Unraveling the Link between Trauma and

Male Delinquency: The Cumulative Versus

Differential Risk Perspectives
Tina Maschi

This study examined how the cumulative (additive) versus differential (individual) effects of
trauma influenced male delinquency. Using a comprehensive measure of trauma, a secondary
data analysis was conducted on a nationally representative sample of male youths between the
ages of 12 and 17. Logistic regression analyses revealed that all three types of stressors had an
effect on male delinquency, even after controlling for potential confounding factors. These
findings underscore the need to adopt a broader view of the types of trauma linked to juvenile
delinquency. Implications for social work practice and intervention research are discussed.

KEY WORDS: cumulative risk; exposure to violence; juvenile delinquency; stressful life events; trauma

W
ithin the social work, mental health, and
criminal justice fields, researchers gen-
erally agree that trauma places youths
at risk of juvenile delinquency. Proponents of the
developmental and cumulative risk theoretical
models (Cichetti & Carlson, 1989; Rutter, 1985,
1987) disagree, however, about whether it is a spe-
cific risk factor or an accumulation of risk factors
that produces an adverse outcome, such as delin-
quency. Developmental theory suggests that youths
who have experienced a traumatic event of suffi-
cient magnitude, such as child physical abuse, may
experience long-term, negative consequences—
psychological, social, and behavioral—that continue
and sometimes worsen in adolescence and adult-
hood (Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1990; Lemmon, 1999;
Perez, 2001; Widom, 1989a). Research has shown
that 50 percent to 79 percent of male victims of
child maltreatment, whose abuse occurred before
age 12, later became involved in serious juvenile
delinquency (Lemmon; Stouthamer-Loeber, Wei,
Homish, & Loeber, 2002). In contrast, cumulative
risk theory suggests that youths who experience an
accumulation of negative or stressful life events, such
as parental divorce or school suspension, increase
their risk of engaging in juvenile delinquency
(Agnew, 2002; Eitle & Turner, 2002; Garmezy &
Masten, 1994; Hoffman & Cerbone, 1999; Ireland,
Smith, & Thornberry, 2002).
Although both differential and cumulative ef-
fects of trauma have been linked to youths’ antiso-
cial behavior, researchers generally have investigated
these effects independently. Broadly defined, trauma
in this regard refers to being a victim of violence,
being a witness to violence, or experiencing stress-
ful life events. Of the three types of trauma, re-
search on child maltreatment and witnessing vio-
lence has mainly adopted a developmental approach,
and research on stressful life events has adopted a
cumulative risk approach. Child maltreatment, often
defined as being a victim of physical abuse, sexual
abuse, and neglect that occurs before age 12, is
positively related to adolescent and adult criminal-
ity (Falshaw, Browne, & Hollin, 1996; Haapsalo &
Pokela, 1999; Lemmon, 1999; Widom, 1989a;
Zingraff, Leiter, & Myers, & Johnsen, 1993). First-
generation studies on the child maltreatment–de-
linquency connection, conducted between 1950
and 1988, generally found that youths who were
maltreated in childhood were at greater risk of
engaging in illegal behavior, especially violent be-
havior (Widom, 1989a). A causal link, however,
cannot be drawn from these early studies because
of their methodological limitations, such as the use
of cross-sectional retrospective designs, small sample
sizes, a lack of comparison groups, differing defini-
tions and data collection methods, and failure to
control for confounding variables (Widom, 1989b).

