Aggressive Child Behavior in Playgrounds - Literature review Example

Running Head: AGGRESSIVE CHILD BEHAVIOR Aggressive Child Behavior in Playgrounds Literature Review Aggressive Child Behavior in Playgrounds Literature Review In the general area o behavior it has always been agreed by researchers that learning from the natural environment of the subject is the preeminent way to receive unbiased and unaffected behavior. What better way to observe the differences in aggressive behavior between boy and girls than in a play ground setting? This researcher will conduct a through review of the literature which will include general observations techniques and specific research on other studies that have observed aggression on the playground as well as specific research finding as they relate to the difference in gender related activities. Both the psychological and the biological relationships will also be analyzed, looking at the differences in the generally observed behavior of both genders as well as the particular attitude towards aggression observed. The literature reviewed will take into account environmental factors such as economic, parental, sociological, school, and so on. It will also examine the biological underpinnings of genders in general and specifically as it relates to aggression in young children and adolescents in order to present a well rounded view of the research already undertaken. Finally, through the use of this research a questionnaire will be developed and presented which will be used when observing aggressive behavior difference in children on the playground. The literature will also revue the possible occurrence of biases that may be present, both in the observed as well as the observer, that may relate to the specific issue of observation in general in the difference on the gender of the observer when it comes to perceiving aggression presented behavior from either boys or girls. Literature Review Over the past few decades it has become incumbent upon researches to further asses the aggressive and anti-social behavior of children, not only its observation and development, but its correction and amelioration for the sake of the safety of society: Aggression, violence, and bullying on school playgrounds have become critical issues for researchers and educators. Recent incidents of school shootings and assaults have raised concerns about the nature and cause of these aggressive acts. In fact, aggression has become one of the most widely researched indicators of child adjustment (Delveaux & Daniels, 2000, p. 672) In reviewing the literature on observational detail, common naturalistic observations (Hersen & Ammerman, 2000) are among the highest rated for their accuracy and veracity. While it is probably more trouble-free as far as creating on-task behavior events, it is also lacking in the natural spontaneity of playground observation. True an naturalistic behaviors rarely occur in the vacuum of a classroom where the teacher is acting as not noly a monitor but a controlling influence on behavior. The frequent use of naturalistic observations, whereby target behaviors are optionally defined and are observed by trained, impartial observers who are not part of the childs natural environment, reflects the emphasis on minimizing the inferential nature of more indirect assessment methods. (Hersen & Ammerman, 2000, p. 184) Correspondingly, social-ecological theory further points out that it is essential to consider how background characteristics influence aggressive and violent behavior. “For instance, although research on bullying indicates that rates do not differ across urban, rural, and suburban areas, youth living in urban environments are more likely to encounter community violence” (Holt, Finkelhor & Kantor, 2007) Several, longitudinal studies have demonstrated considerable individual stability in patterns of aggression from childhood to adulthood. This stability is likely a function of continuity in both the childs constitution and environmental factors. Caspi, Elder, and Bern (1987) proposed that early personality styles are sustained through the progressive accumulation of their own consequences (cumulative continuity) and by eliciting maintaining responses from others during social interaction (interactional continuity). From this perspective, aggressive childrens behavior patterns can be understood as transactional and supported by both their own behavioral styles (e.g., a lack of prosocial behavior and high levels of aversive behaviors) and the reactions they elicit from others. (Pepler, Craig & Roberts, 1998, p. 55) This is especially relevant in the elementary school context, and social interactions with peers, especially in playground settings, may both maintain and/or worsen the behavioral problems of aggressive children. Pepler, Craig and Roberts also point out that in contrast to controlled research studies, naturalistic observations of aggressive childrens peer interactions do not suggest a complete lack of social skills. In fact many observational studies of this nature have shown that positive social behaviors initiated by aggressive and non-aggressive children show no differences. (1998, p. 55) However, physically aggressive children in general have been found to exhibit informational processing biases, relative to their non-aggressive peers, at virtually all stages of behavioral development. As Delveaux and Daniels