1. Objective 1 Results of first series of analyses showed that all the six family dimensions separately were found to be significant predictors of both forms of aggression. Objective 2 However, second series of analyses, which controlled both the other type of direct or indirect aggressive behaviours, and the overlap between family dimensions, exhibited a different results pattern. Only two dimensions on its own, communication and roles, were significant predictors of direct aggression. Additionally, dysfunctional family patterns as a whole, but none of the specific dimensions on their own, predicted significantly indirect aggression. Dysfunctional Family Environment Explaining Direct and Indirect Aggression in Adolescents Camen Rodríguez-Naranjo & Antonio Caño University of Málaga, Spain Overview and Objective Unhealthy family functioning is considered as a strong predictor of later behavioural problems. The purpose of this study is to find relationships between different dysfunctional dimensions of family functioning, according to the McMaster Model of Family Functioning (MMFF; Ryan, Epstein, Keitner, Miller, and Bishop, 2005), and aggressive behaviour patterns in Spanish adolescents. The first aim of the study was to examine the relationship between each dimension of the MMFF with direct and indirect aggression forms, separately. The second purpose of the study was to examine the unique effects of the specific family dimensions, controlling for the overlap between them. Method Participants 722 Spanish adolescents (373 girls - 349 boys), aged from 12 to 18 years ( M = 14,79; SD = 1,74). Measures  Family functioning : Family Assessment Device (FAD - Epstein, Baldwin y Bishop, 1983).  Aggressive Behaviour : Children’s Social Behavior Scale, Self-report form (CSBS – Crick and Grotpeter, 1995). Statistical Analyses For the first aim, twelve regression analyses were conducted, six for direct and six for indirect forms of aggression, respectively. Thus, each type of aggression was regressed on every family dimension separately. For the second aim, two additional regression analyses were conducted, in which the six family dimensions were introduced together to test the unique effect on each type of aggression, thus controlling the overlap between them. In all the equations, gender was introduced in the first step for control purposes. Figure 1. Overview Results and Conclusions General Functioning Problem Solving Roles Behaviour Control Affective Involvement Affective Responsiveness Communication Dysfunctional Family Environment Indirect Agression Direct Agression EquationPredictor Variables 1Problem Solving 2Roles 3Behaviour Control 4Affective Involvement 5Affective Responsiveness 6Communication For further information, please contact Carmen Rodríguez (rodriguez.naranjo@uma.es or Antonio Caño (canyo@uma.es),. EquationPredictor Variables 1Problem Solving Roles Behaviour Control Affective Involvement Affective Responsiveness Communication Objective 1 Regression Analyses ananalyses Objective 2 Regression Analyses Affective Involvement Roles Behaviour Control Affective Responsiveness Problem Solving Communication Results for Objective 2 (unique contribution) Affective Involvement Roles Behaviour Control Affective Responsiveness INDIRECT AGGRESSION Problem Solving Communication DIRECT AGGRESSION INDIRECT AGGRESSION DIRECT AGGRESSION Results for Objective 1 (non controlling overlapping effects) Conclusions. A dysfunctional family environment as a whole can be considered as a risk factor to develop direct and relational aggression in adolescence. Morover, considered separately, each of the six family dimensions is related to direct and indirect aggression. However, unique effects of individual dimensions were only found for roles and communication in the prediction of direct aggression. Results show the need of controlling the overlap between family dimensions in order both to clarify their contribution to different aggresion forms and to design specific interventions for aggression.