Maschi
CCC / Unraveling
Code: 0037-8046/06 the ©2006
$3.00 Link between
National Trauma and
Association of Male Delinquency: The
Social Workers Cumulative Versus Differential Risk Perspectives 59
 Later research, however, provided stronger evi-
dence of a causal relationship between being abused
as a child and adolescent delinquency. Second-gen-
eration studies conducted after 1988 used prospec-
tive longitudinal designs, comparison groups, and
control variables. For example, in Widom’s (1989b)
classic study, the maltreated group was more likely
to have had official juvenile and adult criminal of-
fenses, including violent offenses, than the com-
parison group. Of all the subtypes of maltreatment,
physical abuse had the strongest relationship to vio-
lent crime later in life. Although advancing our
understanding of the problem, many second-gen-
eration studies were still confounded by other
methodological issues. For example, they did not
control for other adverse experiences, such as wit-
nessing violence or experiencing stressful life
events, or victimization that occurred after age 12.
An exception, Ireland and colleagues (2002) con-
trolled for lifetime adverse experiences and found
a relationship between youths who were victim-
ized in both childhood and adolescence or ado-
lescence only and delinquency. However, no sig-
nificant relationship was found between youths
who experienced childhood maltreatment only
and delinquency.
Witnessing violence is another traumatic expe-
rience linked to youths’ illegal behavior (Edleson,
1999; Jaffe,Wolfe,Wilson, & Zak, 1986; Johnson et
al., 2002). A high degree of exposure to family and
community violence has been found among the
vast majority of adjudicated youths (Erwin,
Newman, McMackin, Morrissey, & Kaloupek,
2000; Martin, Sigda, & Kupersmidt, 1998). Al-
though witnessing violence in the home and com-
munity often occurs in conjunction with being a
victim of violence, there have been very few in-
vestigations of their combined effects. Cross-sec-
tional and longitudinal analyses of exposure to vio-
lence have found that youths who have been
victims of or witnesses to family or community
violence or both are more likely to engage in ag-
gressive and antisocial behavior (Johnson et al.;
Kruttschnitt & Dornfeld, 1993).
In addition, youths who experience an accumu-
lation or clustering of stressful life events are more
likely to engage in delinquent acts than their peers
who do not experience these events (Agnew &
White, 1992; Eitle & Turner, 2002; Hoffman &
Cerbone, 1999). Adolescent boys tend to external-
ize their reactions to these stressful experiences by
60
acting out aggressively or committing delinquent
acts (Hoffman & Su, 1997; Ireland & Widom, 1994).
Events such as parental divorce or separation, mov-
ing to a new home, chronic illness or death in the
family, failing a class or being suspended from school,
among others, may engender a sense of loss or un-
certainty. Also, many of these experiences are un-
changeable and can block the achievement of de-
sired goals (Agnew, 1992). Research exploring the
impact of the combined effects of recent stressful
life events and exposure to violence on juvenile
delinquency has been minimal. However, prelimi-
nary results support a cumulative risk model. Using
longitudinal data, Eitle and Turner (2002) found
that the risk of antisocial behavior among youths
increased with recent exposure to community vio-
lence and stressful life events, as well as having re-
cently received traumatic news.
Traumatic experiences linked to juvenile delin-
quency may range from minor to severe and have
an independent or additive effect that may span
from childhood to adolescence. What remains to
be understood is whether the magnitude of spe-
cific or differential risk factors or the accumulation
of risk factors increases the risk of juvenile delin-
quency. The present study extends earlier research
by using a comprehensive measure of trauma, and
it examines the impact of the cumulative versus
differential risks on serious delinquency in adoles-
cent boys.The components of the trauma measure
include (1) being a victim of violence (for example,
physically abusive punishment, physical assault, and
sexual assault), (2) witnessing family and commu-
nity violence, and (3) experiencing stressful life
events (for example, parental separation or divorce,
death of a loved one, and being suspended from
school). In addition, this research controlled for the
common correlates of delinquency, including age,
race and ethnicity, social class, family structure, geo-
graphic location, delinquent peer exposure, nega-
tive affect, and social support.
Using a developmental perspective, I hypoth-
esized that prior victimization experiences, such
as being a victim of physical or sexual assault, in-
crease the likelihood of juvenile delinquency, es-
pecially violent delinquency, in adolescent boys,
even when controlling for confounding variables.
Adopting a cumulative risk perspective, I counter-
hypothesized that the additive effects of exposure
to violence and stressful life events greatly increase
the odds of adolescent boys engaging in juvenile
Social Work Volume 51, Number 1 January 2006
delinquency. Gaining a better understanding of the
trauma–delinquency connection can help research-
ers and practitioners develop more effective pre-
vention and treatment responses targeted at pro-
tecting and maintaining the well-being of youths
and their communities.
METHOD
Sample
The male adolescent sample, ages 12 to 17
(unweighted N = 2, 018 and weighted N = 2,065),
was drawn from the 1995 National Survey of Ado-
lescents (NSA). The 1995 NSA consists of a na-
tionally representative sample of 4,023 adolescents
ages 12 to 17, of which roughly half are boys. The
sample was designed to reflect the general popula-
tion of adolescents from 1988 U.S. Census Bureau
statistics for geographic location, age, gender, and
race and ethnicity.The sampling design used was a
stratified random sample, and the male population
consisted of two subsamples, a national probability
household sample (n = 1,599) and a probability
oversample (n = 419) from central city areas in the
United States (Kilpatrick & Saunders, 1995).
Procedures
Self-report information was gathered in 1995 from
adolescents and their parents or guardians during
one-hour structured telephone interviews. House-
holds were reached using random digit dialing.
Depending on the respondent’s preference, a tele-
phone interview was conducted in either English
or Spanish. Permission was obtained first from a
parent or guardian to interview the respondent
adolescent in the home. Interviewers used com-
puter-assisted telephone interviewing, which of-
fers more advanced capabilities such as complex
skip patterns and question ordering. The inter-
viewers were provided by the New York survey
research team Schulman, Ronca, and Bucuvalas,
Incorporated.
The response rate for the telephone interviews
was high. Ninety percent of parents and caregivers
completed interviews, of which the majority (78.9
percent, n = 4,235) gave permission for an adoles-
cent in the home to be interviewed. This resulted
in a 75 percent response rate of adolescents from
eligible households, of which 95.0 percent (n =
4,023) had parental permission and 83.2 percent (n
= 3,347) had a completed parent interview
(Kilpatrick & Saunders, 1995).
Maschi / Unraveling the Link between Trauma and Male Delinquency: The Cumulative Versus Differential Risk Perspectives
Adolescents were asked about their past experi-
ences of direct and indirect violence, past-year stress-
ful life events, delinquent activity, emotional and
