Individual and class norms differentially predict proactive and reactive aggression: A functional analysis.

Abstract

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.

The Contagious Effect of Deviant Behavior in Adolescence

“…Supporting the first pattern, Farrell, Henry, Mays, and Schoeny (2011) showed that deviant behavior was elevated in peer groups in which the collective normative acceptance of deviant behavior was high. Longitudinally, the overall level of reactive aggression in the classroom was shown to predict higher levels of individual reactive and proactive aggressions 6 months later (Frey, Higheagle Strong, & Onyewuenyi, 2016).…”

Are Adolescents Engaged in the Problematic Use of Social Networking Sites More Involved in Peer Aggression and Victimization?

“…Forms refer to the type of behavior intending to harm the victim: aggressive conduct may involve a direct confrontation with others (e.g., intimidating, pushing, hitting, threatening, or insulting-overt aggression) or, on the contrary, may imply damaging the social reputation or social status of victims and isolate them from their friends, going so far as to use their group of peers (e.g., social exclusion, social rejection, or spreading rumors; Xie et al, 2002; Little et al, 2003; Juvonen and Graham, 2014) With regard to functions, i.e., the aggression's purpose, this type of conduct has been found to be due possibly to reacting to real or perceived damage -reactive aggression-, or a means to obtain a desired result -proactive aggression- (Coie and Dodge, 1998). While reactive aggression is fundamentally emotional and impulsive (Card and Little, 2006), proactive aggression implies an intentional behavior directed toward fulfilling a desired goal and, therefore, depends on an evaluation of the consequences (Fontaine and Dodge, 2006; Frey et al, 2017). …”

Life History Strategy and Overeating During COVID-19 Pandemic: a Moderated Mediation Model of Sense of Control and Coronavirus Stress

“…Previous study shows that sense of control is signi cantly related to life history strategies (Dodge, 1990), and the uctuating changes and levels of the sense of control are the result of internal trade-offs in the individual's life history. Fast strategists often maintain their sense of control through irrational behaviors such as current squandering and instant grati cation (Wright, 2013), while slow strategists tend to maintain and improve their sense of control by reducing risky behaviors (Frey, 2017).…”