5/23/2018

Bully‐Victim Relationships Are Common • Evidence has been provided establishing the normative Indirect Bullying: (routinely occurring) nature of bully‐victim Etiology, Effects, relationships in schools and Remedies (Smith & Brain, 2000) Dr. Laura M. Crothers Duquesne University

Verbal Bullying Relational Bullying

Aimed at damaging the target’s social status • Name calling or self esteem • Teasing Speaking in Mean • Criticizing Ignoring a cold or Gossiping Facial hostile tone Expressions Sarcastic comments Staring Spreading Rumors

Blogging, Text Messaging, Exclusion Facebook (Remillard & Lamb, 2005)

Males Females Girls are just as likely as boys to Physical Aggression Relational Aggression be aggressive in their friendships, but such aggression looks different Social Status: Social Status: Including a range of emotionally Expose others’ weaknesses Expose others’ faults hurtful behaviors  Indirect Aggression Relational Aggression Social Aggression

Both use social structure and gender enforcing

to gain social status .

Kolbert & Crothers, 2003

1 5/23/2018

Indirect Aggression Definitional Problems

Indirect aggression, a precursor concept to relational A unified definition of relational aggression has and social aggression, was first defined by Feshbach in proved elusive 1969 in order to explain covert aggressive behavior In an article published in 2005, Archer and A Finnish group (Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, & Peltonen, Coyne reviewed a number of studies in 1988) identified that a unique feature of this latent form which the behaviors of relational, social, of aggression is that the bully could remain anonymous, and indirect aggression were investigated thus avoiding easy detection

They concluded that these constructs are more alike than they are different, thus essentially comprising a unitary construct

YASB: The Young Adult Social Behavior Scale Let’s 1.When I am angry with someone, that person is often the last to know. I will talk with others first. Measure! 2.When I am frustrated with my partner/colleague/friend, I give that person the silent treatment. • In order to provide 3.I deal with interpersonal conflict in an honest, straightforward manner. statistical evidence to either support or refute 4.When I do not like someone’s personality, I derive a certain degree of this claim, Crothers, Schreiber, Field, and pleasure when a friend listens to and agrees with my assessment of the Kolbert (2009) published person’s personality. I am also okay with my friend acting upon this negative the Young Adult Social assessment. Behavior Scale (YASB), developed to measure 5.I contribute to the rumor mill at school/work or with my friends and family. the self‐reported relational aggression in 6. I honor my friends’ need for secrets or confidentiality. adolescents and young adults 7.I break a friend’s confidentiality to have a good story to tell.

YASB: The Young Adult Social Behavior Scale

8. I confront people in public to achieve maximum damage. Analysis 9. I criticize people who are close to me. 10. I respect my friend’s opinions, even when they are quite different from my • Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to own. examine the factor structure of the Young Adult Social Behavior Scale (YASB) 11. I intentionally exclude friends from activities to make a point with them. • Three separate theoretical models were tested using CFA, which is a more rigorous analysis 12. I have attempted to “steal” a rival’s friend. technique than exploratory factor analysis because of the provision of both construct and 13. When I am angry with a friend, I have threatened to sever the relationship discriminative validity evidence and the ability to in hopes that the person will comply with my wishes. test alternative models offered in the CFA (Kline, 2006) 14. Working through conflicts with friends makes our friendship stronger. • Each item of the scale was measured through a five‐point Likert‐scale ranging from “Never” to “Always”

2 5/23/2018

e e e e

Q1 Q2 Q9 Q11 Q13 Analysis .05 .11 .20 .54 .575 .33 .45 .74 .22 Best-fitting .76 Relational model for Aggression • Because such items are considered ordered categorical data with non‐normal distributions .81 .67 (Muthen & Muthen, 1998), a maximum likelihood with robust standard errors and corrected e test statistics for the parameter .74 .27 Social estimation in EQS 6.1 analysis Aggression Interpersonal software was chosen for Q4 Maturity .08 analysis (Bentler, 2003) .59 .75 .23 • In this study, the authors tested .46.61 .51 .66 .59 theoretically meaningful alternative models and Q5 Q7 Q8 Q12 Q3 Q6 Q10 Q14 equivalent models due to the .21 .37 .26 .56 .05 .43 .35 .35 fact measurement models, such as this, can have infinitely many equivalent versions eeeee eee

Chi-square = 96.39, df = 71 CFI = .98 TLI .97 RMSEA = .023 [.009, .034] Standardized Results are presented with Square Multiple Correlations in Italics Figure 1.

