Profile Updated:
Summary: This is a school-based, small-group program designed to prevent social aggression and increase empathy, prosocial behavior, and social problem-solving skills among fifth-grade females. The program is rated Effective for reducing antisocial problem-solving strategies and improving prosocial problem-solving strategies, and Ineffective for increasing empathetic behaviors and prosocial behaviors with peers and for reducing aggressive/hostile social behavior with peers. (Review the full program description).
| Title | Rating | Details | Outcome Category | Study(ies) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antisocial problem-solving (multisite) |
Effective | One Study |
Female students in the treatment group were less likely to report antisocial problem-solving strategies to resolve hypothetical scenarios of socially aggressive conflicts, compared with female students in the control group. This difference was statistically significant. |
Attitudes/Beliefs/Knowledge; Antisocial beliefs/attitudes | Cappella, Elise, and Rhona Weinstein. 2006. “The Prevention of Social Aggression Among Girls.” Social Development 15(3): 434–62. See evaluation methods. |
| Prosocial problem-solving (multisite) |
Effective | One Study |
Female students in the treatment group were more likely to report prosocial problem-solving strategies to resolve hypothetical scenarios of socially aggressive conflicts, compared with female students in the control group. This difference was statistically significant. |
Attitudes/Beliefs/Knowledge; Prosocial beliefs/attitudes | Cappella, Elise, and Rhona Weinstein. 2006. “The Prevention of Social Aggression Among Girls.” Social Development 15(3): 434–62. See evaluation methods. |
| Empathy (multisite) |
Ineffective | One Study |
There were no statistically significant differences on use of empathetic behaviors between female students in the treatment group and female students in the control group. |
Mental Health/Behavioral Health; Social emotional competence of youth; Empathy | Cappella, Elise, and Rhona Weinstein. 2006. “The Prevention of Social Aggression Among Girls.” Social Development 15(3): 434–62. See evaluation methods. |
| Aggressive/hostile social behaviors (multisite) |
Ineffective | One Study |
There were no statistically significant differences on use of aggressive/hostile social behaviors with peers between female students in the treatment group and female students in the control group. |
Juvenile Problem and Protective Behaviors; Antisocial behaviors; Aggression/hostility | Cappella, Elise, and Rhona Weinstein. 2006. “The Prevention of Social Aggression Among Girls.” Social Development 15(3): 434–62. See evaluation methods. |
| Prosocial behaviors |
Ineffective | One Study |
There were no statistically significant differences on use of prosocial behaviors with peers between female students in the treatment group and female students in the control group. |
Juvenile Problem and Protective Behaviors; Prosocial behaviors | Cappella, Elise, and Rhona Weinstein. 2006. “The Prevention of Social Aggression Among Girls.” Social Development 15(3): 434–62. See evaluation methods. |
Program Goals/Target Population
The Social Aggression Prevention Program was a school-based, small group program designed to prevent social aggression and increase empathy, prosocial behavior, and social problem-solving skills among fifth-grade females. The program used a manualized curriculum and small group activities. The program emphasized the role of peer influences within conflicts and was designed to foster 1) emotional awareness of oneself and others during conflicts, 2) cognitive understanding of the motivations and consequences related to socially aggressive behavior, and 3) behavioral skills to resolve socially aggressive conflicts. The program goals were to reduce social aggression and increase positive leadership among peers.
Program Activities
The Social Aggression Prevention Program was designed for girls in later elementary school, at an age where many have experienced social aggression but have not developed patterns of this behavior. The target population included all fifth-grade girls. The Social Aggression Prevention Program group received a semi-structured curriculum, which was conducted in groups of four to seven girls with one group leader. The intervention consisted of 10 weekly 40-minute sessions that were conducted during the school day but outside of the classroom. The program strongly emphasized peers’ roles in perpetuating and dissolving socially aggressive conflicts. Activities focused on increasing emotional awareness, cognitive understanding, and the behavioral skills needed to resolve socially aggressive conflicts in a prosocial manner rather than perpetuate them.
