JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENCE, 24(2), 337–349

Family Violence, Bullying, Fighting, and Substance Use Among Adolescents:

A Longitudinal Mediational Model
Dorothy L. Espelage Sabina Low
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Arizona State University

Mrinalini A. Rao and Jun S. Hong Todd D. Little

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign University of Kansas

Social interaction learning theory provides a framework for understanding the potential overlap among adolescent
problem behaviors such as family violence, aggression, and substance use. The current study assessed the longitudinal,
reciprocal relations among family violence, bullying perpetration, fighting perpetration, and adolescent substance use
using a sample of 1,232 students from four Midwestern middle schools. Students completed measures on family
dynamics, bullying and fighting behaviors, and alcohol and drug use three times over 18 months. Structural equation
modeling results indicated that bullying and fighting perpetration mediated the link between family violence and sub-
stance use only for males, but not for females. For females, family violence at Wave 1 was related to greater substance
use at Wave 3.

Substance use onset typically occurs during adoles-
cence, with percentages as high as 39% of 8th
grade students having tried alcohol (Johnston,
O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2012). Adoles-
cent substance use is considered a part of a cluster
of problem behaviors (e.g., school failure, aggres-
sion) that co-occurs and supports an antisocial
developmental trajectory to later delinquency (e.g.,
Dishion, Nelson, & Bullock, 2004). Indeed, there is
growing evidence of co-occurrence between bully-
ing and externalizing behavior more generally
(Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010;
Sourander, Helstela, Helenius, & Piha, 2000) and
substance use more specifically (Berthold & Hoo-
ver, 2000; Kim, Catalano, Haggerty, & Abbott,
2011). According to the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (2009), middle school students
identified as bully–victims and bullies were 3–5
times more likely to use alcohol and 5–6 times
more likely to use drugs (respectively) than non-
bullies or victims. Such findings are worrisome
given that early involvement with substance use
Research for the current study was supported by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (#1U01/CE001677) to Doro-
thy Espelage (PI) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-
paign. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect
those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or
related offices.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Dorothy L. Espelage,
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820-6925. E-mail: espelage@
illinois.edu
increases the risk of alcohol and drug addiction
later in life (deBry & Tiffany, 2008; King & Chassin,
2007; Zucker et al., 2006).
In the past several decades, theories on aggres-
sion and other risky behavior have attributed con-
duct problems to the interaction between innate
characteristics and individuals who learn the
behavior from their environment (Burke, Loeber, &
Birmaher, 2002). From a social learning perspective,
Bandura (1986) argued that the external environ-
ment contributes, in large part, to the acquisition
and maintenance of aggression and other risk
behaviors. Since then, research has supported
social interaction learning theory (SIL), insofar as
maladaptive family dynamics spill over into other
relationships (e.g., peers), which can exacerbate
adolescent substance use (e.g., Conger & Rueter,
1996; Vakalahi, 2001, for a review). Thus, this study
utilized SIL theory as a framework for examining
the associations among family violence, bullying
perpetration, fighting, and adolescent substance
use. To capture a broader range of family dynam-
ics, we assessed both family violence and sibling
aggression in this study.
The most studied family dynamic as it relates to
children’s social adjustment is the coercion process
(see Snyder, Reid, & Patterson, 2003). According to
the SIL model, impaired social interactions and
child dysfunction lead to more reciprocal, aversive
© 2013 The Authors
Journal of Research on Adolescence © 2013 Society for Research on Adolescence
DOI: 10.1111/jora.12060
338 ESPELAGE, LOW, RAO, HONG, AND LITTLE
conflict, and violence that becomes a training
ground for problem behaviors and relationships
within and outside the family (Reid, Patterson, &
Snyder, 2002; Slomkowski, Rende, Conger, Simons,
& Conger, 2001). Because coercive exchanges
within the family preclude the development of
positive, adaptive social tactics, these patterns gen-
eralize to peer interactions (see also Criss & Shaw,
2005; Haynie & McHugh, 2006; Snyder, Bank, &
Burraston, 2005), which heightens opportunity for
misbehavior (e.g., Dishion & Andrews, 1995).
FAMILY VIOLENCE, VIOLENCE, AND PEER
AGGRESSION
Coercive exchanges between parents and children
in the home often co-occur with abusive and con-
flictual family dynamics, which have been linked
to bullying. As demonstrated by several cross-
sectional (see Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2000;
Ortega and Espelage, under review) and a handful
of longitudinal findings (see Voisin & Hong, 2012),
direct and indirect exposure to family violence is
linked to bullying behavior. More specifically,
cross-sectional investigations in the United States
and other countries have found significant associa-
tions between exposure to physical violence in the
home and bullying (Baldry, 2003; Espelage, Low, &
De La Rue, 2012; Holt, Kantor, & Finkelhor, 2009;
Moretti, Obsuth, Odgers, & Reebye, 2006; Musta-
noja et al., 2011). For instance, Cluver, Bowes, and
Gardner’s (2010) research, which included a sample
of 1,050 children in South Africa, documented that
children who witnessed interparental violence were
at an elevated risk of engaging in bullying. Further,
several longitudinal studies have also established
this association (Bauer et al., 2006; Bolger & Patter-
son, 2001; Bowes et al., 2009). To illustrate, Baldry
(2003) found that Italian elementary and middle
school children who were exposed to violence at
home were involved in bullying, particularly girls.
Girls who witnessed a father’s violence against the
mother or a mother’s violence against the father
were among the most likely to bully others, com-
pared with girls who did not witness any forms of
interparental violence. In sum, there is a growing
consensus that family violence is a training ground
for peer aggression (and in turn, associated risk
behaviors).
Despite this growing consensus, it is not clear that
family violence is equally associated with both
bullying and fighting perpetration. Based on the cur-
rent defining characteristics of bullying (i.e., imbal-
ance of power, intent to cause harm, persistence;
Olweus, 1993, 2002), bullying can be interpreted as a
proactive form of aggression with the intent of harm
and involve many behaviors such as name-calling,
rumor-spreading, exclusion, and physical threats. In
contrast, fighting tends to be more reactive and is
associated with hostile attributions and dysregulat-
ed emotions (Crick, 1996). However, questions
remain as to whether the mediating effects for bully-
ing and fighting on the association between family
violence and substance use differ. Indeed, bullying
perpetration has been found to be supported and
driven by peers more so than fighting (Espelage,
Holt, & Henkel, 2003). If this is the case, youth who
are regularly in fights might then be isolated from
peers and therefore might be more likely to use sub-
stances to cope with peer rejection. Thus, it was
hypothesized that bullying and fighting would
emerge as distinct constructs, thus, allowing them to
be tested as mediators in separate models.
FAMILY VIOLENCE AND SUBSTANCE USE
Family violence is also correlated with youth
substance use. More specifically, children who are
maltreated or those exposed to interparental