Relational Aggression Factor Social Aggression Factor

I confront When I am angry with When I am frustrated with my I break a When I do not like someone’s people in someone, that person colleague/partner/friend, I give that friend’s personality, I derive a certain public to is often the last to know. Person the silent treatment confidentiality degree of pleasure when a friend achieve I talk with others first (Item 2) to have a listens to and agrees with my maximum (Item 1) good story assessment of the person’s damage When I am angry to tell I intentionally personality. I am also okay with (Item 8) I criticize with a friend, I (Item 7) exclude friends my friend acting upon this people who are have threatened from activities negative assessment close to me to sever the to make a point (Item 4) (Item 9) relationship in hopes I have attempted to with them that the person will “steal” a rival’s (Item 11) comply with my wishes I contribute to the rumor mill at school/work friend (Item 13) with my friends or family (Item 5) (Item 12)

Interpersonal Maturity Factor Contradiction of Archer and Coyne I honor my friends’ (2005) I respect my needs for I deal with conflicts friends’ opinions secrets or • The findings of this research in an honest, even when they contradict Archer and Coyne’s confidentiality straightforward are quite different (2005) conclusion, based on manner (Item 6) their review of the literature, from my own that social, relational, and (Item 3) (Item 10) indirect aggression largely represent the same construct Working through conflicts makes our friendship stronger (Item 14)

3 5/23/2018

Intention vs. Form Relational Aggression –In the • The definitions of social and relational aggression Dyad reflected in the YASB differ in terms of the intention of the perpetrator • Crothers et al. (2009) • The definition of these constructs in some of the hypothesize that the previous models instead emphasize the form of aim of relational behavior aggression is to directly control another’s behavior

Social Aggression One on One –in the Group

• In perpetrating relational aggression, • Crothers et al. (2009) the actor’s primary focus is to influence the behavior of the person hypothesize that the within the dyadic relationship, and lacks the group context that typifies intent of social social aggression aggression is to manipulate and/or damage another’s social status or group membership, through either covert or overt means

Social Aggression = Social Standing is the Group Dynamics Motivation

• Social aggression requires the • Social aggressors may be more motivated manipulation of a social group by a need for dominance and thus use as the vehicle of harm, such as social aggression to inflate their own gossiping, spreading rumors, social standing in comparison to that of and social isolation their victim(s) • It is a more sophisticated form of aggression than relational aggression, since it requires knowledge of social dynamics, and the ability to subtly influence or orchestrate others’ behavior to achieve one’s own ends

4 5/23/2018

How Does Relational Genetic Influences Aggression Develop? • Research is controversial and provocative • There may be a biogenetic predisposition to • Precise causes are not entirely understood indirect aggression (Damberg et al., 2000) • Theory suggests personal, environmental, and • Biological links may help explain the behavioral influences act upon one another and preponderance of indirect aggression that is combine to produce different behaviors typically attributed to females (Westberg et al., • Factors at play include: 2003 and others) • genetic makeup • Brendgen et al. (2005) found that genetic influences accounted for about 50‐60% of the • cognitive processes variance for physical aggression, but only about • social‐psychological maladjustment 20% for relational aggression • family dynamics • Clear understanding of the role of genetics and • Gender differences provide further complication physiology in relational aggression will probably not be reached for some time

Cognitive Psychosocial Influences Influences

• Exaggerated positive self‐perceptions • Psychosocial maladjustment • Processing social information is taxing • Internalizing issues and peer relational • successful socialization contingent upon suppression of anger, especially in girls, problems (Marini et al., 2006) which may overburden attention‐ • Externalizing difficulties and peer rejection shifting and focusing resources • Bulimia and general dissatisfaction with life • Hostile Attribution Bias: a term used to in women (Werner & Crick, 1999) describe the tendency to view another’s • Conduct disorder and oppositional defiant actions as being motivated by animosity, even disorder in girls (Prinstein, Boergers, & though no malice might actually be intended (Bandura, 1978) Vernberg, 2001) • negative environmental influences may • Fear of negative evaluation (Loudin, Loukas, & fuel this cognitive bias Robinson, 2003)

Relational Aggression Hurts Ecological Influences • Relationally aggressive behavior • Can deprive girls of • Poverty opportunities to meet their needs for friendship, closeness, • Lack of familial support and acceptance • Marital conflict • Is found by girls to be significantly more distressing • Negative family interactions than do boys, more than likely because their identity is so • Lack of parental involvement strongly dependent upon their • Siblings: ability to establish close, • Relational aggression between siblings intimate connections with others (Crick, 1995) • sibling relationships can also provide protection against peer victimization • Parenting styles/relationship with parents may affect the use of relational aggression