Social Aggression Prevention Program group leaders used discussion, role playing, modeling, games, and collaboration to - 1) increase knowledge of social aggression, 2) build emotional understanding of oneself and others during a conflict, 3) promote positive communication and behavior, 4) provide opportunities to observe, model, and practice social skills, and 5) teach social problem-solving skills.
Key Personnel
The Social Aggression Prevention Program small groups were led by female graduate students in clinical psychology and other women with experience in counseling elementary-age children.
Program Theory
Social aggression is the use of nonconfrontational behavior that employs a social community, otherwise referred to as subtle confrontational behavior (Galen and Underwood 1997; Underwood 2003). Social aggression is empirically different from overt aggression, in that social aggression perpetration and victimization are associated more with social and psychological adjustment than overt aggression (Crick and Bigbee 1998; Prinstein et al. 2001). When considering social aggression, the use of peers and friendship groups is also qualitatively different. Typically, at least three people are involved in instances of social aggression: the perpetrator, victim, and follower(s). Peer followers are integral components to the equation by spreading rumors, enacting the exclusion, and encouraging the person who perpetrated the crime (Pepler and Craig 1995; Xie et al. 2002). Some researchers have found that prevalence and experience of social aggression varies by gender and age, and girls in late childhood and early adolescence may be at a higher risk than boys (French et al. 2002; Rys and Bear 1997; Xie et al. 2003). The intervention focused specifically on girls because they are often ignored in aggression research and intervention (Giordano and Cernkovich 1997).
The curriculum content for the Social Aggression Prevention Program was guided by the ABCD (affective, behavioral, cognitive, dynamic) model of development, which posits that children’s internal and external coping arises from their combined emotional awareness, cognitive understanding, and behavioral skills (Greenberg, Kusche, and Mihalic 1998). Social-interactional theory laid the framework for the intervention setting, implying that these types of behaviors commonly unfold within a school-based, within-gender peer group social context (Craig and Pepler 2000; Grotpeter and Crick 1996; Paquette and Underwood 1999; Xie, Cairns, and Cairns 2002). Additionally, social learning theory guided the composition of intervention in small groups so that participants could learn from each other (Bandura 1973; Craig, Pepler, and Atlas 2000; Huesmann and Eron 1984).
Study Title: The Prevention of Social Aggression Among Girls. (which is associated with outcomes Antisocial problem-solving, Prosocial problem-solving, Empathy, Aggressive/hostile social behaviors, and Prosocial behaviors)
Research Design/Sample
Cappella and Weinstein (2006) conducted a longitudinal field experiment with a mixed methods design to examine the effect of the Social Aggression Prevention Program on female students’ empathetic behaviors, social problem-solving, and both aggressive/hostile and prosocial social behaviors. Participants came from six schools in one urban school district in northern California.
Fifth-grade teachers and teachers of combined fourth/fifth-grade and fifth/sixth-grade classes were asked to participate. Thirteen teachers volunteered for the study, approximately one to three teachers per school. One-hundred and thirty-four parents provided consent for their children to participate. The sample was all female and predominately made up of fifth-grade students (89 percent) while 11 percent of the students were in fourth- or sixth-grade in combined-grade classrooms. Participants ranged in age from 9 to 12 years, with a mean age of 10.5 years. The student sample was 26 percent white, 25 percent Black, 24 percent Latino, 19 percent Asian, and 6 percent another race/ethnicity. Students were randomly assigned within classrooms to participate in the social aggression prevention program treatment group or in a small-group reading club control group that matched the intervention in structure and time, but did not include content related to relationships or conflicts. There were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics between the groups at baseline; however, students in the treatment group had statistically significantly higher baseline reading achievement compared with students assigned to the control group.
Data Collection
Data collection occurred 2–4 weeks prior to exposure to the intervention, and 2–4 weeks post-intervention. At both times, self- and peer-report instruments developed by the researchers based on existing instruments were used to obtain data on participants’ empathetic behavior, social problem-solving, and social behavior.