psychological states, and peer relations.This analy-
sis mainly used the adolescents’ self-report infor-
mation for the variables under investigation, ex-
cept for family sociodemographic variables, which
were based on parent or guardian reporting.
Measures
Juvenile Delinquency. The NSA Juvenile Delin-
quency Module, a self-report delinquency measure,
has two scales of serious juvenile delinquent acts:
property offending and violent offending. Accord-
ing to official statistics, property offending and vio-
lent offending are the two most common delin-
quent activities for which male youths are arrested
(Snyder, 2003). The validity of adolescents’ self-re-
ports for past delinquent behavior, especially when
asked during a home phone interview is of some
concer n (Brown, 1999; Far rington, Loeber,
Stouthamer-Loeber, Van Kammen, & Schmidt,
1996). The measure used in this study only asked
respondents to remember their delinquent events
over the past year, a time frame in which memory
recall is much more dependable (Williams &
Uchiyama, 1989).The survey questions were phrased
in a way in which the adolescent respondents only
had to respond with a yes or no. Therefore, if any
other people (such as parents or guardians) were in
listening range, the content of the interview would
have remained confidential (Kilpatrick & Saunders,
1995).
Property offending included three items: (1) hav-
ing stolen or attempted to steal an item worth
more than $100, (2) having stolen or attempted to
steal a motor vehicle (car or motorcycle), and (3)
having broken into or attempted to break into a
building or vehicle. Property offending was coded
as a binary variable (1 = past-year property of-
fending, 0 = no past-year property offending). Vio-
lent delinquency or violent offending had four items:
(1) being involved in gang fights, (2) using force or
strong-arm methods to get money or things from
people, (3) having or attempting to have sexual
relations with someone against his or her will,
and (4) attacking someone with the idea of seri-
ously hurting or killing them. Violent delin-
quency also was coded as a binary variable (1 =
past-year violent delinquency, 0 = no past-year vio-
lent delinquency). Cochran’s chi-square statistic was
61
significant (p < .01) for both property offending
and violent delinquency.
Trauma. The NSA’s 20-item multivictimization
scale was used to measure lifetime exposure to vio-
lence for youths ages 12 to 17. Exposure to vio-
lence consisted of four types of differential trauma
that may have occurred in the home, school, or
community: (1) physical abuse, (2) physical assault,
(3) sexual assault, and (4) witnessed violence. Physi-
cal abuse was defined as an act in which a youth
received physical punishment from a caregiver,
which consisted of spanking (resulting in bad
marks, bruises, cuts, or welts), burning, cutting, or
being tied up. Physical assault was defined as the
youth being hit, attacked, or beat up either in the
neighborhood, school, or home. Sexual assault in-
cluded sexual acts in which a youth was forced to
give or receive fondling, oral sex, or anal penetra-
tion. Witnessed violence was defined as having ob-
served someone being shot, stabbed, sexually as-
saulted, mugged, robbed, or threatened with a
weapon. For cumulative trauma, each reported
event of exposure to violence was equivalent to
one point. The sum of these points comprised the
cumulative exposure to violence score. Because
each of the scale items was dichotomous, the
Cochran chi-square was calculated. It was signifi-
cant (p < .01) for both the differential and cumu-
lative scales of exposure to violence.
The NSA Stressful Life Events Module was used
to measure such events during the preceding year.
Each of the 14 stressful life events reported equaled
one point. The sum of points represented the total
cumulative stressful life events score for that year.
The differential effects of stressful life events were
measured by subdividing the scale into two sub-
categories: (1) the loss of positively valued stimuli
and (2) the blockage of positively valued goals,
which according to general strain theory are the
two major categories of stressful life events that
are linked to juvenile delinquency (Agnew, 1985).
The loss of positively valued stimuli was repre-
sented by
• parents separated or divorced
• parental unemployment
• new stepmother or stepfather
• death of a family member
• loss of a close friend
• move to a new home
• change to a new school
62
• serious illness or injury of a family member,
close friend, or self.
The blockage of positively valued goals was
measured by three school-related items: (1) repeat-
ing a school grade, (2) getting suspended from
school, and (3) receiving at least one failing grade.
According to general strain theory, any blockages
to the achievement of success or status, such as in
the case of educational goals for adolescents, in-
creases the risk of juvenile delinquency (Agnew,
1985). Cochran’s chi-square statistic was significant
(p < .01) for both stressful life events subscales.
Control Variables
Some of the common correlates of delinquency
were included in the analysis as covariates to ad-
just for their effect on the relationships that are of
central interest. The following variables are risk or
protective factors commonly associated with juve-
nile delinquency and commonly controlled for in
studies examining the link between trauma and de-
linquency: age, socioeconomic status, race and eth-
nicity, family structure, geographic location, nega-
tive affect, delinquent peer exposure, and social
support (Agnew & White, 1992; Brezina, 1998;
Brownfield, 1986; Capowich, Mazerolle, & Piquero,
2001; Esposito & Clum, 2002; Heck & Walsh, 2000;
Jang, 1999). Age was measured by the adolescent’s
current age at the time of the interview. Race and
ethnicity was dichotomized into two groups based
on perceived societal status (1 = ethnic minority
status and 0 = majority status). The racial majority
group consisted of white, non-Hispanics, and the
racial and ethnic minority group consisted of Af-
rican American, Hispanic, Native American, and
Asian youths. Socioeconomic status was measured
by total family income and parent education.Total
family income (yearly salary earned by one or more
household members) was a binary variable catego-
rized as above or below the 1995 estimated pov-
erty level (1 = $20,000 and higher and 0 = less
than $20,000). Parent education was measured by
whether the person designated as the head of
household had obtained a high school diploma or
GED (1 = yes and 0 = no). Family structure was
defined as a married couple (two-parent biologi-
cal or adoptive family or stepfamily); and other
family categories included parents or caregivers
who were separated, living as an unmarried couple,
divorced, widowed, or single and never married (1
Social Work Volume 51, Number 1 January 2006
= intact and 0 = nonintact). Geographic location
described urban (1 = city and city suburb) or rural
(0 = small town or rural) location of the family
residence.
Negative affect, which has positively correlated to
juvenile delinquency in earlier research (Agnew &
White, 1992; Brezina, 1998), was represented by
two measures: anger and depression. Anger was as-
sessed by the following questions: “Have little things
bothered you a lot or could they make you very
angry?” (1= yes, 0 = no), and “When was the most
recent time you felt that way?” (0 = never angry, 1
= angry more than six months ago, 2 = angry within
the past six months, and 3 = angry within the past
month). Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .79
and the Cochran chi-square was significant (p <