point out: …physically aggressive children are more likely to attribute hostile intent to their peers when presented with ambiguous provocation situations. They access fewer responses, and access responses that are more aggressive and less prosocial in problem situations, and they report more confidence in their abilities to perform physically aggressive behaviors (Delveaux & Daniels, 2000, p. 672) Other aspects of a child’s environment also contribute to aggressive and victimizing behaviors. The development of a health personality concept is an important aspect psychologically in controlling these functions of aggression and violence:: Self-concept and self-esteem go hand in hand here, since it is knowing who you are and valuing it that will enable the primary school child not just to cope with but to enjoy social relationships. But the more vulnerable child in the more challenging environment (for example, a racist or bullying group culture) will also need more practical and active social supports. (Aldgate, Jones, Rose, & Jeffery, 2006, p. 201) The failure to regulate behavior such as in an aggressive attack in a playground for instances, is liable to emerge not only from a trouble with comprehending and addressing behavioral expectations, but also from another couple of related factors in the emotional progress of the child,” …first, the child may be overwhelmed by anxiety and emotions such as jealousy or anger and, second, the child may lack the emotional understanding and perspective taking skills needed to empathize with the child who is being hurt.” (Aldgate, Jones, Rose, & Jeffery, 2006, p. 204) Researchers interested in the field of human development often turn to Bowlby and Ainsworth’s theories of attachment as a base for understanding and suggestions for correction. Ainsworth’s theory of attachment consists of three categories or classifications: Secure attachment, insecure attachment and avoidant. The caregiver who responds to the infant’s needs consistently, lovingly and warmly is likely to develop a secure attachment. Insecure attachment is formed when the caregiver’s response to the child is inconsistent ambivalent and somewhat unresponsive to the needs of the infant. Therefore, the infant is more inclined to develop what Ainsworth has termed, an insecure attachment to the caregiver. (Broderick & Blewitt, 2006). Research studies suggest that infants who have not developed a sense of secure attachment to their caregivers tend to exhibit behavioral and or social problems in later stages of development. They have difficulty playing well with other children and often exhibit quite aggressive behaviors. Bullies also often experience more psychosocial problems than their peers. For instance, bullies are more likely to engage in externalizing behaviors, to experience conduct problems, and to be delinquent. Furthermore, long-term outcomes for bullies can be serious; compared to their peers, bullies are more likely to be convicted of crimes in adulthood. One study conducted in the United States revealed that youth identified as bullies in school had a 25% chance of having a criminal record by age 30. (Holt, Finkelhor & Kantor, 2007) The contribution of biological factors to aggressive behavior has been firmly recognized in the literature. “Indeed, one of the most robust findings in the study of antisocial behavior is that children who ultimately become persistently antisocial suffer from deficits in neuropsychological functioning” (Eme & Kavanaugh, 1995, p. 407). Fields in a study on the relationship with aggressive behaviors in touch deprived children also found a viable connection: In an attempt to investigate whether verbal and physical intimacy was lacking early in life in aggressive/violent children, we studied young children with conduct disorder and their mothers (Field et al., 1987). The children were observed in free play and puzzle completion tasks both alone and with their mothers. The mothers of conduct disorder children reported more self-depression and less nurturant child-rearing practices. The conduct disorder children were more hyperactive and less interactive during the play sessions, and their mothers were less interactive and more disapproving than the other mothers. (Field, 2002, p. 735) In Goldstien’s research on the psychology of group aggression he finds that the playground itself can often be a location of “overcrowding, exclusion, marginalization, and boredom.” (Goldstein, 2002, p. 66). Furthermore, in such conditions it is a “…prime setting for bullying to take root. So, too are school corridors and other locations often understaffed and thus under observed” (Goldstein, 2002, p. 66). This further goes to the rationale behind observing aggression in natural observational setting unobstructed by the presence of authority figures. Past research shows that conflicts that were most commonly observed were put-downs and teasing, playground conflicts, access or possession conflicts, physical aggression and fighting, as well as school work conflicts, and hostility in taking turns. (Hamburg & Hamburg, 2004, p. 167) The school playground provides a key naturalistic context in which to study childrens social competence and social conflicts. Play behaviors are extremely useful to examine in this context because important issues in the development of peer relationships often occur through play, including companionship, intimacy, and