Abstract. This paper presents comprehensive literature review on aggressive behaviour,
including definition, classifications, theories, development and causes of aggressive
behaviour in children. By reviewing and evaluating some prevention programs for aggressive
behaviour that have been used mainly in America and in the United Kingdom, this paper, then,
proposes four suggestions for developing and implementing suitable prevention program for
aggressive children in a Vietnam school context.
13 trang |
Chia sẻ: thanhle95 | Lượt xem: 139 | Lượt tải: 0
Bạn đang xem nội dung tài liệu Aggressive behavior and effective prevention programs for aggressive children in america and the united kingdom - Some suggesstions for Viet Nam, để tải tài liệu về máy bạn click vào nút DOWNLOAD ở trên
89
HNUE JOURNAL OF SCIENCE DOI: 10.18173/2354-1067.2018-0054
Social Sciences, 2018, Volume 63, Issue 7, pp. 89-101
This paper is available online at
AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR AND EFFECTIVE PREVENTION PROGRAMS
FOR AGGRESSIVE CHILDREN IN AMERICA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
- SOME SUGGESSTIONS FOR VIET NAM
Bui Thi Thu Huyen
Faculty of Psychology and Pedagogy, Hanoi National University of Education
Abstract. This paper presents comprehensive literature review on aggressive behaviour,
including definition, classifications, theories, development and causes of aggressive
behaviour in children. By reviewing and evaluating some prevention programs for aggressive
behaviour that have been used mainly in America and in the United Kingdom, this paper, then,
proposes four suggestions for developing and implementing suitable prevention program for
aggressive children in a Vietnam school context.
Key words: aggression, aggressive children, prevention program.
1. Introduction
In recent years, school violence in general and student’s aggressive behaviour in particular
have become a current issue worldwide, including Vietnam. Blake and Hamrin (2007) stressed
that aggression is one of the most frequent behavioural problems among adolescents, with
influence on more than 10% those from 6 to 15 year olds (Ȍzabaci, 2011). Empirical studies in
psychology supported this conclusion and demonstrated that aggressive behaviour has a positive
correlation with school violence, extreme negativism, oppositional and antisocial behavior,
criminal and violation (Hoogsteder et al., 2015; Nelson & Schultz, 2009). Aggressive children and
adolescents are often diagnosed with oppositional disruptive disorder and conduct disorder.
Seriously, aggressive children or adolescents tend to become severely aggressive in adulthood
(Smeets et al., 2015). Therefore, prevention and intervention programs for aggressive children
have been developed and implemented in many countries such as America, the United Kingdom,
Singapore, and Australia etc. with promising outcomes. For instance, the Coping Power and the
Second Step as a school-based prevention program have been applied in the US since 1997 and
the Social Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) in the UK since 2004.
Aggression in children and adolescents has potentiality of cause negative consequences not
only on each individual, family but also the whole society. At individual level, aggressive
behaviours such as fighting, teasing, boycotting reduce learning outcomes, leading to social and
societal boycott and mental health decline for both the subjects and objects of aggression
(Colasante et al. 2015). Lochman et al. (2000) added that aggressive children tend to be physically
stimuli, which therefore affects their strategies to address social problems.
Received January 6, 2018. Accepted July 29, 2018.
Contact Bui Thi Thu Huyen, e-mail address: huyenbuithu2004@gmail.com
Bui Thi Thu Huyen
90
In family, aggression might break the close relationships, causing a stressful and emotional
atmosphere that leads to conflict. For example, 15-20% of families in England face conflicting
issues stemming from their emotional and behavioural problems (Down, Willner, Watts, &
Griffiths, 2011). At social level, aggression intervention programs are costly. Especially, cases of
children exhibiting unhealthy aggression are also an economic burden for country. Smeets et al.
(2015) also argued that aggression requires immediate attention and attention, so it will cost a
great deal to address and intervene. In addition, children who commit aggression will have to
leave school for specialized education, or police and court intervention.