.01). Depression was measured by the 12-item NSA
Depression Module. This scale is based on DSM-
IV criteria for depression and includes items such
as “depressed most of the day for at least two weeks,”
“felt worthless,” “had trouble/difficulty concentrat-
ing,” or “had thoughts of hurting oneself.” Each
affirmative response equaled one point, with a pos-
sible total score of 12. The depression scale con-
sisted of dichotomous items (α = .58) and the
Cochran chi-square was significant for this sample
(p < .01).
Delinquent peer exposure was represented by the
13-item NSA Delinquent Peer Exposure Module
(α = .88) and measured the proportion of friends
who were reported as engaging in delinquent acts
during the past year. These acts included theft or
burglary, alcohol or drug use, alcohol or drug sales,
or physical or sexual assault. Youths were first asked
whether they had friends who engaged in any of
these activities. If they answered yes, they were asked
what proportion of their friends engaged in that
activity. A five-item Likert scale determined the
proportion of delinquent friends who committed
any of these delinquent acts with responses ranging
from 4 = all of them to 0 = none of them.
Social support was defined as the presence of a
caring individual in a youth’s life, operationalized
by two survey questions: “Was there anyone in your
childhood that you knew you could count on or
depend on to be there when you needed them?”
and “Was this true throughout your whole child-
hood?” These two items were added together to
represent the youth’s level of social support (2 =
always true, 1 = sometimes true, 0 = never true).
Cronbach’s alpha (.39) was low; however, the
Maschi / Unraveling the Link between Trauma and Male Delinquency: The Cumulative Versus Differential Risk Perspectives
Cochran chi-square was significant (p < .01) for
this measure.
ANALYSIS
To evaluate the cumulative versus differential ef-
fects of trauma on male delinquency, logistic re-
gression analyses examined the dichotomous out-
come variables: past-year property offending and
violent offending. All analyses were weighted based
on 1988 U.S. Census Bureau statistics and controlled
for potential confounding variables: age, race and
ethnicity, socioeconomic status, family structure,
geographic location, negative affect, delinquent peer
exposure, and social support. Cases with missing
data were dropped from the analyses.
FINDINGS
Sample Characteristics
The mean age of the male adolescents was 14.47
(SD = .17). Most of the male youths were white
and resided in two-parent families in small town or
rural locations (Table 1). About 15 percent (n =
301) of the sample reported having committed at
least one type of delinquent act during the past
year. Relative to property offending (7.4 percent, n
= 153), violent offending (10.6 percent, n = 219)
was more commonly reported by the sample.
The prevalence and type of trauma experienced
varied among sample members (N = 2,065). The
majority reported being exposed to violence (77.8
percent, n = 1,607) or having experienced past-
year stressful life events (88.3 percent, n = 1,823).
Witnessing violence (76.3 percent, n = 1,576) was
the most common type of exposure to violence
reported. For direct victimization experiences, re-
spondents reported being victims of physical as-
sault (21.3 percent, n = 439) much more than be-
ing victims of physically abusive punishment (8.5
percent, n = 176), or sexual assault (3.4 percent, n =
71). As for past-year stressful life events, more of the
youths (80.7 percent, n = 1,666) reported at least
one past-year incident of the loss of positively val-
ued stimuli than the blockage of positively valued
goals (51.0 percent, n = 1,054).
Effects of Trauma
To determine the relative contribution of cumula-
tive trauma and differential trauma to property of-
fending and violent delinquency, hierarchical lo-
gistic regression analyses were conducted. For each
of the analyses, the control variables were entered
63
 Table 1: Sample Demographic quency, when controlling for potential confound-
Characteristics (Weighted N = 2,065) ing factors.
Variable % N
Results indicate that both cumulative trauma and
differential trauma explained adolescent male de-
Age
linquency. The model chi-square statistic for cu-
12–14 50.6 1,045
mulative trauma was significant for property of-
15–16 49.2 1,017
fending [χ2(N = 1,862) = 179.70, p < .01] and
Unknown 0.2 3
violent offending [χ2(N = 1,862) = 71.65, p < .01)
Total 100.0 2,065
(Table 2), suggesting that both models fit the data.
Race/ethnicity
The analyses revealed that the cumulative effects of
White 71.0 1,466
exposure to stressful life events significantly increased
African American 14.2 293
the odds of youths engaging in property offending
Hispanic 7.5 155
but not the cumulative effects of exposure to vio-
Native American 3.4 70
lence. The odds that delinquent youths had com-
Asian 1.0 22
mitted property offending were 1.31 times greater
Other 0.8 17
for adolescent males who had experienced past-
Unknown 2.0 42
year stressful life events than adolescent males who
Total 100.0 2,065
had not. In comparison, exposure to both violence
Family structure
and stressful life events significantly predicted vio-
Non-intact 21.2 438
lent delinquency.The odds ratio was slightly greater
Intact 78.6 1,623
for cumulative exposure to violence (OR = 1.40, p
Unknown 0.2 4
< .01) than the experience of stressful life events
Total 100.0 2,065
(OR = 1.17, p < .01). The control variables, age
Total family income
(OR = .78, p < .01) and parent education (OR =
Less than $20,000 16.1 332
2.37, p < .05) significantly influenced property of-
More than $20,000 77.9 1,609
fending. Family income (OR = 1.84, p < .05), mi-
Unknown 6.0 124
nority status (OR = 2.30, p < .01), and family struc-
Total 100.0 2,065
ture (OR = .59, p < .05) significantly influenced
Parent/head of household education
violent offending using the cumulative trauma
8th grade or less 2.2 45
model.
Some high school 7.4 153
The chi-square statistic for differential trauma
High school graduate 31.1 643
reveals an overall fit of the model for the data for
Some college 27.6 570
property offending [χ2(N = 1,862) = 159.24, p <
College degree 22.0 455
.01] and violent delinquency [χ2(N = 1,862) =
Graduate degree 9.5 197
81.58, p < .01) (Table 3). A positive and significant
Unknown 0.1 2
effect was found for the blockage of positively val-
Total 100.0 2,065
ued goals. Male youths who experienced some type
Geographic location
of school failure in the past year, such as failing a
Rural 65.0 1,342
class, being left back a grade, or being suspended,
Urban 34.8 719
were 2.31 times more likely to commit property
Unknown 0.2 3
offenses than male youths who had not. Unexpect-
Total 100.0 2,065
edly, having been a victim of sexual assault signifi-
cantly decreased the odds of engaging in property
offending (OR = .39, p < .05).This result could be
first as a block, followed by the set of trauma vari- attributed to the relatively small sample size (n =
ables in the second block. The chi-square statistic, 35) of male youths who reported a history of sexual
the unstandardized logistic regression coefficient, abuse. Having been a victim of physical assault,
the standard error of b, the odds ratio, and the con- witnessing violence, and experiencing the block-
fidence intervals are presented for the impact of age of positively valued goals were all positively
cumulative trauma (Table 2) and differential trauma and significantly related to committing violent acts.
(Table 3) on property offending and violent delin- The odds that respondents had done so were 1.52