violence are likely to engage in substance use
during adolescence (Downs & Harrison, 1998) and
adulthood (Dube et al., 2006; Gilbert et al., 2009;
Marcenko, Kemp, & Larson, 2000). Dube et al.’s
(2006) retrospective study found that those who
were physically or emotional abused and neglected
were significantly more likely to initiate and con-
sume alcohol by age 14. A review by Downs and
Harrison (1998) also reported that childhood abuse
is a major risk factor for substance use. However,
findings on the link between family violence and
substance use have been inconsistent (see Gilbert
et al., 2009).
BULLYING, FIGHTING, AND SUBSTANCE USE
There is a well-documented correspondence between
substance use and school violence (e.g., weapon
carrying, fighting; DuRant, Smith, Kreiter, & Krow-
chuk, 1999; Furlong, Casas, Corral, Chung, & Bates,
1997; Jimerson & Furlong, 2006), providing validation
for problem-behavior theory (Donovan, Jessor, &
Costa, 1991). Despite evidence for clustering of risk
behaviors, surprisingly fewer studies have specifi-
cally examined bullying behavior and substance use.
Studies that have examined bullying behavior have
consistently found a link between bullying and sub-
stance abuse (Ensminger, Juon, & Fothergill, 2002;
Houbre, Tarquinio, Thuillier, & Hergott, 2006; Luk,
 FAMILY VIOLENCE, BULLYING, AND SUBSTANCE USE
Wang, & Simons-Morton, 2010; Taiwo & Goldstein,
2006), although these have all utilized cross-sectional
designs. Several more recent longitudinal studies
support the link between bullying perpetration and
substance use among early adolescents. Hemphill
et al. (2011) found that greater bullying perpetration
among Australian youth in Year 7 of school was asso-
ciated with a twofold increase in binge drinking and
marijuana use when these students were in Year 10
of school. From the U.S.-based Raising Healthy Chil-
dren project, childhood bullying in Grade 5 was asso-
ciated with heavy drinking and marijuana use at age
21 (Kim et al., 2011). Other studies have shown longi-
tudinal associations between bullying among older
adolescents and associations with heavy drinking
and marijuana use into adulthood, but these studies
often enter family variables as covariates and do not
build mediation models.
Although research findings suggest a correspon-
dence among family violence, bullying, and sub-
stance use, much is still unknown about this
association due to a dearth of longitudinal research
with early adolescent samples and a lack of speci-
ficity among various forms of aggression. The aim
of this study is to fill this research gap by testing
and contrasting bullying and fighting as mediators
of the relation between family violence and sub-
stance use in a sample of early adolescents using
longitudinal data. Indeed, aggression may be one
of several conduits of the association between fam-
ily violence and AOD use (e.g., depression, impul-
sivity); however, the literature clearly points to
aggression as a potential mediator in understand-
ing how these are mutually entrained over time. In
addition, because some studies suggest a stronger
relation between peer aggression and substance
use for males (e.g., Skara et al., 2008; Sullivan,
Farrell, & Kliewer, 2006), gender differences in the
mediation models were investigated.
SUMMARY OF CURRENT STUDY
The aim of this study is to use a SIL framework to
investigate the relation among family violence (i.e.,
family violence and sibling aggression), bullying,
fighting, and substance use, utilizing a longitudinal
transactional model. This study augments prior
research in three important regards. First, we draw
upon a richer, more comprehensive assessment of
family violence by incorporating sibling aggression
or aggression among children in the home. Because
research suggests a significant difference in parent-
ing among bullies and noninvolved youth, it is
plausible that those differences extend to sibling
339
relationships of these youth (Duncan, 1999).
Moreover, although sibling aggression is the most
common type of family violence (Gelles & Straus,
1988; Roscoe, Goodwin, & Kennedy, 1987), societal
awareness of sibling aggression has lagged behind
other types of family violence. Compared with par-
ent–child abuse and interparental violence, research
on intersibling abuse or violence among children in
the same home is generally scant (see Caffaro &
Conn-Caffaro, 2005), and only a handful of studies
have considered sibling aggression when examining
family context of bullying (e.g., Duncan, 1999). Sec-
ond, in addition to placing bullying perpetration
and substance use in a unified theoretical frame-
work, this study augments previous research by
utilizing longitudinal data. Third, because previous
literature on the relations between bullying and sub-
stance use have isolated specific forms of bullying
(e.g., Sullivan et al., 2006; Tharp-Taylor, Haviland,
& D’Amico, 2009), we were specific in the contrast-
ing forms of aggression (i.e., bullying, fighting).
Finally, given prior literature suggesting that gender
may modify the link between both family violence
and peer aggression, as well as between aggression
and substance use, we examined pathways condi-
tional upon gender. We hypothesized a positive,
longitudinal association between family violence
and substance use, and that both forms of aggres-
sion (i.e., bullying and fighting) would mediate the
relation between family violence and substance use.
METHOD
Design and Sample
Participants were 1,232 students from four Midwest-
ern middle schools (Grades 5–7); 49.8% female; 51%
African American, 34% White, 3% Hispanic, 3%
Asian, and 9% identified as “other.” Students ran-
ged in age from 10 to 15 years of age (M = 13.9;
SD = 1.05). Students completed a survey designed
to collect information about the level of violence in
their home with parents and siblings or other chil-
dren, frequency of bullying and fighting perpetra-
tion, and year alcohol and drug use (AOD). Students
completed surveys once in Spring 2008 (Wave 1),
Fall 2008 (Wave 2), and Spring 2009 (Wave 3).
Procedure
Parental consent. A waiver of active parental
consent was approved by the institutional review
board and school district administration. Parents of
all students enrolled in the schools were sent letters
340 ESPELAGE, LOW, RAO, HONG, AND LITTLE
informing them about the purpose of the study.
Several meetings were held to inform parents of
the study in each community. In the early Spring
of 2008, investigators attended parent–teacher con-
ference meetings and staff meetings, and the study
was announced in school newsletters and emails
from the principals. Furthermore, parents were
asked to sign the form and return it only if they
were unwilling to have their child participate in
the investigation. At the beginning of each survey
administration, teachers removed students from
the room if they were not allowed to participate,
and researchers also reminded students that they
should not complete the survey if their parents had
returned the form. A 95% participation rate was
achieved. Students were asked to consent to partic-
ipate in the study through an assent procedure
included on the coversheet of the survey.
Survey administration. Six trained research
assistants, the primary researcher, and a faculty
member collected data. At least two of these individ-
uals administered surveys to classes ranging in size
from 10 to 25 students. Students were first informed
about the general nature of the investigation. Next,
researchers made certain that students were sitting
far enough from one another to ensure confidential-
ity. Students were then given survey packets, and
the survey was read aloud to them. It took students
approximately 40 min on average to complete the
survey.
Measures
Each participant completed a questionnaire about
involvement in peer aggression, exposure to family
violence and substance use, as well as a demo-
graphic questionnaire that included questions about
his or her gender age, grade, and race or ethnicity.
For race, participants were given six options: Afri-
can American (not Hispanic), Asian, White (not His-
