
forms of bullying among German students: age trends, gender differences, and correlates.
Aggressive Behavior, 32(3), 261-275. doi:10.1002/ab.20128
Sutton, J., & Smith, P. K. (1999). Bullying as a group process: An adaption of the participant role
approach. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 97–111
Ragatz, L. L., Anderson, R. J., Fremouw, W., & Schwartz, R. (2011). Criminal thinking patterns,
aggression styles, and the psychopathic traits of late high school bullies and bully-
victims. Aggressive Behavior, 37(2), 145-160. doi:10.1002/ab.20377

Robers, S., Zhang, J., Truman, J., & Snyder, T. (2012). Indicators of school crime and safety:
2011 (NCES 2012–002 NCJ 236021). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of
Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Roberts, W. r., & Morotti, A. A. (2000). The bully as victim: Understanding bully behaviors to
increase the effectiveness of interventions in the bully–victim dyad. Professional School
Counseling, 4(2), 148-155
Schwartz, D., Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2013). The link
between harsh home environments and negative academic trajectories is
exacerbated by victimization in the elementary school peer group.
Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 305-316. doi:10.1037/a0028249
Smith, P. K., & Levan, S. (1995). Perceptions and experiences of bullying in younger pupils.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 489–500
Szapocznik, J., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1999). An ecodevelopmental framework for organizing the
influences on drug abuse: A developmental model of risk and protection. In M. Glantz &
C. R. Hartel (Eds.), Drug abuse: Origins and interventions.(pp. 331–366). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association
Szapocznik, J., & Kurtines, W. M. (1989). Breakthroughs in family therapy with drug abusing
problem youth. New York: Springer

Szapocznik, J., & Williams, R. A. (2000). Brief strategic family therapy: Twenty-five years of
interplay among theory, research and practice in adolescent behavior problems and
drug abuse, 3(2), 117-134. Retrieved April 07, 2014, from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1480650/#__ffn_sectitle
Szapocznik, J., Schwartz, S. J., Muir, J. A., & Brown, C. (2012). Brief strategic family therapy:
An intervention to reduce adolescent risk behavior. Couple And Family Psychology:
Research And Practice, 1(2), 134-145. doi:10.1037/a0029002
Szapocznik, J. (2013, October 10). Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT). Retrieved March 18,
2014, from http://www.childtrends.org/?programs=10979
Tan, S. (2011). Marital and family therapy. Counseling and psychotherapy: A Christian
perspective (pp. 283-321). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
The baby sitters club - Movie Review. (2007, August 13). Retrieved April 28, 2014, from
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/the-baby-sitters-club
The gender police [Introduction] (2012). In J. Klein (Author), The bully society: School
shootings and the crisis of bullying in America's schools (pp. 1-10). New York, NY: New
York University Press
Tremblay, R. E., & Szyf, M. (2010). Developmental origins of chronic physical aggression and
epigenetics. Epigenomics, 2(4), 495-499. doi: 10.2217/epi.10.40
Van der Graaff, J., Branje, S., De Wied, M., & Meeus, W. (2012). The moderating role of
empathy in the association between parental support and adolescent aggressive and
delinquent behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 38(5), 368-377. doi:10.1002/ab.21435

Waasdorp, T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Duong, J. (2011). The link between parents' perceptions of the
school and their responses to school bullying: Variation by child characteristics and the
forms of victimization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2),
324-335. doi:10.1037/a0022748
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the
United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45,
368–375

Senior Thesis 2014 PDF

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Senior Thesis 2014 PDF

Similar to Senior Thesis 2014 PDF (20)

Senior Thesis 2014 PDF