In Vietnam, research into aggressive behavior has been received great attention over the last
decade (Tran Van Cong et al., 2016; Nguyen Thanh Binh & Nguyen Thi Mai Lan, 2013; Tran Thi
Minh Duc, 2010; Hoang Xuan Dung, 2010). Nevertheless, prevention and intervention programs
for this kind of behaviour are still limited. Especially there has been no study to systematically
evaluate the effectiveness of these supporting programs in Vietnamese schools. Due to this, the
current paper presents systematic overview literature on aggressive behaviour in children from
definition, classification, theories, development and causes of aggression. By evaluating some
prevention and intervention program for aggressive children that have been utilized worldwide,
this article proposes some suggestions for designing and implementing prevention program for
aggressive children in Vietnamese school settings.
2. Content
2.1. Literature on aggressive behaviour
2.1.1. What is aggressive behaviour?
Bandura (1973) noted in his comprehensive work that looking into the definition of
aggression is similar to go into a “linguistic juggle”. The concept of “aggression” is one of those
that cause a lot of controversies in social psychology (Hoang Xuan Dung, 2010). Currently, there
are more than 200 definitions of aggression, which are given by psychologists (Underwood, 2003).
This results from the diversity of terms referring to this behaviour such as hostility, destructive
behaviour, oppositional behaviour, misbehaviour and violent behaviour.
From terminology aspect, the above word is translated from English “aggression” or Latin
“Aggressio” meaning “attack”. When translated into Vietnamese, it is flexibly understood based
on specific situations. In doing research, various authors have been confused of violent behavior
and aggressive behavior. Although these two concepts are relevant, they cannot be used
interchangeably. The former refers to a broader content than the later. Fernandez (2013) gave the
following diagram about the relation among anger, violence and aggression:
Diagram 1. Relation among anger, violence and aggression (Fernandez, 2013; p.4)
Anger
Physical
aggression
Violence
Aggressive behavior and effective prevention programs for aggressive children in america and the United
91
Despite arguments about the concept of aggressive behaviour, most researchers agree on two
typical distinguishing phenomena of this behaviour which are (1) the subject with intention to
cause hurt and (2) the victims with thought and feeling of hurt in any particular aspect. Tran Thi
My Lương (2015) added that aggression is the violation of moral standard or social law.
In this paper, it can be seen that, generally, the definition of aggression can be categorized in
two ways. The first one emphasizes on the purpose which is the intention to cause injury (typical
feature) (e.g., Dollard et al., 1939; Berkowitz, 1993; Baron, 1994; Vecchio & O’Leary, 2004)).
For example, Berkowitz (1993) supposed that any behaviour intentionally causes hurt for other
people either in terms of mental or physical aspect should be considered as aggressive behaviour.
The second trend does not put an emphasis on the behaviour’s intention but its effects (e.g.,
Bandura, 1973; Buss, 1961; Loeber & Hay, 1997, 1998; Lochman, 1984; Lochman, Whidby, &
FitzGenrald, 2000; Nelson & Finch, 2000, 2008). One example representing for this way is
Bandura (1973) who demonstrated that any reactions between individuals including physical
behavior or speech that causes injury should be considered as aggression. One of definitions of
aggression used widely in Vietnam nowadays is that “this is the intentional, purposeful, conscious
behaviour causing injury for any person or anything, whether its aim is achieved or not” (Tran Thi
Minh Duc, 2010). From another perspective, Huynh Van Son (2014) differentiated “aggression”
and “hostility”. In particular, they are basically dissimilar. Aggression is a special kind of
behaviour, whereas hostility is a psychological feature of human’s personality. Aggression is
regarded as an organized process, presenting typical functions, whereas hostility is understood as
a component of a complex system, which is a part of human’s psychological system.
Besides, in English the term “anger” and “aggression” sometimes might make people get
confused and use them interchangeably (Edkhardt, 2004). However, the key difference is that
aggression is the behaviour, while anger is a type of emotion. Anger and aggression are closely
linked with each other; the former plays an important role in “setting fire” of different kinds of
aggressive behaviour (Smith, Graber, & Daunic, 2009), even anger is an important precursor of
aggressive behaviour (DiGiuseppe & Tafrate, 2010). The study by Averill (1983), nevertheless,
proved that the relationship between anger and aggression is not the cause-effect one because the
later does not always result from the former, and it is not always true that whenever people get
angry, they are aggressive. Moreover, the study by Maag, Swearer, &Toland (2009) added that
humans may have aggressive response when they are depressed, anxiety or stressful.