inclusion/exclusion (Leff, Costigan, & Power, 2004). Further, school recess has been associated with the development of social competence and social cognitive abilities, as well with the development of aggressive and coercive behaviors (Pellegrini & Bjorklund, 1996). For instance, research has demonstrated that many children are involved in low-level conflicts in school every day, and that the majority of these aggressive behaviors occur within unstructured school settings (Leff, Costigan, & Power, 2004). The school playground during recess also can be an opportune setting in which to promote childrens prosocial skills (Leff, Costigan, & Power, 2004).and where social skills and conflict management abilities can be taught, reinforced, and/or monitored Thus, understanding childrens behaviors on the school playground during recess has important implications for both research and practice. (Leff & Lakin, 2005) The primary goal of this research is to attempt to ascertain the difference that gender makes when it comes to playground behavior in children. While on the surface one may tend to belive that overall boys would be more aggressive than their female counterparts, one can never assume this rational. In fact, the types of aggression that will be reviewed may show a preponderance of gender that may have heretofore been hidden. As Delveaux and Daniels discovered: Some gender differences were discovered in the degree to which children endorsed various goals and strategies. In the present study, girls were more likely to endorse goals of equality and maintaining relationships with the focal peer, whereas boys reported greater desire for self-interest and revenge. In addition, girls gave higher ratings to prosocial strategies, and boys were more likely to endorse physically aggressive strategies. (Delveaux & Daniels, 2000, p. 672) And this has certainly been substantiated by the literature as Eme and Kavanaugh have discovered. The greater male biological tendency towards aggressive physical behaviors would appear to be a rather forceful pronouncement, although the explanations usually used to explain such aggression are often somewhat speculative. Regardless of the cause or causes of this sex difference in vulnerability, to the extent that theorists are correct in implicating pre-, peri-, and postnatal factors in the etiology of CD [conduct diosorder], to that same extent this sex difference would make a contribution to the decisive male preponderance in CD. (Eme & Kavanaugh, 1995, p. 411) One of the other commonly cited gender differences in children at play is that boys have been observed to engage in more competitive games than do girls. In a classic study of gender differences in the nature of childrens games, Lever ( 1976, 1978) found that, compared to those of girls, the games of boys were more competitive, were longer in duration, had a greater number of rules and roles, required more interdependence between players, had more explicitly defined goals, and were more challenging in terms of the ceiling of possible performance. (Power, 2000, p. 252) But physical aggression is not the only avenue for Conduct Disorders. In fact, relational aggression, which is defined as, “…the removal, or the threat of the removal, of a relationship as the means of harm (e.g., giving the silent treatment or ignoring a peer, excluding peers from play or activities, spreading malicious lies or gossip” (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995, p. 711), appears to be more frequent among girls and women across developmental periods than as is seen in their male counterparts. Pepler, Craig and Roberts also noted that Girls engaged in positive-valence touching twice as frequently as did boys (on average, once every 4.2 min. vs. once every 9.1 min. for boys); binomial tests rejected the multivariate null hypothesis, p [is less than] .02. In contrast, no clear gender differences emerged for states. Only 1 of 10 comparisons reached significance; binomial tests could not reject the multivariate null hypothesis, p [is greater than] .18. Overall, therefore, girls and boys were similar in their behaviors and activities on the playground. (Pepler, Craig & Roberts, 1998, p. 55) Power has also noted that fewer gender differences were discovered in the framework of sibling play than peer play. The only gender difference reported by more than one researcher was that boy siblings use more aggression than do girls. It was also apparent to Powers that females initiated more social behaviors overall toward their younger siblings than did males, and it was also noted that girls showed more pro-social behaviors in total than did boys. For Powers study there were no other gender difference to be noted. (Power, 2000, p. 264-265) Simpkins and Parke, on the other hand found relatively small differences between the friends of children and non-friends as was related to gender overall, but the quality of the differences was more noted in the effects between positive pro-social behavior with friends than with non friends. It was also noted that at times more negative or aggressive behaviors were noted between friends than non-friends. (Simpkins & Parke, 2002) this may at first seem contradictory, but in essence in normative behavioral setting stranger may elicit a more controlled reaction from a child than the more comfortable association with friends. This trait can also be perceived following