Individual and Class Norms Differentially Predict Proactive and Reactive Aggression: A Functional Analysis
Individual and Class Norms Differentially Predict Proactive and Reactive Aggression: A Functional Analysis
复制标题
个人和阶级规范对主动和反应性攻击行为的预测有差异：功能分析
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Adaurennaya C. Onyewuenyi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Karin S. Frey;Zoe Higheagle Strong;Adaurennaya C. Onyewuenyi
使用社会信息处理框架的理论和研究表明，以奖励为中心的(主动)攻击和以防御为中心的(反应性)攻击具有不同的社会后果。学生使用确定预期和社会认可的行为的规范来指导自己的行动。与每种类型的攻击有关的社会认知加工特征和社会地位的差异可能会增加一些规范性来源相对于其他来源的相关性。这项研究通过考察个人信念、课堂信念和课堂攻击率对未来主动性和反应性攻击的贡献，填补了文献中的一个空白。在秋季和春季，我们从35个教室(3-6年级)随机抽取了254名学生，观察了学生在学校操场上的攻击性。我们通过秋季观察计算了课堂上的主动攻击率和反应性攻击率。对536名学生的调查计算了支持报复的信念的课堂平均数。多水平分析的结果表明，正如假设的那样，个人信念预测了学生的主动性攻击的高比率，但不能预测反应性攻击。课堂信念预示着学生反应性攻击性的高比率，但不是主动性攻击性的高比率。在秋季攻击率较高的班级中，两种攻击性的春季攻击率都较低。相反，在秋季反应性攻击率较高的班级中，学生表现出较高的春季主动性和反应性攻击性。后一种模式可能代表着学生在课堂上继续与地位不平等作斗争。讨论审查了不平等可能如何影响干预努力。
Theory and research using a social-information processing framework indicate that reward-focused (proactive) aggression has different social consequences than defense-focused (reactive) aggression. Students use norms that identify expected and socially approved behaviors as guides to their own actions. Differences in social-cognitive processing characteristics and social status linked to each type of aggression may increase the relevance of some normative sources relative to others. This study fills a gap in the literature by examining the contributions of personal beliefs, classroom beliefs, and classroom rates of aggression to future proactive and reactive aggression. During fall and spring, we observed students’ aggression on school playgrounds using a random subsample (n = 254) of consented students from 35 classrooms (Grades 3–6). We calculated classroom rates of proactive and reactive aggression from fall observations. Classroom means for beliefs endorsing retaliation were calculated from surveys of 536 students. Results of multilevel analyses revealed, as hypothesized, that personal beliefs predicted high rates of students’ proactive aggression, but not reactive aggression. Classroom beliefs predicted high rates of students’ reactive but not proactive aggression. Students in classrooms with high rates of fall proactive aggression showed low spring rates of both types of aggression. In contrast, students in classrooms with high rates of fall reactive aggression displayed high spring rates of proactive and reactive aggression. The latter pattern may represent classrooms in which students continue to struggle against status inequities. The discussion examines how inequities may impact intervention efforts.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
7.6
作者：
Huesmann, LR;Guerra, NG
通讯作者：
Guerra, NG
影响因子：
7.6
作者：
Paluck, Elizabeth Levy;Shepherd, Hana
通讯作者：
Shepherd, Hana
影响因子：
7.6
作者：
Baumeister, RF;DeWall, CN;Twenge, JM
通讯作者：
Twenge, JM
影响因子：
7.6
作者：
DODGE, KA;COIE, JD
通讯作者：
COIE, JD