2.1.2. Types of aggressive behaviour
Many researchers on aggression agree to classify aggressive behaviours based on form and
function (e.g., Vitaro, Brendgen, & Barker, 2006; Noel & Emest, 2005). As by formal criteria,
aggressive behaviour is divided into two categories: physical aggression including hitting,
pushing, kicking, and indirect aggression such as badly gossiping, deliberately humiliating others,
damaging others' property. From another viewpoint, Sukhodolsky & Scahill (2012) divided
aggressive behaviour into 4 types, including impulsive aggression, reactive aggression, hostile
aggression and affective aggression, whereas, Tran Van Cong et al., (2017) looked into attitude
aggression and behavioral aggression.
A widely used classification over the last decades is the functional classification criterion
(e.g., Sullivan et al., 2010; Vitaro, Brendgen, & Barker, 2006). Accordingly, aggression is also
divided into two categories: reactive aggression and proactive aggression. It can be said that this
classification focuses on whether the behaviour is more emotional or motivational.
Proactive aggression is a deliberate act directed toward achieving the desired goal. The
function of this form of aggressive behaviour is based on Bandura's social learning model (1973),
which explains that aggression is the result of learning behaviour which towards proactive
function. For example, the act of threatening is proactive aggression because it involves only
Bui Thi Thu Huyen
92
verbal attempt to achieve some certain power; or killing strangers to rob or steal is proactive
aggression (Berkowitz, 1993). Proactive aggression often considered as “cold blood” aggression
or “attack” aggression (e.g., Vitaro et al., 2006; Card & Little, 2006).
In contrast, reactive aggression is a more emotional behaviour in response to threats,
frustrations, or failures. This type of aggression links to the expression of anger and stems from
the anger-frustration theory (1993), in which aggression is understood to be a response to a
provocation. Therefore, the main purpose of this form of aggression is to counteract irritating
stimuli or threats (Vitaro et al., 2006). For example, killing someone just because they occupy
their parking space or kills an acquaintance in a fight or a conflict is a reactive aggression.
Therefore, this type of aggression is also known as "hot blood" aggression, "counterattack"
aggression or "impulsive" aggression (e.g., Card & Little, 2006, Berkowitz, 1993, Buss, 1961).
Applying this classification into the case of children, Nelson & Schultz (2009) found that
children with aggressive behaviour are often considered "hot-tempered", angry, and aggressive in
front of simple and normal causes. Since then, children often find ways to harm the object and see
them as the cause of all problems. Therefore, those children are often alienated, boycotted by their
friends. Conversely, children who exhibit proactive aggression often have the desire to possess or
gain certain power. For example, stripping their friends’ meal, stealing phones, bullying friends
was to show power. Although they are not loved by friends, these aggressive children are often
the leader (Dodge, 1991). However, much of the study of aggressive behaviour primarily focused
on formative rather than functional. On the basis of form, external aggression (physical aggression)
is more prevalent in males, while male and female students have similarly indirect aggressive
behaviour (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).
2.1.3. Psychological model of aggressive behaviour
In terms of mechanisms, aggression on a basis is a deliberate behaviour that hurts or inflicts
injury on another person or object. Many authors explained the mechanism of aggressive
behaviour resulting from uncontrolled anger (e.g., Baumeister, 2003; Moffit, 1993; Ȍzabaci, 2011)
or high impulse that must be "released" to feel more comfortable for the subject of aggressive
behaviour (Freud). Due to a strong relationship between emotions and motive, DiGiussepe &
Tafrate (2010) believed that aggression is developed as an acquired drive through learning to
avoid pain and frustration.