64 Social Work Volume 51, Number 1 January 2006

 Table 2: Cumulative Effects of Trauma on Property Offending
and Violent Offending (Weighted N = 1,862)
Model 1 Model 2
Property Offending Violent Offending
Variables b SEB Expb CI (95%) b SEB Expb CI (95%)
Exposure to violence –.03 .05 0.97 (0.87, 1.08) .34 .05 1.40*** (1.27, 1.53)
Stressful events .27 .05 1.31*** (1.18, 1.45) .16 .05 1.17*** (1.07, 1.28)
Anger .26 .10 1.30** (1.08, 1.58) .25 .09 1.28** (1.09, 1.51)
Depression –.03 .04 0.97 (0.89, 1.06) –.01 .04 0.99 (0.92, 1.07)
Delinquent peers .19 .02 1.21*** (1.17, 1.25) .12 .01 1.12*** (1.09, 1.15)
Social support –.45 .16 0.64 (0.39, 1.04) –.36 .19 0.70 (0.49, 1.01)
Age –.25 .08 0.78*** (0.67, .906) .01 .06 1.01 (0.89, 1.14)
Income –.53 .29 0.59 (0.34, 1.03) .61 .28 1.84* (1.08, 3.16)
P/HH education .86 .41 2.37* (1.07, 5.25) –.55 .28 0.58 (0.33, 1.01)
Race/ethnicity –.13 .25 0.88 (0.54, 1.43) .83 .21 2.30*** (1.52, 3.47)
Family structure –.13 .26 0.88 (0.53, 1.46) –.52 .23 0.59* (0.38, 0.92)
Geographical location .03 .23 1.03 (0.66, 1.60) .17 .20 1.19 (0.80, 1.75)
Constant –1.24 1.15 0.29 –4.37 1.01 0.01***
–2LL (Initial) 827.70 855.71
–2LL (Ending) 648.00 784.07
χ2 179.70 71.65
Sig .01 .01
Note: P/HH = parent/head of household.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

times greater for youths who had been physically
assaulted, had witnessed violence, or had experi-
enced the loss of positively valued goals, compared
with youths who experienced other types of trauma.
Anger and delinquent peer exposure were the only
two control variables that were positive and signifi-
cant for both the differential and cumulative risk
models.Youths with higher levels of anger and ex-
posure to delinquent peers were at increased odds
of engaging in property offending and violent of-
fending, respectively. Age (OR = .78, p < .01) re-
mained a significant control variable for property
offending and race and ethnicity (OR = 2.23, p <
.01), income (OR = 1.84, p < .05), and family struc-
ture (OR = .60, p < .05) were significant for vio-
lent offending using the differential effects of trauma.
Younger adolescents were at a decreased risk of
engaging in property offending. Ethnic and racial
minority youths had a more than two times greater
likelihood of engaging in violent offending com-
pared with white youths. Although male youths
from homes with incomes higher than $20,000 had
increased odds of engaging in violent offending,
male youths from two-parent families did not.
Study Limitations
Several limitations of the research design warrant
discussion. First, although self-report studies are
generally considered more reliable than official re-
ports for capturing undetected cases of trauma and
delinquency, they are also subject to recall bias, er-
ror, or validity issues. Factors possibly affecting the
accuracy of reporting for topics as sensitive as trauma,
especially sexual abuse for male adolescents, include
unconscious denial, repression of past events, the
redefinition of past events in light of present expe-
rience, and avoidance of stigma (Brown, 1999;
Finkelhor, Hotaling, Lewis, & Smith, 1990; Huizinga
& Elliott, 1986). In addition, the study did not use
standardized measures of trauma or distinguish
whether exposure to violence occurred in the home
or in the community. Furthermore, although this
survey is one of the only data sets available in the
public domain that has a comprehensive measure
of trauma and a delinquency measure, it is almost
10 years old, possibly limiting its representativeness
and generalizability to contemporary adolescents.
Moreover, although this study uses a nationally rep-
resentative sample of male adolescents, its findings

Maschi / Unraveling the Link between Trauma and Male Delinquency: The Cumulative Versus Differential Risk Perspectives 65
 Table 3: Differential Effects of Trauma on Property Offending
and Violent Offending (Weighted N = 1,862)
Model 3 Model 4
Property Offending Violent Offending
Variables b SEB Expb CI (95%) b SEB Expb CI (95%)
Physical abuse .48 .27 1.55 (.907, 2.64) .42 .24 1.52 (0.95, 2.44)
Physical assault .13 .11 1.14 (.913, 1.42) .33 .10 1.40*** (1.16, 1.69)
Sexual assault –.94 .31 0.39** (.212, .715) .19 .15 1.21 (0.91, 1.62)
Witness violence –.07 .11 0.94 (.760, 1.15) .39 .09 1.48*** (1.25, 1.75)
Loss + stimuli .12 .07 1.13 (.987, 1.29) .08 .06 1.09 (0.97, 1.22)
Blockage + goals .84 .14 2.31*** (1.76, 3.02) .36 .12 1.44** (1.14, 1.81)
Anger .29 .10 1.33** (1.10, 1.62) .24 .09 1.28** (1.08, 1.51)
Depression –.02 .05 0.98 (.894, 1.07) .01 .04 1.01 (0.93, 1.09)
Delinquent peers .18 .02 1.20*** (1.16, 1.24) .11 .01 1.11*** (1.08, 1.15)
Social support –.29 .21 0.75 (.497, 1.14) –.32 .19 0.72 (0.50, 1.05)
Age –.25 .08 0.78** (.670, .915) .01 .06 1.01 (0.89, 1.15)
Income –.32 .30 0.72 (.406, 1.29) .61 .28 1.84* (1.07, 3.16)
P/HH education .78 .41 2.19 (.987, 4.86) –.46 .29 0.63 (0.36, 1.12)
Race/Ethnicity –.19 .27 0.83 (.494, 1.40) .80 .22 2.23*** (1.46, 3.41)
Family structure –.16 .26 0.85 (.507, 1.43) –.51 .23 0.60* (0.38, 0.93)
Geographical location –.02 .24 0.98 (.613, 1.56) .17 .20 1.18 (0.79, 1.76)
Constant –1.77 1.23 0.17 –4.70 1.04 0.01***
–2LL (Initial) 768.60 850.48
–2LL (Ending) 609.36 768.89
χ2 159.24 81.58
Sig .01 .01
Note: P/HH = parent/head of household.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

