Theories of aggression

Offer to the class a brief synopsis of your understanding of the theories of aggression and antisocial behavior as it pertains to a specific experience that you have had with a child or adolescent. In other words, why do you think an aggressive or antisocial child that you know acts the way he or she does?

I found it difficult to choose a child for this assignment as I’ve not had the opportunity to work with many aggressive people outside of an MR/DD environment. In the cases where I have, the circumstances have been very unique. However, I have worked with a couple, and specifically, I did work closely with one child who, although he was never aggressive in my presence, was apparently very aggressive with his family and parents. I always found that interesting, as I could not imagine this fourteen year old boy being anything more than polite and fun, yet admittedly, extremely hyper (He was diagnosed with ADHD and was taking Ritalin). Even though he always behaved with little difficulty in my presence, he was eventually sent out of state to an outdoor school designed for children with emotional problems. Personally, I found him to be extremely intelligent, helpful, polite and witty. He was well liked by all his classmates and was respected for his unique combination of intelligence and zaniness. I never once saw him threaten, abuse, curse, ridicule, or even stare meanly at another person. He was almost constantly, however, hyper, moving about, and asking questions (serious questions) about the subject of study.

I must point out here, that seeing this kid interact with perfect normalcy for 18 months in a school setting, and also with perfect normalcy in church, I always assumed that there was something wrong at home which caused him to hold such violence and disdain for his parents. Apparently he was a completely different person in family privacy than he was in any public setting. He would admit to the things he did at home, but in my opinion, they were just as much situationally provoked and in many cases, normal, as anything else. I also always assumed that it was because of the way his parents treated him and because his father didn’t like him that he was eventually sent away. There were other evidences of this as well. On more than one occasion this child was put in the hospital because of his violent acts. His father was a doctor, and it was well known that he had to “pull rank” because the admitting doctors never could find a reason that the child should be admitted to a youth psychiatric unit. Also to note is that his parents were very religious people, and I believe they held their children up to the most stringent expectations and demands. Lastly, all the children in this family (five, I believe) had always been home-schooled by the mother previous to this one child’s placement in my school.

So, having said all that, the question at hand is, “what theory or theories would help explain why this child was violent only in the home setting?” We will have to assume a bit, as I only know about the home setting from the self reports of both the child and his parents.

The Social Learning Theory states that from early childhood, noncompliant and aggressive patterns of behaviour are taught through everyday social exchanges. Aggressive behaviour is learned through coercive and overly harsh discipline. I could see this being true for the child of study (let’s call him Nate – my brother’s name.) Nate’s parents were, in the opinion of many, overly harsh in their expectations of their children. Also, being home-schooled, Nate grew up with an excessive amount of family time, whereas most children get away for several hours every week and are placed in the different, school social environment. Because Nate’s parents believed that their child should not have his own voice (yes, they really did believe that the child should completely agree with the parents until he was of legal age not to do so), Nate’s natural hyperness and inquisitiveness would have rubbed his parents the wrong way, leading to continued excessive demands for compliance.

What is interesting is that Nate’s behaviour was specific to his home life. At school and church, etc. he did not have these interactions and accompanying difficulties. The text points out that “a warm relationship with at least one caregiver was a strong protective factor against the negative influences of family dysfunction… and … youth who report positive relationships and bonding with their families and schools engage in less risky and fewer antisocial behaviours.” I wonder if the two can be separated – home and school. Nate did not feel he had a positive relationship at home, and thus the negative behaviour resulting from his parent’s excessive expectations and rigidity. However, in other social environments, Nate seemed to be well liked and had positive relationships. In these environments, he did not show the negative attitudes and actions he showed at home. Could social learning theory be environment specific in what behaviors play out?

The Social Information Processing Model may help further justify this thought. As I mentioned, Nate was quite intelligent. In fact, he was one of the smartest students I had. This theory may postulate that Nate was good away from the home because he wanted to be. His self-directed social cognitions said that at school and other non home locations, “I can be good, and I will be respected and liked for who I am.” At home, he may have thought, “these people don’t like the way I am and I can not live up to their expectations of quiet compliance” and thus, the behaviours occurred. Nate may have seen different cues to how he should behave in the different situations and had different goals in the different situations. He was accepted in the classroom, so there was no reason to buck the system. His goals were being met. At home, however, his goals of acceptance were not being met, so violence was a way to get his point across. He may have believed this would work, but it did not. This fallacy is common in children who decide that aggression will work (Quiggle et al, from the text).