In terms of psychological model of aggression, there is a great debate on the question "why
do people react aggressively?" (Baron & Richardson, 1994) that leads to a variety of theories and
models of behavioural explanations. It can be synthesized into four basic models as follows:
Behavioral/Learning Model: it explains aggression based on operant conditioning,
classical conditioning and observational learning. One of the earliest hypotheses, the Frustration-
Aggression Hypothesis (Dollard et al., 1939) emphasized that aggression often occurs in
situations where the individual's purpose is threatened or blocked. Thus, aggressive behavior is
manifested either as a response (conditioned response to frustration) or a tool (reinforced
behaviour intended to counter frustration). In both cases, aggression is believed to perform the
function of "reviving" the previously reinforced reactions. The development of aggressive
behaviour can be sustained by interactions within the family. For example, when a child has a
tantrum and his parents make a concession and loose the previous curfew, the behaviour is being
negatively reinforced by the concession in parents’ regulation. Thus the child's destructive
behaviour is reinforced through negatively reinforced mechanisms. DiGiussepe & Tafrate (2010)
are in line with the above viewpoint. Particular they argued that simple and direct aggression is
the reaction of a child to negative or unwanted stimuli. If reacting by demonstrating aggression
achieves goals and succeed, aggression will be strengthened. As the child grows up, they will
Aggressive behavior and effective prevention programs for aggressive children in america and the United
93
evaluate and attribute different stimuli as uncomfortable, from which there will be an aggressive
reaction as a modeled and reinforced behavior. Furthermore, the Frustration-Aggression
Hypothesis also posited the role of resentment in the development of aggression. This model
recognizes that expectation of retaliation or punishment for using aggression would produce fear
that could inhibit aggression. This leads to a process called “displacement”, where an individual
aggresses against a safer target to achieve the desired retaliation.
The Social-Cognitive Model: it provides theoretical and empirical grounds for explaining
the development and maintenance of aggressive behaviour. This model originates from Bandura's
social learning theory (1973) and applies problem solving to behavioural modeling. Dodge (1980)
proposed a social information-processing model with 5 steps such as encoding of social cues;
response search, response decision, and enacting of behavior. Any interruption in these processes
will cause aggressive behaviour. For example, people often react aggressively when they think
that they have been treated unfairly, and that injustice is a "punishment" to them. These thoughts
are triggered not only by the actual actions of others, but also by the distortion in the process of
processing social information. And the result is anger and aggression. In this case, producing
intervention programs that focus on helping children improve their social problem solving skills is
an appropriate move.
The Emotional Arousal Model: it shows that the physical stimulus and the intensity of
anger emotion are related to aggression. The representative of this approach is Berkowitz (1993)
who gave the model of aggression that emotional anger and other negative emotions play a role in
adjusting hostile aggression. His opinion is that there are so many uncomfortable stimuli such as
stress, frustration, pain, unbothered emotions which will stimulate negative emotions, especially
anger, and thereby trigger aggressive behavior. Berkowitz (1993) even stressed that any negative
emotions that are strong enough will cause aggression. Some studies have shown a correlation
between the degree of anger and the variety of aggressive behaviours. It can be seen that this
model is not really convincing about the cause of aggression, and it even against the traditional
viewpoints of aggression.
The General Aggression Model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002): By claiming that the
existing models have failed to explain some points in relation to aggression, Anderson and
Bushman (2002) proposed a model namely “General Aggression model”, which assumes that
there is a number of factors causing aggressive behaviour including personal, situational, social,
biological and psychological ones. Personal variables include traits, gender, attitude, values,
beliefs and long-term goals. These personal factors will interact with situational factors such as
aggressive cues, provocations, pain, frustrations, biological states, and incentives to cause
aggression. Anderson and Bushman (2010) indicated that cognitive variables associated with
stimuli cues and biological states will affect to emotional state and autonomic arousal. At this
point, a person evaluates the short term and long term outcomes associated with aggression and
alternative responses. As a result of all these processes, aggression will or will not occur.
2.1.4. The development of aggressive behavior in human beings
It has been believed that developmentally simple and direct aggressive behaviour may be the
first actions a young human takes to destroy negative stimuli. If the success of this early behaviour
is rewarded then the desire to aggress becomes stronger. As the child grows up and more stimuli
are thought as unpleasant and successfully confronted, the strength of this association will
increase.
Based on research, the highest rate of observed physical aggression are accounted for
children aged 2- 3, with more than 70% involving in hitting (Keenan & Shaw, 2003). This figure
fortunately declines over the following year, with only 12% of children in year 3 (Smith al., 2009).
Bui Thi Thu Huyen
94
The reasons assumed for the significant rate of physical aggression in press school were the brain
and cognitive development accompanied with language acquisition skills (Dione et al., 2003).
Apparently when children get older with a significant achievement in terms of language and
cognition, more symbolic forms of anger tend to be used instead of violent expressions
(Kassinove and Sukhodolsky, 1995). Despite this, when children are at the age of teenager or
adolescents, they tend to experience anger and aggressive behaviours as well as antisocial
behaviours significantly (Arthur & Stephen, 20