Peer assessments were conducted for each child in a private setting via a one-to-one interview with a researcher. Teachers were also asked to complete behavior rating scales for each student in the classroom during the same week in which researchers collected data from the students.
Outcome Measures
The empathic behavior scale—short form assessed the teacher’s perspective of participants’ empathic behavior (e.g., “goes to the help of someone who has been hurt”). To measure social problem-solving, scenarios were designed to assess students’ knowledge of strategies to resolve socially aggressive conflicts. Responses on the victim perspective scenarios (imagining oneself as the target of social exclusion and nasty gossip) were used to assess prosocial problem-solving. Responses on the perpetrator perspective scenarios (designed to elicit social aggression in response to an uncomfortable situation) and the follower perspective scenarios (where the respondent is placed in the middle of social exclusion and nasty gossiping) were used to assess antisocial problem-solving. Responses were coded as prosocial/assertive, neutral/unsophisticated, and antisocial/aggressive.
Two revised measures were used to assess students’ use of social behavior with peers. A revised version of the children’s social behavior scale–teacher form asked teachers to rate students’ use of behaviors in the past two weeks on subscales for social aggression (e.g., “This child spreads rumors or gossips about some peers”); physical/verbal aggression (e.g., “This child threatens to hit or to beat up other children”); and prosocial behavior (e.g., “This child is helpful to peers”). Additional questions were added to these scales to capture nonverbal, socially aggressive expressions (e.g., “This child rolls her eyes or snubs her nose at other children”); and verbal, directly aggressive expressions (e.g., “This child calls peers mean names”).
The second measure of social behavior with peers was a revised version of the children’s social behavior scale–peer report. On a five-point scale (1 = never to 5 = almost always), students were asked to think about their female classmates’ behavior over the past two weeks and rate the frequency with which they used a behavior. As with the teacher report, this measure included subscales for social aggression, physical/verbal aggression, and prosocial behavior and receipt. Both teacher- and peer-reported social and physical/verbal aggression make up the aggressive/hostile social behaviors outcome.
Statistical Analysis
Chi-square analyses and analysis of variance procedures were used to establish baseline equivalence between groups in regard to ethnic measures and baseline dependent variables: empathy, social behavior (aggressive/hostile behaviors and prosocial behaviors), and social problem-solving strategies (both prosocial and antisocial). Main effects of the intervention were assessed using analysis of variance and analysis of covariance techniques. Subgroup analysis was conducted by baseline levels of social problems.
Citation:
Cappella, Elise, and Rhona Weinstein. 2006. “The Prevention of Social Aggression Among Girls.” Social Development 15(3): 434–62.
This study is a high-quality randomized controlled trial.
Subgroup Analysis
Capella and Weinstein (2006) found that girls in the Social Aggression Prevention Program treatment group who had lower teacher-reported prosocial behaviors at baseline had greater improvements in teacher-reported prosocial behaviors after participation in the program, compared with girls in the control group. This difference was statistically significant.
These sources were used in the development of the program profile:
Bandura, Albert. Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. 1973. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Craig, Wendy M., Debra Pepler, and Rona Atlas. 2000. “Observations of Bullying in the Playground and in the Classroom.” School Psychology International 21(1): 22–36.
Crick, Nicki R., and Maureen A. Bigbee. 1998. “Relational and Overt Forms of Peer Victimization: A Multiinformant Approach.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66(2): 337–47.
French, Doran C., Elizabeth A. Jansen, and Sri Pidada. 2002. “United States and Indonesian Children’s and Adolescents’ Reports of Relational Aggression by Disliked Peers.” Child Development 73(4):1143–50.
Galen, Britt R., and Marion K. Underwood. 1997. “A Developmental Investigation of Social Aggression Among Children.” Developmental Psychology 33(4): 589–600.
Giordano, Peggy C., and Stephen A. Cernkovich. “Gender and Antisocial Behavior.” 1997. In David M. Stoff, James Ed Breiling, and Jack D. Maser (eds.). Handbook of Antisocial Behavior. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Greenberg, Mark T., Carol A. Kusche, and Sharon F. Mihalic. 1998. “Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Book Ten: Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies.” Boulder, Colo.: Center for the Prevention of Violence.