panic), Hispanic, Native American, and other (with
a space to write in the most appropriate racial
descriptor).
Multiple Forms of Aggression Perpetration
Fighting perpetration. The four-item University
of Illinois Fighting Scale (Espelage & Holt, 2001)
assesses physical fighting behavior (e.g., I got in a
physical fight; I fought students I could easily beat)
the respondent engaged in over the past 30 days.
Response options include never, 1 or 2 times, 3 or 4
times, 5 or 6 times, and 7 or more times. The Fighting
Scale had a low correlation with the Victimization
Scale (r = .21) and was only moderately correlated
with the Bullying Scale (r = .58), providing evidence
of discriminant validity (Espelage & Holt, 2001).
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .70 for Wave 1
and .75 for Waves 2 and 3 in this study.
Bullying perpetration. The nine-item Illinois
Bully Scale (Espelage & Holt, 2001) assesses the fre-
quency of bullying at school. Students are asked
how often in the past 30 days they did the follow-
ing to other students at school: teased other stu-
dents, upset other students for the fun of it,
excluded others from their group of friends, helped
harass other students, and threatened to hit or hurt
another student. Response options include never, 1
or 2 times, 3 or 4 times, 5 or 6 times, and 7 or more
times. The construct validity of this scale has been
supported via exploratory and confirmatory factor
analysis (Espelage & Holt, 2001). Factor loadings in
the development sample for these items ranged
from .52 to .75, and this factor accounted for 31% of
the variance in the factor analysis (Espelage & Holt,
2001). Higher scores indicated more self-reported
bullying behaviors. The scale correlated moderately
with the Youth Self-Report Aggression Scale
(r = .65; Achenbach, 1991), suggesting that it was
somewhat distinct from general aggression. Con-
current validity of this scale was established with
significant correlations with peer nominations of
bullying (Espelage et al., 2003). More specifically,
students who reported the highest level of bully
perpetration on the scale received significantly
more bullying nominations (M = 3.50, SD = 6.50)
from their peers than students who did not self-
report high levels of bullying perpetration (M = .98;
SD = 1.10; Espelage et al., 2003). This scale was not
significantly correlated with the Illinois Victimiza-
tion Scale (r = .12) and thus provided evidence of
discriminant validity (Espelage et al., 2003). Cron-
bach’s alpha coefficients were .86 for each of the
three waves of data collection in this study.
Family Violence, Sibling Verbal and
Physical Aggression
Family violence. The Family Conflict and Hostility
Scale (Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, & Tobin,
2003) was used to measure the level of perceived
conflict and hostility in the family environment. The
scale contains three items from a larger survey,
which was designed for the Rochester Youth Devel-
opment Study. The three items were as follows:
How often is there yelling, quarreling, or arguing in
 FAMILY VIOLENCE, BULLYING, AND SUBSTANCE USE
your household? How often do family members lose
their temper or blow up for no good reason? How
often are there physical fights in the household, like
people hitting, shoving, or throwing things?
Response options include never, seldom, sometimes,
often, and always. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were
.79 for Wave 1 and .81 for Waves 2 and 3 in this
study.
Sibling verbal and physical aggression. A sib-
ling aggression scale was created for this study and
included five items that assessed aggression
between siblings (Espelage & Stein, 2006). Items
were selected from the University of Illinois Bully-
ing Scale to parallel that scale. Students were
presented the following instructions “Now, we
would like for you to think of your siblings or other
children in your family. For each of the following
questions, choose how many times you did this
activity or how many times these things happened
to you in the LAST 30 DAYS among your siblings or
other children in your home.” Five items emerged
as a scale in factor analysis, which includes the fol-
lowing: I upset my brother or sister for the fun of it;
I got into a physical fight with my brother or sister; I
started arguments with my brother or sister; I hit
back when a sibling hit me first; and I teased my sib-
lings for the fun of it. Response options include
never, 1 or 2 times, 3 or 4 times, 5 or 6 times, and 7 or
more times. A Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .82 was
found for each wave of data collection in this study.
Risk Behavior
Substance use. Eight items from the Problem
Behavior Frequency Scale (Farrell, Kung, White, &
Valois, 2000) were used, which asked students to
report how many times in the past year (or since
the last time they were surveyed for Waves 2 and
3) they used alcohol and or drugs. The scale con-
sists of items, such as “smoked cigarettes,” “drunk
liquor,” and “used inhalants.” Response options
include never, 1 or 2 times, 3 or 5 times, 6 or 9 times,
and 10 or more times. A Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
of .87 was found with a sample of urban adoles-
cents and .88 with a sample of rural adolescents
(Farrell et al., 2000). The authors also report posi-
tive correlations with risk behaviors such as self-
reported delinquency and negative correlations
with positive behaviors and school attendance (Far-
rell et al., 2000). In the current study, a Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient of .90 was found for each wave of
data collection in this study.
341
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
First, preliminary analyses were conducted to deter-
mine the nature and extent of missing data. To
address the issue of missing data for the current
sample, a multiple imputation procedure was
executed using the PROC MI function in SAS 9.2
(Graham, Cumsille, & Elek-Fisk, 2003; SAS Institute
Inc., 2008). Overall, missingness per item ranged
from 0% to 4.7%, with a mean percentage of missing
data across all measured variables of 1.7%. Although
Luengo, Garc
ıa, and Herrera (2010) suggest that
missing data between 1% and 5% are generally man-
ageable, a multiple imputation procedure was
employed to preserve the integrity of each group of
respondents and create one parsimonious data set.
Second, an item-to-construct balance method
was used to develop parcels for the four latent
constructs of family violence, fighting and bully
perpetration, and alcohol and drug use (Little,
Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). To have
a just identified model, items from the scales were
parceled into three indicators for each latent con-
struct. To do this, a single-item exploratory factor
analysis was run in SPSS using maximum likeli-
hood estimation with one fixed factor. Items were
then divided into three parcels based on the factor
loading of each item onto the single factor, and
these items were averaged to create the parcel
value. Items were averaged, as opposed to
summed, to reflect the actual scale that was used
to record the item-level information as well as
maintain comparable metrics between parcels. The
advantages of parcels over single items include
greater reliability, more communality, a higher
ratio of common-to-unique factor variance, reduc-
tions in distributional violations, and decreased
chance for correlated residuals or dual loadings
(Little et al., 2002). Internal reliabilities (i.e., Cron-
bach’s a) for each scale were calculated using par-
celed indicators (Roche, Ghazarian, Little, &
Leventhal, 2011). The correlations between the
latent constructs are presented for girls and boys in
Table 1. Nested chi-squared difference tests were
conducted to examine whether there were any dif-
ferences in the correlations across boys and girls.
Measurement and Structural Model
Measurement model. To ensure that the con-
structs investigated are measured equivalently
across the three time points, a confirmatory factor
342 ESPELAGE, LOW, RAO, HONG, AND LITTLE