are not generalizable to the female adolescent
population. Finally, evidence for a causal pathway
between trauma and delinquency was based on a
cross-sectional, retrospective design in which it is
determined the proper temporal sequencing of the
variables.
DISCUSSION
This investigation compared explanations for the
developmental and cumulative risk models regard-
ing the effect of trauma on juvenile delinquency
using a nationally representative sample of male
adolescents. The relative contribution of cumula-
tive and differential trauma were examined to dis-
cern how well trauma predicted serious delin-
quency (property offending and violent offending)
among adolescent males. A better understanding
of the types of trauma linked can help identify trau-
matized youths most at risk of delinquency as well
as help to explain why some traumatized youths
become delinquent and others remain resilient to
its adverse effects. These explanations can inform
how effective prevention and intervention efforts
must be structured to improve health, mental
health, and social justice outcomes. These findings
are particularly relevant for social workers who
touch the lives of at-risk youths, including those
who work in schools, juvenile justice, substance
abuse agencies, and child welfare and other fam-
ily-serving agencies.
Partial support was found for both opposing
perspectives. Overall, some evidence was found for
the cumulative risk hypothesis that the additive ef-
fects of exposure to violence and stressful life events
increase the odds of juvenile delinquency among
adolescent boys. In addition, there is support for
the hypothesis on the differential effects of
trauma that past victimization experiences signifi-
cantly increase the likelihood of later delinquency,
especially violent delinquency. A series of analyses

