VioLit summary OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study by Loeber and Dishion was to examine the patterns of behavior of boys who fight at home, at school and in both places in order to clarify the relationship between parental practices and interactions within the family and fighting in various contexts. METHODOLOGY: The data for this study were part of a three-year planning study that was prepared for a longitudinal projected examination of the development of antisocial behavior. For this study, a quasi-experimental cross-sectional design was employed, using a non-probability sample of 210 families from 21 schools in a medium-sized town in Oregon. All families with boys in the fourth, seventh and tenth grades (n=1000 families) were asked to participate, with agreement from 300 families and a final sample of 210. 74 fourth graders, 78 seventh graders and 58 tenth graders participated, as well as all their parents. Initially, data were gathered regarding teacher ratings and peer nominations of the subjects. This was followed by a structured face-to-face interview with each of the parent(s) and the children, a questionnaire for each and a structured videotaped family problem-solving task. The parents were also required to complete the Child Behavior Checklist. The final phase of the study involved telephone interviews of both parent(s) and children, as well as home observations in 91 of the households using trained observers and the MOSAIC observation code. Independent variables included measures of parenting practices and delinquent behavior. Measures of parental monitoring were formulated from items in the mother interview, in the child interview, from impressions of the child interviewer and from the telephone interviews with the mother and the child. Parental discipline was measured from interviewer ratings of the parent(s) in the extent and consistency of discipline. Family problem solving was rated by the interviewers according to the effectiveness and quality of skills. Parental acceptance was based upon information from the child interview, the mother or father interview and interviewer impressions. Marital adjustment was formulated from both parents' responses on the Marital Interaction Scale and from interviewer impressions. Official delinquency was measured with official records of police contact both before and three years after the interviews, and self-reported delinquency was formulated using the Delinquent Lifestyle Scale. Disobedience to parents was composed of items from the child interview, the parent interview and the mother's rating on the Child Behavior Checklist. Peer deviance was formulated from peer nominations, the child interview and the mother's rating on the Child Behavior Checklist. Observed coercive behavior was derived from the MOSAIC observation of child and mother behaviors. One item from the Teacher Rating Instrument measured teachers' thoughts about the subjects' school fighting, and two items from the mothers' Child Behavior Checklist measured mother reports on subjects' fighting at home. The cross-setting fighting score was obtained from both teacher and mother ratings. Test-retest correlations averaged 0.75, although inter-rater correlations for observed coercive behavior and family problem solving were questionable. Analyses included examination of frequencies, MANOVA and one-way ANOVA. FINDINGS/DISCUSSION: It was found that two-thirds of the cross-setting fighters and 54% of the mother-identified fighters had come into contact with the police at least once, compared with only 13% of the teacher-identified fighters and 17% of the non-fighters. A mutilvariate Wilk's lambda test showed significant differences between the four groups on delinquent lifestyle, disobedience and deviant peers, with the cross-setting group being the most deviant. The four groups were also found to differ on levels of coercion in the home (p<0.10), again with the cross-setting fighters showing highest rates of this behavior. Differences were also found on parent monitoring and discipline, as well as on family relationships, with the least effective parenting techniques being found for those in the cross-setting group, who also reported being least accepted by parents and experiencing the most marital conflict. In support of the family disruption hypothesis of antisocial behavior, it was found that mothers of cross-setting fighters displayed the highest levels of coercive behavior. An unexpected finding was that mothers of teacher-identified fighters showed more coercion than mothers of fighters in the home context only. The authors concluded that cross-setting fighters were more antisocial, experienced poorer child-rearing practices, reported more rejection by their parents who were more often experiencing marital conflict, and were in families with poorer problem-solving skills and a higher use of coercive behavior. AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS: The authors suggested further research into the relationship between family dynamics and the setting for antisocial behavior. They recommended early interventions for the reduction of aggression, with the role of the parent and the teacher being crucial for the child to learn more appropriate behavior. Caretakers also should be trained to react to aggression in a way that would not lead to its escalation. Effective cross-setting treatment and prevention would depend upon changing the program to fit the setting, with the best intervention being provided at an early age to reduce the risk of violence in adulthood. EVALUATION: This study uses sophisticated analyses, has relatively good generalizability and provides a thorough discussion of implications of the findings and alternative explanations. However, the small sample of fighters, the lack of a clear definition of fighting, and lack of measurement of agreement between mothers and teachers suggests that the results be examined with some caution. The researchers did not examine any intervention attempts on the part of the mother and teacher together, which may have influenced further fighting. Also, for the subjects who were in the tenth grade, fighting may have been less overt and therefore more difficult for teachers to know about. Despite these limitations, the study provides some interesting preliminary findings on the consistency of fighting across different contexts. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado) N1 - Call Number: F-40, AB-40 KW - Oregon KW - Family Relations KW - Family Conflict KW - Family Environment KW - Grade 4 KW - Grade 7 KW - Grade 10 KW - Elementary School Student KW - Junior High School Student KW - Senior High School Student KW - Male Behavior KW - Male Aggression KW - Male Offender KW - Male Violence KW - Juvenile Behavior KW - Juvenile Antisocial Behavior KW - Juvenile Problem Behavior KW - Juvenile Violence KW - Juvenile Offender KW - Juvenile Aggression KW - Child Aggression KW - Child Behavior KW - Child Antisocial Behavior KW - Child Problem Behavior KW - Child Offender KW - Child Violence KW - Parent Child Relations KW - Parent Child Conflict KW - Parenting Practices KW - Parental Discipline KW - Parental Monitoring KW - Parent Perceptions KW - School Personnel Perceptions KW - Teacher Perceptions KW - Fighting Behavior KW - Peer Relations KW - Peer Conflict KW - Aggression Causes KW - Violence Causes KW - Behavior Causes KW - School Violence KW - Student Aggression KW - Student Behavior KW - Student Fighting KW - Physical Aggression
Language: en
", language="en", issn="0022-006X", doi="", url="http://dx.doi.org/" }