TABLE 1
Correlations Between Family Conflict (FC), Bullying Perpetration (Bully), Fighting Perpetration (Fight), and Substance Use (AOD)
Latent Constructs for Boys and Girls

FC1 Bully1 Fight1 AOD1 FC2 Bully2 Fight2 AOD2 FC3 Bully3 Fight3 AOD3

FC1 — .62 .40 .14 .64 .51 .32 .32 .44 .46 .33 .20
Bully1 .69 — .69 .22 .40 .51 .39 .33 .40 .54 .43 .42
Fight1 .49 .73 — .24 .30 .35 .44 .26 .29 .37 .48 .38
AOD1 .22 .35 .23 — .11 .18 .27 .79 .21 .23 .29 .29
FC2 .69 .59 .38 .22 — .69 .55 .34 .63 .51 .48 .30
Bully2 .50 .58 .42 .28 .77 — .71 .35 .53 .63 .50 .37
Fight2 .25 .42 .40 .20 .45 .63 — .41 .46 .44 .60 .35
AOD2 .34 .40 .28 .81 .49 .54 .43 — .33 .41 .36 .41
FC3 .53 .49 .31 .16 .78 .60 .42 .37 — .65 .54 .39
Bully3 .54 .61 .35 .25 .74 .75 .46 .45 .81 — .68 .56
Fight3 .37 .49 .38 .28 .56 .56 .68 .45 .62 .69 — .50
AOD3 .35 .41 .28 .52 .45 .41 .37 .62 .46 .43 .45 —

Note. Numbers above the diagonal are correlations for the boys, and the numbers below the diagonal are correlations for the girls.
Bolded numbers indicate that these values are significantly different across gender.

analysis procedure using a structural equation
model (SEM) framework was conducted across the
variables in each analysis. Three levels of invari-
ance were tested: Configural invariance (which
establishes that the pattern of fixed and free param-
eters is the same), weak factorial invariance (which
establishes that the relative factor loadings are pro-
portionally equal across groups), and strong facto-
rial invariance (which establishes that the relative
indicator means are proportionally equal across
groups). The effects-coding method of scaling for
the latent constructs was used in these analyses.
This method maintains the original metric of the
observed variables in the latent construct form, and
the latent construct values, therefore, have mean-
ingful interpretations (Little, Slegers, & Card, 2006).
The loadings, intercept values, residuals, and R2
values for each indicator from the strong invariance
model are presented separately for girls and boys
in Tables S1 and S2 in the supporting information.
For this study, the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Com-
parative Fit Index (CFI), and Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA) were used.
Where TLI and CFI scores >.95 are considered an
acceptable fit (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, &
Muller, 2003), and RMSEA scores of above .10 are
considered a poor fit, between .08 and .10 a medio-
cre fit, between .05 and .08 an acceptable fit, .01
and .05 a close fit, and .00 an exact fit (Hu &
Bentler, 1999). Fit statistics demonstrated that
strong factorial invariance held for all constructs,
and that all constructs were measured equivalently
across all three time points in the four analyses (see
Table 2 and Tables S3 and S4 in supporting infor-
mation).
Analyses were also conducted to examine
whether fighting perpetration and bullying
perpetration were unique constructs, or whether
they formed one latent variable of aggression in
the analyses. To test this, all four constructs (i.e.,
family conflict, fighting perpetration, bullying per-
petration and AOD) were included in confirmatory
factor analyses that examined the invariance of the
constructs across time points. Strong invariance
was achieved. Next, the correlations between the
latent constructs of fighting perpetration and bully-
ing perpetration were fixed at 1.0 within each time
point, and their correlations with other constructs
both within time and across time were equated,
essentially collapsing the two constructs to function
as one. The fit of this statistically collapsed model
was compared with the strong invariance model
with all four constructs. The chi-squared difference
test indicated that the collapsed model was signifi-
cantly different from the four construct model [v2
(30, 651.198)]. This demonstrates that fight perpe-
tration and bullying perpetration are unique latent
constructs, and consequently, these were tested
separately in the structural analyses.
Additionally, multigroup comparisons were con-
ducted to examine invariance across gender. The
groups were considered invariant when the model
with the equivalence constraints associated with
each level of invariance does not differ significantly
from the previous level of invariance. If the change
in CFI is <.01, then the assumption of invariance
holds (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Although the
groups passed the invariance tests up to the level of
strong invariance, the test examining the homogene-
ity of the variance–covariance matrix across groups
 FAMILY VIOLENCE, BULLYING, AND SUBSTANCE USE 343

TABLE 2
Fit Indices for the Multiple Group Analyses of Family Violence—Fighting Perpetration—AOD Across Gender

RMSEA
Model v2 df p Δ v2 Δdf p RMSEA 90% CI CFI Δ CFI TLI ΔTLI Pass?

Null 22435.49 792 <.001

Measurement model estimatesa
Configural invariance 1933.53 522 <.001 .07 .064 .071 .970 .960 Yes
Weak invariance 2110.58 552 <.001 177.05 30 .00 .07 .066 .072 .967 .003 .958 .002 Yes
Strong invariance 2255.77 582 <.001 145.19 30 .00 .07 .067 .073 .965 .002 .958 .000 Yes
Latent model estimatesa
Homogeneity of variances/ 2949.42 648 <.001 693.65 66 .00 .08 .075 .081 .952 .013 .939 .019 No
covariances
Longitudinal structural modelb
Final SEM 2293.580 595 <.001 37.81 13 .00 .07 .067 .073 .964 .001 .958 .000 Yes

Note. SEM = structural equation models, Δ = the change in value as compared to the previous test, RMSEA = Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, TLI = the Tucker-Lewis Index.
a
Evaluated with the CFI difference test.
b
Evaluated with the chi-squared difference test.