5 5/23/2018

The Importance of Friendships Relational Aggression: What does it look like? Carol Gilligan shares, • “One confiding Serves purpose of manipulating or disrupting relationships and friendships (Archer & Coyne, relationship, meaning a 2005) relationship where one is • invited to speak one’s Frequently characterized as the intent to harm another through the exploitation of a relationship heart and mind freely, (Remillard & Lamb, 2005) offers the best protection • against most forms of Is often carried out in front of a victim • A girl telling her friend that they will no longer be friends psychological trouble, unless she does what the girl wants (Coyne et al., 2006) especially in times of stress” (p. 28)

Gender and Relational Gender Disparity Aggression

• Research suggests males’ aggression levels are • Female evolutionary factors significantly higher than females’ • Women usually functioned as primary caretakers • but little research had been devoted to and nurturers (Tapper & Boulton, 2000) investigating female forms of aggression (i.e. • Physically weaker, thus have developed an adapted relational) means of hurting one another (Björkqvist, 1994) • Girls tend to engage in more relational aggression than • Physical aggression is socially and culturally physical aggression, although the rates of overt inappropriate for female gender roles (Richardson aggression demonstrated by males and relational aggression used by females tend to be the same & Green, 1999) (Richardson & Green, 1999) • Perceived as loss of self‐control, thus less likely to • Girls may express aggression in relational forms demonstrate this behavior (Tapper & Boulton, because they are more concerned with interpersonal 2000) issues and popularity, unlike the primary focus of boys’ • Effect/danger ratio: use the most effective strategy to peer relations: physical dominance (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) avoid as much danger as possible (Björkqvist, 1994) • relational aggression uses no direct contact: there is much less chance of being physically hurt

Sex-Specific Self Concept Why Do Girls Tend to Use Children rapidly learn and understand Relational Aggression When societal views on gender and Addressing Conflict? incorporate these views into their own behavior (Bem, 1981) • Despite socio‐cultural progress, some behaviors are still considered ill suited for females • Gender roles continue to govern appropriate behavior for males and females • Fagot and Hagan (1985) report that female children are reinforced by significant others for behavioral characteristics that are consistent with being nice and good For example, girls are expected to acquire sex-specific self-concepts and personality attributes in accordance with cultural conceptualizations of femininity

6 5/23/2018

Bem’s Concept of a Traditional Feminine Gender Identity (1981) The Double‐Bind of Being a Woman or the “tyranny of kind and nice”” Girls with traditional feminine gender identities match their preferences, attitudes, behaviors, and personal attributes with Girls are expected to maintain harmonious traditional feminine gender schema relationships with others, and for example, if they are concerned about the potential negative impact of anger expressions upon others, they will likely temper their Such gender role constrictions (O’Neal & Egan, 1993) involve limiting reactions (Hatch & Forgays, 2001) emotional expression, which can be extremely limiting for girls Girls may feel constrained in expressing anger or hurt because of the expectation they deliver Developing power through voicing one’s feelings may result in sensitive comforting messages in their hurting others (Belensky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1997) relationships (Winters & Waltman, 1997)

What Else Can They Do? • Children as young as 3‐5 yrs displayed Since directness and overt and recognized relational aggression in one another (Goldstein et al., 2002). confrontation is not • girls were more likely to use consistent with a feminine Age and relational aggression than boys gender identity, girls • Boys appear to “catch up” to girls in adhering to such standards Relational their use of relational aggression when are forced to use it is no longer acceptable to physically fight (Richardson & Green, 1999) more manipulative and Aggression covert means • Incidence of relational aggression increases and is thought to peak in of resolving conflict and adolescence (Tiet et al., 2001; Xie et al., establishing dominance 2003) (Bem, 1981)

Culture and Social Intelligence/Peer Acceptance and Relational Aggression Relational Aggression: A Mixed Bag

There may be cultural variations in the incidence rates; however, similar patterns across diverse culture groups suggest the Relational aggression is a better Relationally aggressive acts Social intelligence, also linked tendency of females to be more predictor of peer rejection than appear to be associated with with popularity, has been of peer acceptance (Andreou, relationally aggressive than males perceived popularity (Rose, associated with relational 2006; Lancelotta & Vaughn, Swenson, & Waller, 2004) aggression (Andreou, 2006) seems to be found across cultures 1989; Rys & Bear, 1997) and ethnicities (French et al., 2002; Weisz et al., 1993; Xie et al., 2003)

there are no types of relational aggression may students evidencing higher aggression that are socially be beneficial for gaining levels of relationally acceptable, thus leading to social status and climbing aggression also had higher more peer rejection and the social hierarchy social intelligence lowered social status

7 5/23/2018

Why is relational aggression a problem?