66 Social Work Volume 51, Number 1 January 2006

revealed that being a victim of or witness to vio-
lence and experiencing stressful life events increases
the likelihood that male youths would engage in
serious acts of delinquency.
In general, these findings suggest that there are
multiple pathways from trauma to delinquency
among adolescent boys. Being a victim of trauma
was both a reoccurring additive effect of less severe
stressors and the result of one major stressor. Gen-
eral strain theory is a theoretical framework that is
particularly suited for use by social work practitio-
ners attempting to conceptually ground their in-
terventions with troubled youths. It posits a causal
link between prior experiences of strain (that is,
adverse life experiences, such as trauma) and juve-
nile delinquency. This connection is argued to be
mediated through an adverse emotional response
(that is, negative affect, often in the form of anger)
to the trauma (Agnew, 1985). Research has shown
negative affect to be both a short- and long-term
consequence of trauma as well as a risk factor for
juvenile delinquency (Brezina, 1998).
This study’s findings are consistent with a gen-
eral strain theory perspective, which emphasizes the
heightened risk of delinquency associated with any
of the following combination of stressful factors:
the magnitude, recency, duration and frequency, and
clustering of negative life events (Agnew & White,
1992).Therefore, it is plausible that one major or a
series of minor events can lead to delinquency that
is exacerbated by an adverse emotional response to
trauma.
The findings also reveal that the relationship
between trauma and delinquency varied by the type
of trauma and the type of offending. In the cumu-
lative trauma model, the effect of exposure to vio-
lence significantly increased the odds that male youths
would engage in violent delinquency, but not prop-
erty offending. In contrast, stressful life events were
positively related to serious juvenile delinquency.
Adolescent boys who had experienced stressful life
events in the preceding year were at increased risk
of both property offending and violent delinquency,
a finding consistent with the literature (Agnew &
White, 1992; Hoffman & Cerbone, 1999). These
findings underscore the need for practitioners to
conduct assessments on the occurrence of proximal
(recent) and distal (not so recent) minor stressors
and coping abilities to deal with such events.
Exploring the differential effects of trauma re-
vealed a pattern of offending that largely reflected
Maschi / Unraveling the Link between Trauma and Male Delinquency: The Cumulative Versus Differential Risk Perspectives
the type of trauma experienced. The pathway to
violent delinquency for adolescent boys was sig-
nificantly linked to being a victim of physical as-
sault and witnessing violence. Male youths who
were victims of or witnesses to violence were sig-
nificantly more likely to have perpetrated violence.
In contrast, the effect of the differential effects of
exposure to violence was not positively or signifi-
cantly related to property offending. In fact, among
adolescent boys, having been a victim of sexual
abuse inversely affected property offending. That
is, male youths who had been sexually abused were
significantly less likely to engage in property of-
fending than male youths who had not been sexu-
ally abused. No significant relationship was found
between being a victim of sexual abuse and vio-
lent offending.
The link between being a victim of physical as-
sault and violent offending is not surprising. Male
youths are overwhelmingly the victims of nonsexual
crimes, such as homicide, aggravated assault, simple
assault, robbery, larceny, and vandalism (Finkelhor
& Ormrod, 2000; Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). Male
youths also are more likely to be victimized by
friends and acquaintances, as opposed to family
members and strangers (Finkelhor & Ormrod;
Snyder & Sickmund).This finding underscores the
need for social workers to assess and treat not only
the impact of family violence, but also the impact
of community violence, especially among adoles-
cent boys and their peers. The effect of peer vio-
lence among friends and rival peer groups may be
a strong indicator of why adolescent boys engage
in violence.
The differential type of trauma (that is, the block-
age of positively valued goals) is linked to both prop-
erty offending and violent offending. Male youths
who experienced school failure or blocked goals
were at significantly greater risk of engaging in
property offending, such as stealing or damaging
the property of others, as well as engaging in vio-
lence.The link between the blockage of positively
valued goals and male delinquency has both con-
ceptual and empirical support in the literature
(Agnew, 1985; Hoffman & Cerbone, 1999;
Mazerolle & Maahs, 2000). This finding supports
the general strain theory perspective that the fail-
ure to achieve legitimate social status is an instru-
mental factor as to why some adolescent boys seek
illegitimate social status through delinquency
(Agnew, 1985).
67
IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL
WORK PRACTICE
Many social work practitioners are intricately in-
volved with youths who have been affected by
trauma and those who engage in delinquency.
School social workers, child welfare workers, juve-
nile and criminal justice social workers, substance
abuse social workers, and community mental health
social workers are positioned to have considerable
influence on the lives of youths and their families
dealing with adverse behavioral responses to trauma.
Providing empirical evidence of the differing path-
ways from being a victim to becoming an offender
is important information for practitioners who as-
sess and develop treatment interventions for this
vulnerable and often misread population. This in-
vestigation sought to provide this empirically based
evidence. For interventions to be effective in pre-
venting or mitigating the effect of trauma on juve-
niles, it is essential to use multifaceted interven-
tions. Such interventions that prevent or reduce
juvenile delinquency are supported in the litera-
ture (Catalano, Arthur, Hawkins, & Berglund, &
Olson, 1998; Henggeler, Schoenwald, Borduin,
Rowland, & Cunningham, 1998; Howell, 2001).
Yoshikawa (1994) refers to this multilevel approach
as ensuring the “cumulative protection” of our
youths and communities.
Targeted interventions should become part of
the routine activities that occur in school, mental
health, juvenile justice, and community settings and
should include comprehensive trauma assessment
and treatment. Comprehensive trauma assessment
necessitates a broad assessment tool that measures
minor to severe stressors that negatively affect youths.
Although child abuse is currently the only major
type of trauma that is legally mandated to be re-
ported and that may result in an intervention, other
types of trauma may be left unidentified and if iden-
tified, left untreated. Hence, social workers, teach-
ers, mental health professionals, and community and
correctional staff members need trauma awareness
training that not only includes the identification of
child maltreatment, but also other stressors that
negatively affect adolescents, such as family and
community violence, academic problems, parental
divorce, and the loss of a loved one. Furthermore,
because risk factors such as anger, delinquent peer
exposure, and school failure or expulsion signifi-
cantly increase the risk of juvenile delinquency,
schools and community and correctional settings
68
would benefit from adopting anger management
and prosocial peer mentoring programs and school
retention policies for high-risk youths.
FUTURE RESEARCH
The positive and significant associations found be-
tween trauma and delinquency warrant future lon-
gitudinal investigations into a causal pathway model
linking trauma and delinquency. Future research
that would be useful for social work practitioners
should use reliable and valid multivictimization
measures geared toward adolescents. The measures
should differentiate between family and commu-
nity violence and explore the objective and subjec-
tive effect of trauma on male and female adoles-
cents. In addition, based on the significance of
control variables in this study, future research on
this topic should explore potential intervening fac-
tors, such as anger and delinquent peer exposure
on the trauma delinquency link. In addition, the
significance of control variables, such as socioeco-
nomic status (as measured by family income and
parental education), race and ethnicity, and family
structure, may be representative of additional types
of stressors linked to delinquency. Gaining a better
understanding of any mediating or moderating in-
fluences that link trauma and delinquency can help
to inform prevention and intervention efforts geared
toward interrupting the pathway between being a
victim and becoming an offender.
CONCLUSION
This study was distinct and advanced the literature
on delinquency in that it adopted a comprehen-
sive measure of trauma and compared the cumula-
tive versus differential effects of trauma on male
adolescent delinquency, while controlling for po-
tential confounding factors. The conclusion that
different types of trauma have a positive and sig-
nificant impact on serious delinquency has broad
implications for the assessment and treatment of
trauma, especially among high-risk male youths.
Social work, mental health, and criminal justice
professionals need to recognize and address a wide