indicated that the variables examined were not
invariant across gender (see Table 2 and Table S3 in
supporting information). Consequently, two-group
analyses were conducted examining the relation
between variables separately for boys and girls.
Structural equation models. Next, SEM using
the Cole and Maxwell (2003) framework were used
to test our mediation hypotheses. Mediation was
concluded when the indirect effect was significant.
The indirect effect is the product of the path from
the independent variable to the mediator variable
and the path from the mediator variable to the
dependent variable.
Fighting perpetration. Prior to fitting the SEM
testing the mediation hypothesis, SEMs examining
bivariate longitudinal associations among family
violence, fighting perpetration, and substance use
were conducted to examine the associations
between each pair of these variables. These results
indicated positive transactional associations
between all pairs of the variables for both girls and
boys. A two-group mediation model examining the
mediating role of fighting perpetration on the asso-
ciation between family violence and substance use
was fit across gender. This analysis indicated that
fighting perpetration mediated the relation between
family violence and substance use only for boys
(see Table 2). The overall indirect effect, although
small (.03), was significant at the p < .05 level, indi-
cating mediation (Figure 1). Positive predictive
paths were found among the variables for the girls.
However, family violence at Wave 1 did not pre-
dict fighting perpetration at Wave 2, precluding
the hypothesized meditational role of fighting per-
petration on the association between family vio-
lence on substance use (Figure 1).
Additionally, several paths were equivalent
across gender. Autoregressive paths from all vari-
ables at Wave 1 to Wave 2 were equivalent across
gender. Cross-lagged paths from fighting perpetra-
tion to substance use over both time lags were
equivalent across gender. Additionally, the cross-
lagged path from family violence at Wave 2 to
fighting perpetration at Wave 3 was equivalent
across gender.
Next, analyses examining the bivariate longitudi-
nal associations among pairs of the three constructs
were conducted to examine how each of the variables
was related to each other outside the mediation
framework. Here, too, the transactional associations
present in the bivariate longitudinal analyses
dropped out for both gender and an additional auto-
regressive path from fighting perpetration at Wave 1
to fighting perpetration at Wave 3 was found.
Bullying perpetration. Similar results were found
for the mediator of bullying perpetration. Results
indicated positive transactional associations
between all pairs of the variables for both girls and
boys. Bullying perpetration mediated the relation
between family violence and substance use only for
boys (see Table S3 in supporting information). The
overall indirect effect (.09) was significant at the
p < .05 level, indicating mediation (Figure S1 in
supporting information). Positive predictive paths
were found among the variables for the girls. How-
ever, bullying perpetration at Wave 2 did not pre-
dict substance use at Wave 3, and consequently, the
hypothesized meditational role of bullying perpetra-
tion on the association between family violence on
344 ESPELAGE, LOW, RAO, HONG, AND LITTLE

Family Violence
.67 Family
.59/.83 Family
W1 Violence W2 Violence W3

.17/-.01(ns) .31
.43 .31 .17

.12 Fighting
.42 Fighting
.41/.57 Fighting
Perpetration Perpetration Perpetration .11
W1 W2 W3
.10

.22 .10 .13 .12

.17

Substance use .78 .30/.59

Substance use Substance use
W1 W2 W3

FIGURE 1 Mediational model testing the mediating role of fighting perpetration on the relation between family violence and AOD
use for boys and girls.
Note. Values for boys are in front of the slash (/), and values for the girls are behind the slash; if there is a single value, then this path
is equal across groups. All effects have p < .001 unless indicated otherwise; Model fit: v2 (595, n = 1,132) = 2293.58; Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .07(.067; .073); NNFI = .0958; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .964; R2 for substance use at Wave 3 is
.22 for boys and .41 for girls.