the child into adulthood in many cases. But these gender biases and relational biases of the observed may noted in the effect the gender and biases of the observer may have on the findings. While it has previously been put forth that one of clear advantages of the observational method is that it provides an objective view of child behavior that is unbiased by relationships with the child, such as parental, authoritarian, or other factors. But to what degree are untrained observers guided by social-cognitive gender biases that influence how they evaluate childrens social behavior? Past research reveals that untrained observers display gender biases when judging live behavior for overt physical aggression. (Ostrov, Crick & Keating, 2005) Method Direct observation of several area playgrounds by the researches will be the primary method of data gathering for this study. As developed in the literature review it is apparent that the use of naturalistic observations is a key tool in studying children unaffected by authority figures dissuading them for their natural behaviors. (Hersen & Ammerman, 2000) The target behaviors will be noted in the survey tool that follows. This will narrow the refine the focus of the behavior as well as set limits to the number of observed behaviors during a time period. The subjects will be children whose ages will range from between eight and twelve years of age. Their behavior will be observed during the course of their normal school day and during their free period of lunch. They will also be a variety of both boys and girls that may not be evenly distributed. Within this study independent variable will be the area of the playground and the particular personalities of the children, which they bring to it. The environmental conditions will also be an independent variable in the mix. Dependent variable will be observed in the interactions of the different personalities within the playground matrix. These interactions and the resultant independent variable will be given a rating scale in the observational survey tool. This scale will be used to create graphic representations of the behavior and a scalar measurement will indicate primarily the prevalence and difference between the two genders and secondarily the overall occurrence cross-gender of each behavior. Observers will observer entire lunchtime intervals for a period of ten days. Observers will be rotated from site to site in order to minimize any individual bias or prejudice from preconceived beliefs regarding violent behavior and gender. This should assist in bringing the error rate into acceptable norms. The following observational survey tool will be used to evaluate different behaviors, both pro and anti-social. One chart will be used for girls the other for boys and a final blended analysis will be present for SPSS. References Aldgate, J., Jones, D., Rose, W., & Jeffery, C. (Eds.). (2006). The Developing World of the Child. London: Jessica Kingsley Broderick, P. C., & Blewitt, P. (2006). The life span: Human development for helping professionals (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722. Delveaux, K. D., & Daniels, T. (2000). Childrens Social Cognitions: Physically and Relationally Aggressive Strategies and Childrens Goals in Peer Conflict Situations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(4), 672. Eme, R. F., & Kavanaugh, L. (1995). Sex Differences in Conduct Disorder. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24(4), 406-426 Field, T. (2002). Violence and Touch Deprivation in Adolescents. Adolescence, 37(148), 735-743. Goldstein, A. P. (2002). The Psychology of Group Aggression. New York: Wiley. Hamburg, D. A., & Hamburg, B. A. (2004). Learning to Live Together: Preventing Hatred and Violence in Child and Adolescent Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hersen, M. & Ammerman, R. T. (Eds.). (2000). Advanced Abnormal Child Psychology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Holt, M. K., Finkelhor, D., & Kantor, G. K. (2007). Hidden Forms of Victimization in Elementary Students Involved in Bullying. School Psychology Review, 36(3), 345-357 Leff, S. S., Costigan, T. E., & Power, T. J. (2004). Using participatory-action research to develop a playground-based prevention program. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 3-21. Leff, S. S., & Lakin, R. (2005). Playground-Based Observational Systems: A Review and Implications for Practitioners and Researchers. School Psychology Review, 34(4), 475-488. Ostrov, J. M., Crick, N. R., & Keating, C. F. (2005). Gender-Biased Perceptions of Preschoolers Behavior: How Much Is Aggression and Prosocial Behavior in the Eye of the Beholder?. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 52(5-6), 393+. Pellegrini, A. D., Symons, F. J., & Hoch, J. (2004). Observing Children in Their Natural Worlds: A Methodological Primer. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., & Roberts, W. L. (1998). Observations of Aggressive and Nonaggressive Children on the School Playground. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44(1), 55. Power, T. G. (2000). Play and Exploration in Children and Animals. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Simpkins, S. D., & Parke, R. D. (2002). Do Friends and Nonfriends Behave Differently? A Social Relations Analysis of Childrens Behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48(3), 263-277. Read More