variety of minor to severe stressors that affect
youths to reach the common goal of delinquency
prevention and intervention. Although some nega-
tive life events may be unavoidable, increasing
youths’ coping skills is an important avenue to cir-
cumvent both the cumulative and differential im-
pact of trauma.
Social Work Volume 51, Number 1 January 2006
REFERENCES
Agnew, R. (1985). A revised strain theory of delinquency.
Social Forces, 64, 151–167.
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory
of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47–88.
Agnew, R. (2002). Experienced, vicarious, and anticipated
strain: An exploratory study on physical victimiza-
tion and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 19, 603–632.
Agnew, R., & White, H. R. (1992). An empirical test of
general strain theory. Criminology, 30, 475–500.
Brezina, T. (1998). Adolescent maltreatment and
delinquency: The question of intervening processes.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 71–
99.
Brown, R. A. (1999). Assessing attitudes and behaviors of
high-risk adolescents: An evaluation of the self-
report method. Adolescence, 34, 25–32.
Brownfield, D. (1986). Social class and violent behavior.
Criminology, 24, 421–438.
Capowich, G. E., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (2001).
General strain theory, situational anger, and social
networks: An assessment of conditioning influences.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 445–461.
Catalano, R. F., Arthur, M.W., Hawkins, J. D., Berglund,
L., & Olson, J. J. (1998). Comprehensive community
and school-based interventions to prevent antisocial
behavior. In R. Loeber, & D. Farrington (Eds.),
Serious & violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and
successful interventions (pp. 248–283). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Cichetti, D., & Carlson,V. (Eds.). (1989). Child maltreat-
ment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences
of child abuse and neglect. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mecha-
nisms in the cycle of violence. Science, 250, 1678–
1683.
Edleson, J. L. (1999). Children’s witnessing of adult
domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14,
839–870.
Eitle, D., & Turner, R. J. (2002). Exposure to community
violence and young adult crime: The effects of
witnessing violence, traumatic victimization, and
other stressful life events. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 39, 214–237.
Erwin, B. A., Newman, E., McMackin, R. A., Morrissey,
C., & Kaloupek, D. G. (2000). PTSD, malevolent
environment, and criminality among criminally
involved male adolescents. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 27, 196–215.
Esposito, C. L., & Clum, G. A. (2002). Social support and
problem-solving as moderators of the relationship
between childhood abuse and suicidality: Applica-
tions to a delinquent population. Journal of Traumatic
Stress, 15, 137–146.
Falshaw, L., Browne, K. D., & Hollin, C. R. (1996).Victim
to offender: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
1, 389–404.
Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M.,Van
Kammen, W. B., & Schmidt, L. (1996). Self-reported
delinquency and a combined delinquency serious-
ness scale based on boys, mothers, and teachers:
Concurrent and predictive validity for African-
Americans and Caucasians, Criminology, 34, 493–517.
Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (2000, June). Characteristics of
crimes against juveniles [Juvenile Justice Bulletin].
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., Lewis, I. A., & Smith, C.
(1990). Sexual abuse in a national survey of adult
Maschi / Unraveling the Link between Trauma and Male Delinquency: The Cumulative Versus Differential Risk Perspectives
men and women: Prevalence, characteristics, and
risk factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, 19–28.
Garmezy, N., & Masten, A. S. (1994). Chronic adversities.
In M. Rutter, E. Taylor, & L. Hersov (Eds.), Child
and adolescent psychiatry: Modern approaches (pp. 32–
47). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science.
Haapsalo, J., & Pokela, E. (1999). Child-rearing and child
abuse antecedents of criminality. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 4, 107–127.
Heck, C., & Walsh, A. (2000). The effects of maltreatment
and family structure on minor and serious
delinquency. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, 44, 178–193.
Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M.,
Rowland, M. D., & Cunningham, P. B. (1998).
Multisystemic treatment of antisocial behavior in children
and adolescents. New York: Guilford Press.
Hoffman, J. P., & Cerbone, F. G. (1999). Stressful life
events and delinquency escalation in early adoles-
cence. Criminology, 37, 343–373.
Hoffman, J. P., & Su, S. (1997). The conditional effects of
stress on delinquency and drug use: A strain theory
assessment of sex differences. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 34, 46–78.
Howell, J. C. (2001). Juvenile justice programs and
strategies. In R. Loeber & D. Farrington (Eds.),
Child delinquents: Development, intervention, and service
needs (pp. 305–322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (1986). Reassessing the
reliability and validity of self-report delinquency
measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2, 293–
327.
Ireland, T. O., Smith, C. A., & Thornberry, T. P. (2002).
Developmental issues in the impact of child
maltreatment on later delinquency and drug use.
Criminology, 40, 359–399.
Ireland, T., & Widom, C. S. (1994). Childhood victimiza-
tion and risk for alcohol and drug arrests. Interna-
tional Journal of the Addictions, 29, 235–274.
Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D., Wilson, S., & Zak, I. (1986). Similarities
in behavioral and social maladjustment among child
victims and witnesses to family violence. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56, 142–146.
Jang, S. J. (1999). Age-varying effects of family, school, and
peers on delinquency: A multilevel modeling test of
interactional theory. Criminology, 37, 643–686.
Johnson, R. M., Kotch, J. B., Catellier, D J., Winsor, J. R.,
Dufort,V., Hunter, W., & Amaya-Jackson, L. (2002).
Adverse behavioral and emotional outcomes from
child abuse and witnessed violence. Child Maltreat-
ment, 7, 179–186.
Kilpatrick, D. G., & Saunders, B. E. (1995). National
Survey of Adolescents in the United States, 1995.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and
the Inter-university Consortium for Political and
Social Research, Institute for Social Research,
University of Michigan. (ICPSR 2833)
Kruttschnitt, C., & Dornfeld, M. (1993). Exposure to
family violence: A partial explanation for initial and
subsequent levels of delinquency. Criminal Behaviour
and Mental Health, 3, 61–75.
Lemmon, J. H. (1999). How child maltreatment affects
dimensions of juvenile delinquency in a cohort of
low-income urban youths. Justice Quarterly, 16,
357–376.
Martin, S. L., Sigda, K. B., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1998).
Family and neighborhood violence: Predictors of
depressive symptomatology among incarcerated
youth. Prison Journal, 78, 423–438.
Mazerolle, P., & Maahs, J. (2000). General strain and
delinquency: An alternative examination of
69
 conditioning influences. Justice Quarterly, 17, 753–
778.
Perez, D. M. (2001). Ethnic differences in property,
violent, and sex offending for abused and nonabused
adolescents. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 407–417.
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity.
Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric
disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598–611.
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective
mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57,
316–331.
Snyder, H. N. (2003). Juvenile arrests 2001 [Juvenile Justice
Bulletin]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders
and victims: 1999 national report. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention.
Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Wei, E. H., Homish, D. L., &
Loeber, R. (2002). Which family and demographic
factors are related to both maltreatment and
persistent serious juvenile delinquency? Children’s
Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 5, 261–
272.
Widom, C. (1989a). Child abuse, neglect, and violent
criminal behavior. Criminology, 27, 251–272.
Widom, C. (1989b). Does violence beget violence? A
critical examination of the literature. Psychological
Bulletin, 106, 3–28.
Williams, C. L., & Uchiyama, C. (1989). Assessment of life
events during adolescence: The use of self-report
inventories. Adolescence, 24, 95–118.
Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protec-
tion: Effects of early family support and education
on chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychological
Bulletin, 115, 28–54.
Zingraff, M. T., Leiter, J., Myers, K. A., & Johnsen, M. C.
(1993). Child maltreatment and youthful problem
behavior. Criminology, 31, 173–202.

Tina Maschi, PhD, LCSW, ACSW, is assistant professor,

Department of Social Work, Monmouth University, 400
Cedar Avenue,West Long Branch, NJ 07764; e-mail:
tmaschi@monmouth.edu. Dr. Maschi thanks Drs. Helene
Raskin White, William Fisher, Mark Schmitz, Nancy Scotto
Rosato, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful
comments.
Original manuscript received November 17, 2003
Final revision received March 1, 2005
Accepted April 11, 2005

70 Social Work Volume 51, Number 1 January 2006