substance use was not found (Figure S1 in support-
ing information).
Further analyses indicated that the initial associ-
ations between the three variables are equivalent
across genders, but different associations emerge as
the adolescents got older. The transactional associa-
tions between variables found in the three-variable
model dropped out for both gender.
Comparing bullying and fighting perpetra-
tion. Additional analyses were conducted to
examine whether bullying and fighting perpetra-
tion uniquely mediated the association between
family violence and substance use for boys. Adapt-
ing the multiple group structural model tests of
equivalence across groups, a two-group structural
model was tested to examine two sets of variables.
One set of variables examined the mediating role
of fighting perpetration on the relation between
family violence and substance use with the male
sample, and the other set of variables examined the
mediating role of bullying perpetration on the rela-
tion between family violence and substance use,
also with the male sample. As expected from the
previous sets of analyses, results indicated that
fighting perpetration and bullying perpetration
separately mediated the relation between family
violence and substance use. Equality constraints
were then placed on the mediating pathways to
examine whether the model with these constraints
would significantly differ from the model without
the equality constraints. Results showed that plac-
ing equality constraints on the mediating pathways
did not significantly change the fit of the model [v2
(2, 1.225)] indicating that the mediating influence
of fighting and bullying did not differ significantly
from each other for the male sample (see Table S4
in Supporting information). This suggests that
although bullying and fighting perpetration are
unique constructs, they operate similarly as media-
tors for the relation between family violence and
substance use.
DISCUSSION
Fighting and bullying can be broadly construed as
maladaptive social interactions (or social dynamic)
that are influenced, maintained, or mitigated by
relationships in the school, peer, and familial con-
texts. Despite this, there are few studies that inves-
tigated family context of bullying particularly in
the United States (e.g., Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel,
2009), and the majority of the existing studies on
the topic have been cross-sectional. Our research is
predicated on a SIL model in which family vio-
lence serves as an important context for under-
standing the relation between fighting and bullying
perpetration and substance use. As such, this study
addresses the paucity of longitudinal studies of
family context and bullying in the United States,
as well as the significant dearth of longitudinal
 FAMILY VIOLENCE, BULLYING, AND SUBSTANCE USE
investigations on bullying perpetration and sub-
stance use.
Our results suggest that fighting and bullying
perpetration are important mechanisms linking
family violence and substance use only for male
adolescents. That is, fighting and bullying perpetra-
tion served as indirect mechanisms between family
violence at Wave 1 and substance use at Wave 3.
These findings are consistent with previous
research that has linked exposure to familial vio-
lence as a precursor to alcohol and drug use (Dube
et al., 2006; Gilbert et al., 2009; Marcenko et al.,
2000). The connection between familial violence
and aggression at school is not a new finding and
not even surprising, given the intergenerational
transmission of aggression and the SIL framework
of youth aggression (Reid et al., 2002; Slomkowski
et al., 2001). For males, both forms of aggression,
whether manifested in fighting or verbal and rela-
tional aggression, seem to be a part of a cluster of
“problem behavior,” insofar as substance use and
bullying show reciprocal relations and operate in
similar context (i.e., a spurious relation).
Two potential explanations could be drawn from
these findings. First, for males, fighting and bully-
ing perpetration could be simply another manifesta-
tion of an antisocial tendency that is a precursor to
alcohol and drug onset (Farrington & Ttofi, 2011).
Second, although not accounted for in this model, it
is plausible that for males, both behaviors stem
from a similar peer environment, escalating both
behaviors, as evidenced by the cascading strength
of the relations between aggression and AOD use
over time. After all, youth who are prone to engage
in fighting and bullying perpetration might have
difficulty with self-control, which makes socializing
with a conventional peer group difficult (Schwartz
& Proctor, 2000). These youth are prone to rejection
and exclusion by their mainstream peers (Dishion,
Patterson, & Stoolmiller, 1991), and consequently
resort to affiliating with other aggressive peers who
might be engaging in deviant behaviors, including
alcohol and drug use (Farmer et al., 2010; Sijtsema,
Lindenberg, & Veenstra, 2010).
For females, we found a direct effect from expo-
sure to family violence (Wave 1) to greater alcohol
and drug use over time, although the absence of
mediation in both models suggests that these are
related but somewhat independent processes when
examined over time. For females, it seems the cou-
pling of these behaviors over time is not as evident
as it is for males; insofar that family violence is
influencing growth in AOD use for females, but
somewhat independently of aggressive behavior
345
(i.e., bullying and fighting). Given that adolescent
girls report higher rates of internalizing symptoms
(i.e., depression, anxiety; Broderick & Korteland,
2002), a more relevant mediator between family
violence and alcohol and drug use might be
depression for girls and should be considered in
subsequent studies.
These data augment the aggression literature by
suggesting bullying (name-calling, rumor-spread-
ing) perpetration is an explanatory variable
between family violence and substance use among
a sample of male adolescents. Although aggression
is multidimensional, findings overall suggest that,
when examined conjointly with AOD use and fam-
ily violence, bullying and fighting operate some-
what similarly (for males and females). However, it
remains important to not assume redundancy
among these behaviors in future work, as the
specific antecedents and consequences may vary
across contexts. It is imperative that researchers
investigating the family context of bullying and
substance abuse examine not only violence involv-
ing parents but also that involving siblings. A note-
worthy strength of this study was the assessment
of violence between and among parents and chil-
dren. In addition, future studies are needed to flesh
out the secondary mechanisms (i.e., more proximal
determinants) explaining the links between bully-
ing and substance use, ideally taking the forms of
bullying into account, as well as individual level
(e.g., race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender)
and macro level contextual factors (e.g., culture).
The current study has several strengths, includ-
ing a large, diverse sample, and multiple waves of
data collection (albeit over a relatively shorter win-
dow of time). The overreliance on cross-sectional
data in the literature has prevented the field from
understanding how bullying and fighting perpetra-
tion may mediate associations between family
violence and substance use. This study was also
unique given the comprehensive assessment of
family violence. Students reported on the general
level of conflict in their family, but also reflected
upon aggression among children in the family.
Finally, this sample included students in middle
school, a time in which alcohol and drug use
onsets, and when engagement in other antisocial
behavior more generally increases.
Despite this, there are also a few limitations.
Foremost is the reliance on youth self-report rather
than multiple reports, which could diminish the
validity and reliability (i.e., sampling) of reported
behavior. Second, our measure of family violence
does not distinguish between direct and indirect
346 ESPELAGE, LOW, RAO, HONG, AND LITTLE
violence exposure, which could lead to underesti-
mation of relations among observed variables. Fur-
ther, the sibling conflict items assumed that the
student participants had either a sibling or a child
in the home, but the survey did not ask how many
siblings were in the home. Third, these data were
collected in one community located in a Midwest-
ern urban setting and these findings need to be
replicated in other communities to enhance the
ecological validity of our findings. Lastly, although
this is a conservative test, the mediational path-
ways are nevertheless small in magnitude, and
warrant replication. These limitations aside the cur-
rent findings represent an important initial step in
enhancing youth violence scholarship through the-
ory-driven, longitudinal research.
Taken together, the findings from this study sup-
port the social information learning framework in
understanding the relations among family violence,
fighting, bullying, and substance use in a sample of
early adolescents. As boys are exposed to greater
levels of family conflict, they engage in increasing
levels of aggression directed toward their peers at
school, and in turn, this aggression is associated
with greater levels of AOD use over time. Preven-
tion programs that focus on reduction of aggression
might therefore have an impact in reducing AOD
use among male adolescents. Girls who are exposed
to high levels of family violence report greater alco-