The Cognitive - Neoassociationistic Model focuses on the role of environmental stimuli in triggering aggressive behaviour. Nate could have been misinterpreting his parents as not liking him or wanting the best for him because of their strict religious beliefs. This ambiguity as to their intentions may have sparked his angry and violent tendencies at home.

The Life Course Persistent model doesn’t really work with Nate because that theory would not explain why his behaviour was situationally specific. The adolescent limited model speaks of peer pressure and kids being kids and therefore speaks to violence and aggression outside the home setting and thus doesn’t work here either.

I’m sure there are other things which went on which I did not know about, but I always found his in home and out of home behaviour differences to be fascinating. It shows that family interactions can play a role in behaviour, and in the case of smarter children, the child may be able to distinguish who is deserving of certain actions

Another student's response:

David, Sounds like an interesting and probably rewarding
child to work with in school. It sounds like the Social
Learning Theory and Social Information Process Theory
may really make sense here. I do wonder about the last
suggestion that because he was intelligent it made it
possible for him to decide how he was going to act and
where (I hope I interpreted what you were saying
correctly). I'm thinking less intelligent children also
behave differently in different situations and with
different people. I know when I was an elementary
resource teacher I had a couple of parents that would
come to conferences and describe a totally different kid
from what we experienced at school. Just a thought.

My short reply:

Good point...

I think I was always so astounded by the two Nates.
Maybe I was crediting him with more than I should have.

Another Student:

It sounds to me that social learning theory can be
environmental specific in what behaviors are played out,
especially with this child. What is interesting with
this child is that any type of maladaptive behavior
diagnoses (e.g. antisocial, ODD) by terms of the DSM-IV
do not apply to him because these behaviors do not cross
over into multiple environments.

It sounds to me that there is a lot more to his home
life than what was revealed to you, excluding the strict
religious aspects of the family. I say this simply
because his aggression appeared to be focused towards
the family and no one else. Antisocial and clinically
diagnosed behavior problems to not typically manifest
themselves in that way. Of course as I know after a few
years of mental health practice, I could not even be
close on this one. It would be interesting to see how
he will act once he has his own family. It is
surprising and sometimes disturbing the contrasts people
can live in their private and public lives.

The instructor:

This is a great example illustrating in particular the
concept of a child reacting to an environment that did
not match his emotional and cognitive needs. In this
case, he seemed to covertly change his goal from one of
acceptance by the family to acceptance (and perhaps
escape from the family) in other environments. You
suggest that he did not achieve his goal, but maybe he
did when he was sent to a school away from his family.
What do you think?

One more point, the research has shown that to some
degree, students who drop out of school actually have a
high intelligence but school has obviously not met their
needs. I wonder what everyone thinks about these
findings.

My Response:

I agree with the idea that many dropouts have high
intelligence. My brother has an IQ over 125, but had a
very low GPA. He had been diagnosed with ADD and simply
found school boring and the confinement to rules
intolerable. Eventually, through a myriad of
circumstances, he withdrew from school (to avoid
flunking out of the 10th grade because of a 10 day end
of year suspension for having a cigar in his pocket) and
got his GED when he was hardly 17. He’s been able to
live on his own ever since and always impresses my
friends with his obvious intelligence. Unlike me, he’s
not a studier, but clearly, he is a doer. And what he
does, he does very will and with impressive
intelligence. See his website for more info:
http://www.nathanprofitt.com

And yes, I'm very proud of my brother.

Instructor:

I went to the web site and listened to some music. I see
why you are so proud. He has done some remarkable work.

Another Student:

Dr. X, We probably do not see the fact that just
like a less intelligent child is frustrated in an
environment that demands more than his ability, a highly
intelligent child is frustrated in an environment that
is less stimulating. Schools prioritize meeting the
needs of the children that fall on the lower end of the
bell curve with regards to intellignece, over the
children that fall on the upper end of the continuum.
This is probably because we consider the gifted program
as a luxury more than a necessity, and think that it can
wait, overlooking the problems faced by the highly
intelligent children that might require immediate
attention.

Filed under: EDC 541 Curriculum and Instruction for Diverse Learners
Copyright: June, 2003 - David Profitt