Grotpeter, Jennifer K., and Nicki R. Crick. “Relational Aggression, Overt Aggression, and Friendship.” 1996. Child Development 67(5): 2328–38.
Huesmann, L. Rowell, and Leonard D. Eron. 1984. “Cognitive Processes and the Persistence of Aggressive Behavior.” Aggressive Behavior 10(1): 243–51.
Paquette, Julie A., and Marion K. Underwood. 1999. “Gender Differences in Young Adolescents' Experiences of Peer Victimization: Social and Physical Aggression.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 45(2):242–66.
Pepler, Debra J., and Wendy M. Craig. 1995. “A Peek Behind the Fence: Naturalistic Observations of Aggressive Children with Remote Audiovisual Recording.” Developmental Psychology 31(4):548–53.
Prinstein, Mitchell J., Julie Boergers, and Eric M. Vernberg. 2001. “Overt and Relational Aggression in Adolescents: Social-Psychological Adjustment of Aggressors and Victims.” Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 30(4):479–91.
Rys, Gail S., and George G. Bear. 1997. “Relational Aggression and Peer Relations: Gender and Developmental Issues.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 43:87–106.
Underwood, Marion K. Social Aggression Among Girls. 2003. New York: Guilford Press.
Xie, Hongling, Dylan J. Swift, Beverley D. Cairns, and Robert B. Cairns. 2002. “Aggressive Behaviors in Social Interaction and Developmental Adaptation: A Narrative Analysis of Interpersonal Conflicts During Early Adolescence.” Social Development 11(2):205–24.
Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:
The practice includes programs designed to reduce bullying perpetration and victimization and to increase positive bystander behavior in bullying situations. The practice is rated Effective for reducing bullying perpetration (e.g., overall and physical), reducing bullying victimization (e.g., overall and relational), and increasing positive bystander behavior. The practice is rated Ineffective for increasing bystander empathy for bullying victims and reducing verbal bullying victimization.
Evidence Ratings for Outcomes
|
Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - Bullying |
|
|
Victimization - Overall bullying victimization |
|
|
Victimization - Relational bullying victimization |
|
|
Victimization - Physical bullying victimization |
|
|
Victimization - Bystander intervention |
|
|
Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Empathy for the victim |
|
|
Victimization - Verbal bullying victimization |
This practice consists of programs designed to prevent or reduce aggressive or violent behavior in K–12 students who are considered at risk of or who have demonstrated such antisocial behaviors. The practice is rated Effective for reducing aggression in students who participated in school-based violence prevention programs, compared with students who did not participate.
Evidence Ratings for Outcomes
|
|
Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - Aggression |
Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this program:
This is a universal, school-based social-emotional learning program aimed at reducing violence and encouraging academic success among middle school students. The program is rated Ineffective. While the program had a statistically significant impact on reducing physical aggression, there was no statistically significant impact on sexual-violence victimization and perpetration, peer victimization, bullying victimization and perpetration, cyberbullying, or homophobic name calling.
This is a schoolwide, multicomponent intervention to reduce and prevent aggression and bullying among students. The program is rated Promising. There was a statistically significant intervention effect on teachers’ ratings of students’ physical, verbal, and relational aggression and victimization. However, there was no statistically significant intervention effect on students’ self-reports of physical and relational aggression and victimization.
This is a classroom-based intervention that facilitates the development of social–emotional competence among students through “mindful attention” training. The program is rated Promising. Participants showed statistically significant increases in social–emotional competence, empathy, and perspective-taking; and decreases in aggressive and oppositional behaviors, fight starting, and rule breaking, compared with nonparticipants. However, there was no impact on measures of kindness.
This program was originally rated Ineffective. It has been re-reviewed based on the change in the program rating instrument. Under the new instrument, CrimeSolutions now rates individual program outcomes and no longer assigns an overall rating.
Rating Process
Program Status
This program is Not Active.