hol and drug use over time, suggesting that aggres-
sion is not a conduit from family violence to AOD
use. It is imperative that future research examines
other potentially malleable mediators of the family
violence-AOD association for girls.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the youth self-report
and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont,
Department of Psychiatry.
Baldry, A. C. (2003). Bullying in school and exposure to
domestic violence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 27, 713–732.
doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(03)00114-5
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action:
A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Bauer, N. S., Herrenkohl, T. I., Lozano, P., Rivara, F. P.,
Hill, K. G., & Hawkins, J. D. (2006). Childhood bully-
ing involvement and exposure to intimate partner vio-
lence. Pediatrics, 118, 235–242. doi:10.1542/peds.2005-
2509
Berthold, K. A., & Hoover, J. H. (2000). Correlates of bul-
lying and victimization among intermediate students
in the Midwestern USA. School Psychology International,
21, 65–78. doi:10.1177/0143034300211005
Bolger, K. E., & Patterson, C. J. (2001). Developmental
pathways from child maltreatment to peer rejection.
Child Development, 72, 549–568. doi:10.1111/14678624.
00296
Bowes, L., Arseneault, L., Maughan, B., Taylor, A., Caspi,
A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2009). School, neighborhood, and
family factors are associated with children’s bullying
involvement: A nationally representative longitudinal
study. Journal of the American Academy of Child Adoles-
cent Psychiatry, 48, 545–553. doi:10.1097/CHI.
0b013e31819cb017
Broderick, P. C., & Korteland, C. (2002). Coping style
and depression in early adolescence: Relationships to
gender, gender role, and implicit beliefs. Sex Roles, 46,
201–213. doi:10.1023/A:1019946714220
deBry, S. C., & Tiffany, S. T. (2008). Tobacco-induced
neurotoxicity of adolescent cognitive development
(TINACD): A proposed model for the development of
impulsivity in nicotine dependence. Nicotine & Tobacco
Research, 10, 11–25.
Burke, J. D., Loeber, R., & Birmaher, B. (2002). Opposi-
tional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: A review
of the past 10 years, part II. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 1275–1293.
Caffaro, J. V., & Conn-Caffaro, A. (2005). Treating sibling
abuse families. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10,
604–623. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2004.12.001
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Bul-
lying among middle school and high school students
—Massachusetts, 2009. MMWR 2011, 60, 465–495.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating
goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invari-
ance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. doi:10.
1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Cluver, L., Bowes, L., & Gardner, F. (2010). Risk and pro-
tective factors for bullying victimization among AIDS-
affected and vulnerable children in South Africa. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 34, 793–803.
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational
models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in
the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558–577. doi:10.1037/0021-
843X.112.4.558
Conger, R., & Rueter, M. (1996). Siblings, parents, and
peers: A longitudinal study of social influences in ado-
lescent risk for alcohol use and abuse. In G. Brody
(Ed.), Sibling relationships: Their causes and consequences.
Advances in applied developmental psychology (pp. 1–30).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., &
Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimiza-
tion in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic
investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 65–83.
doi:10.1037/a0020149
Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of relational aggression,
overt aggression, and prosocial behavior in the predic-
tion of children’s future social adjustment. Child Devel-
opment, 67, 2317–2327. doi:10.2307/1131625
 FAMILY VIOLENCE, BULLYING, AND SUBSTANCE USE
Criss, M., & Shaw, D. S. (2005). Sibling relationship qual-
ity as a context for delinquency training in low-income
families. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 592–600.
doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.4.592
Dishion, T. J., & Andrews, D. W. (1995). Preventing esca-
lation in problem behaviors with high-risk young ado-
lescents: Immediate and 1-year outcomes. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 538–548. doi:10.
1037/0022-006X.63.4.538
Dishion, T. J., Nelson, S. E., & Bullock, B. M. (2004). Pre-
mature adolescent autonomy: Parent disengagement
and deviant peer process in the amplification of prob-
lem behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 515–530. doi:10.
1016/j.adolescence.2004.06.005
Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., & Stoolmiller, M. L. (1991).
Family, school, and behavioral antecedents to early ado-
lescent involvement with antisocial peers. Developmental
Psychology, 27, 172–180. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.27.1.172
Donovan, J. E., Jessor, R., & Costa, F. (1991). Adolescent
health behavior and conventionality–unconventional-
ity: An extension of Problem-Behavior Theory. Health
Psychology, 10, 2–61. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.10.1.52
Downs, W. R., & Harrison, L. (1998). Childhood maltreat-
ment and the risk of substance problems in later life.
Health and Social Care in the Community, 6, 35–46.
Dube, S. R., Miller, J. W., Brown, D. W., Giles, W. H.,
Felitti, V. J., Dong, M., & Anda, R. F. (2006). Adverse
childhood experiences and the association with ever
using alcohol and initiating alcohol use during adoles-
cence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 444. doi:10.1016/
j.jadohealth.2005.06.006
Duncan, R. D. (1999). Peer and sibling aggression: An
investigation of intra- and extra-familial bullying. Jour-
nal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 871–886. doi:10.1177/
088626099014008005
DuRant, R. H., Smith, J. A., Kreiter, S. R., & Krowchuk,
D. P. (1999). The relationship between early age of
onset of initial substance use and engaging in multiple
health risk behaviors among young adolescents.
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 153, 286.
Ensminger, M. E., Juon, H. S., & Fothergill, K. (2002).
Childhood and adolescent antecedents of substance
use in early adulthood. Addiction, 97, 833–844.
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, 326–333. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01914.x
Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. L. (2001). Bullying and vic-
timization during early adolescence: Peer influences
and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse,
2, 123–142. doi:10.1300/J135v02n02_08
Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003).
Examination of peer-group contextual effects on
aggression during early adolescence. Child Develop-
ment, 74, 205–220. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00531
Espelage, D. L., Low, S., & De La Rue, L. (2012). Rela-
tions between peer victimization subtypes, family vio-
347
lence, and psychological outcomes during adolescence.
Psychology of Violence, 2, 313–324. doi:10.1037/a0027386
Espelage, D. L., & Stein, N. D. (2006). The University of
Illinois and Wellesley College: Student behavior survey.
Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-
paign, Department of Educational Psychology.
Farmer, T. W., Petrin, R. A., Robertson, D. L., Fraser, M.
W., Hall, C. M., Day, S. H., & Dadisman, K. (2010).
Peer relations of bullies, bully-victims, and victims:
The two worlds of bullying in second-grade class-
rooms. The Elementary School Journal, 110, 364–392.
doi:10.1086/648983
Farrell, A. D., Kung, E. M., White, K. S., & Valois, R.
(2000). The structure of self-reported aggression, drug
use, and delinquent behaviors during early adoles-
cence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 282–292.
doi:10.1207/S15374424jccp2902_13
Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2011). Bullying as a
predictor of offending, violence and later life out-
comes. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21, 90–98.
doi:10.1002/cbm.801
Furlong, M., Casas, J. M., Corral, C., Chung, A., & Bates,
M. (1997). Drugs and school violence. Education and
Treatment of Children, 20, 263–280.
Gelles, R. J., & Straus, M. A. (1988). Intimate violence.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Gilbert, R., Widom, C. S., Browne, K., Fergusson, D.,
Webb, E., & Janson, J. (2009). Burden and consequences
of child maltreatment in high-income countries. The
Lancet, 373, 68–81. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61706-7
Graham, J. W., Cumsille, P. E., & Elek-Fisk, E. (2003).
Methods for handling missing data. In J. A. Schinka &
W. E. Velicer (Eds.), Research methods in psychology
(Vol. 2, pp. 87–114). New York, NY: Wiley.
Haynie, D. L., & McHugh, S. (2006). Sibling deviance: In
the shadows of mutual and unique friendship effects.
Criminology, 41, 355–392. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.
tb00991.x
Hemphill, S. A., Kotevski, A., Herrenkohl, T. I., Bond, L.,
Kim, M. J., Toumbouro, J. W., & Catalano, R. F. (2011).
Longitudinal consequences of adolescent bullying per-
petration and victimisation: A study of students in Vic-
toria, Australia. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health,
21, 107–116. doi:10.1002/cbm.802
Holt, M. K., Kantor, G. K., & Finkelhor, D. (2009). Par-
ent/child concordance about bullying involvement
and family characteristics related to bullying and peer
victimization. Journal of School Violence, 8, 42–63. doi:10.
1080/15388220802067813
Houbre, B., Tarquinio, C., Thuillier, I., & Hergott, E.
(2006). Bullying among students and its consequences
on health. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
21, 183–208. doi:10.1007/BF03173576
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
348 ESPELAGE, LOW, RAO, HONG, AND LITTLE
Jimerson, S. R., & Furlong, M. J. (Eds.). (2006). The hand-
book of school violence and school safety: From research to
practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., &
Schulenberg, J. E. (2012). Monitoring the future national
results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings,
2011. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, the Uni-
versity of Michigan.
Kim, M. J., Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., & Abbott, R.
D. (2011). Bullying at elementary school and problem
behaviour in young adulthood: A study of bullying,
violence and substance use from age 11 to age 21.
Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21, 136–144.
doi:10.1002/cbm.804
King, K. M., & Chassin, L. (2007). A prospective study of
the effects of age of initiation of alcohol and drug use
on young adult substance dependence. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68, 256–265.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Wid-
aman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Explor-
ing the question, weighing the merits. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9,
151–173. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
Little, T. D., Slegers, D. W., & Card, N. A. (2006). A non-
arbitrary method of identifying and scaling latent vari-
ables in SEM and MACS models. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13, 59–72. doi:10.
1207/s15328007sem1301_3
Luengo, J., Garc
ıa, S., & Herrera, F. (2010). A study on
the use of imputation methods for experimentation
with radial basis function network classifiers handling
missing attribute values: The good synergy between
RBFNs and event covering method. Neural Networks,
23, 406–418. doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2009.11.014
Luk, J. W., Wang, J., & Simons-Morton, B. G. (2010). Bul-
lying victimization and substance use among U.S. ado-
lescents: Mediation by depression. Prevention Science,
11, 355–359. doi:10.1007/s11121-010-0179-0
Marcenko, M. O., Kemp, S. P., & Larson, N. C. (2000).
Childhood experiences of abuse, later substance use,
and parenting outcomes among low-income mothers.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70, 316–326. doi:10.
1037/h0087853
Moretti, M. M., Obsuth, I., Odgers, C. L., & Reebye, P.
(2006). Exposure to maternal vs. paternal partner vio-
lence, PTSD, and aggression in adolescent girls and
boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 385–395. doi:10.1002/ab.
20137
Mustanoja, S., Luukkonen, A. H., Hakko, H., Rasanen, P.,
Saavala, H., Riala, K., et al. (2011). Is exposure to
domestic violence and violent crime associated with
bullying behaviour among underage adolescent psy-
chiatric inpatients? Child Psychiatry and Human Develop-
ment, 42, 495–506. doi:10.1007/s10578-011-0222-9
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and
what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (2002). Bullying at school. Malden, MA: Black-
well.
Ortega, L., & Espelage, D.L. (under review). A cluster
analytic view of poly-victimization and psychosocial
functioning among Hispanic adolescents. Psychology of
Violence.
Reid, J. B., Patterson, G. R., & Snyder, J. J. (Eds.). (2002).
Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A develop-
mental analysis and a model for intervention. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Roche, K. M., Ghazarian, S. R., Little, T. D., & Leventhal,
T. (2011). Understanding links between punitive par-
enting and adolescent adjustment: The relevance of
context and reciprocal association. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 21, 448–460. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.
2010.00681.x
Roscoe, B., Goodwin, M. P., & Kennedy, D. (1987). Sib-
ling violence and agonistic interactions experienced by
early adolescents. Journal of Family Violence, 2, 121–137.
doi:10.1007/BF00977037
SAS Institute Inc. (2008). SAS/STAT 9.2 user’s guide. Cary,
NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H.
(2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models:
Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit
measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8, 23–74.
Schwartz, D., & Proctor, L. (2000). Community violence
exposure and children’s social adjustment in the school
peer group: The mediating roles of emotion regulation
and social cognition. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 68, 670–683. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.68.4.670
Sijtsema, J. J., Lindenberg, S., & Veenstra, R. (2010). Do
they get what they want or are they stuck with what
they can get? Testing homophily against default selec-
tion for friendships of highly aggressive boys. The
TRAILS study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38,
803–813.
Skara, S., Pokhrel, P., Weiner, M. D., Sun, P., Dent, C.
W., & Sussman, S. (2008). Physical and relational
aggression as predictors of drug use: Gender differ-
ences among high school students. Addictive behaviors,
33, 1507. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.05.014
Slomkowski, C., Rende, R., Conger, K. J., Simons, R. L.,
& Conger, R. D. (2001). Sisters, brothers, and delin-
quency: Evaluating social influence during early and
middle adolescence. Child Development, 72, 271–283.
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00278
Snyder, J., Bank, L., & Burraston, B. (2005). The conse-
quences of antisocial behavior in older male siblings
for younger brothers and sisters. Journal of Family Psy-
chology, 19, 643–653. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.4.643
Snyder, J. J., Reid, J. B., & Patterson, G. R. (2003). A
social learning model of child and adolescent antisocial
behavior. In B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt, & A. Caspi
(Eds.), The causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delin-
quency (pp. 27–48). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Sourander, A., Helstela, L., Helenius, H., & Piha, J.
(2000). Persistence of bullying from childhood to ado-
lescence: A longitudinal 8-year follow-up study. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 24, 873–881.
 FAMILY VIOLENCE, BULLYING, AND SUBSTANCE USE
Sullivan, T. N., Farrell, A. D., & Kliewer, W. (2006). Peer
victimization in early adolescence: Association
between physical and relational victimization and drug
use, aggression, and delinquent behaviors among
urban middle school students. Development and Psycho-
pathology, 18, 119–137. doi:10.1017/S095457940606007X
Taiwo, T., & Goldstein, S. (2006). Drug use and its associ-
ation with deviant behaviour among rural adolescent
students in South Africa. East African Medical Journal,
83, 500–506.
Tharp-Taylor, S., Haviland, A., & D’Amico, E. J. (2009).
Victimization from mental and physical bullying and
substance use in early adolescence. Addictive Behaviors,
34, 561–567. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.03.012
Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Smith, C.
A., & Tobin, K. (2003). Gangs and delinquency in develop-
mental perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Vakalahi, H. F. (2001). Adolescent substance use and
family-based risk and protective factors: A literature
review. Journal of Drug Education, 31, 29–46. doi:10.
2190/QP75-P9AR-NUVJ-FJCB
Voisin, D. R., & Hong, J. S. (2012). A mediational model
linking witnessing intimate partner violence and bully-
ing behaviors and victimization among youth. Educa-
tional Psychology Review, 24, 479–498. doi:10.1007/
s10648-012-9197-8
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School
bullying among adolescents in the United States: Phys-
ical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 45, 368–375. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021
349
Zucker, R. A., Wong, M. M., Clark, D. B., Leonard, K. E.,
Schulenberg, J. E., Cornelius, J. R., . . . Putler, L. I.
(2006). Predicting risky drinking outcomes longitudi-
nally: What kind of advance notice can we get? Alco-
holism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 30, 243–252.
doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2006.00033.x
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found
in the online version of this article at the
publisher’s website:
Table S1. Loading, intercept values, residuals, and
R2 values for each indicator from the strong metric
invariance model for girls.
Table S2. Loading, intercept values, residuals, and
R2 values for each indicator from the strong metric
invariance model for boys.
Table S3. Fit indices for the multiple group analy-
ses of family violence—bullying perpetration—
AOD across gender.
Table S4. Fit indices for the multiple group analy-
ses—comparing the mediating role of bullying
perpetration and fighting perpetration.
Figure S1. Mediational model testing the mediating
role of bully perpetration on the relation between
family violence and AOD use for boys and girls.