• Children who are exceptional in some way may also experience higher It’s predictive of It’s associated It’s associated with incidence rates of relational aggression Future social with starting dating engaging in Exceptionality • E.g., link between ADHD in girls and Maladjustment at an earlier age * more advanced relationally aggressive friendships (Crick, 1996) dyadic dating * and Relational • Other research has found students with Aggression learning disabilities are not at an increased likelihood of being relationally victimized (Coady, 2005) It’s associated with less positive It’s associated with • Additional research is needed views of friends and boyfriends * increased physical aggression with boyfriends * * Connolly, Pepler, Craig, & Taradash, 2000

Relational Aggression Can Lead to What about the victims of relational aggression? Overt Aggression • Severe impact on psychosocial adjustment • Can help create a social milieu that is encouraging • Just as damaging, if not more, than physical victimization: of overt aggression (Chicago‐area school district) • Poor self‐esteem • Low levels of happiness • Posttraumatic stress disorder (Rigby & Slee, 1993; Storch & Esposito, 2003) • Develop negative views of school • Develop externalizing behavior problems • Skipping school • Avoiding certain places at school • Running away • Even attempting suicide (Batsche & Knoff, 1994; Craig, 1998; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996; Crick & Nelson, 2002; La Greca & Harrison, 2005)

What is to be Treatment Done?

• In the last two decades, in • Numerous strategies exist that are designed to diminish the occurrence of recognition of its detrimental bullying in schools, including effect upon both bullies and • Dissemination of information victims, researchers have about bullying to students and intensely studied school teachers bullying, developing evidence‐ • Using books, music, and videos to illuminate the problem of peer based intervention programs aggression and techniques to reduce or • Individual and small group remedy this common problem counseling of childhood and adolescence • Peer mediation programs • Aggression‐replacement training, among many others (Crothers, Kolbert, & Barker, 2006)

8 5/23/2018

• Additionally, although there are school‐wide programs that have been proven to be successful Less of a in reducing physical and verbal bullying of children (e.g., Olweus’ Anti‐Bullying Program [1993]), there have been fewer investigations of Problem? prevention and intervention programming designed to reduce or eradicate relational • In an examination of educator’s‐in‐ aggression (Crick, 1996) training perceptions of vignettes • In fact, researchers have found that the schools of physical, verbal, and relational that have the most detailed and comprehensive bullying, participants anti‐bullying policies are those in which relational • Considered relational bullying to be aggression incidence rates appear to be higher less serious than other forms of (Woods & Wolke, 2003) bullying • Had less empathy for victims of relational aggression • Were less likely to intervene in relational victimization • Were more likely to endorse using Anti‐Bullying Programs Must mild to moderate interventions in addressing relational bullying than in responding to verbal or physical Include RA bullying (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006)

Schools Can Do It May Be Normal, Better! But Unhealthy

• One explanation for the pre‐service • Another possibility is that the harm teachers’ less empathic responses to inflicted by relational aggression relational victimization may be that such upon its victims may be more behaviors are more ambiguous than difficult to discern in comparison to other types of bullying the more obvious effects of physical and verbal bullying • Educators may be less comfortable in taking action in addressing such • A third reason may be that relational behaviors when there is uncertainty bullying is considered to be a normative regarding whether there is an actionable behavior of childhood by pre‐service offense; this uncertainty may be due in teachers part to a lack of school policy on the subject

So, How do We Primary Address the Prevention Problem? • Primary prevention programs typically • Treatment of relational consist of psychoeducational intervention of children’s social skills and aggression may be cognitive training designed to reduce conceptualized as and aggressive tendencies. delineated into • Primary • Secondary • Tertiary intervention

9 5/23/2018

Secondary Tertiary Prevention Programs Intervention

• Secondary intervention programs Tertiary prevention programs encompass treatment for those who are at‐risk include or already involved in relationally aggressive behaviors or conflicts. • School‐based social competence • Anti‐violence curricula • Including learning and social activities aimed at increasing youngsters’ empathy and perspective‐taking • Social problem‐solving • Assertiveness • Emotion regulation, • Anger management skills

Why Many Anti-Bullying Efforts and Implications Interventions Do Not Work: 1. Use an outdated definition of bullying 2. Use a Singular Focus:

3) Schools must be clear The silver bullet vs. a systemic approach 2) Teachers are aware of 1) Students are looking about behavioral the problem, and many to school staff for expectations and have 3. Fail to take into account the social ecology do try to help in some guidance clear, predictable School Policy way responses to bullying

Students School Board 4) Schools should use a 5) Consider pairing the whole‐school anti‐ Olweus Anti‐Bullying 5) Implementation of bullying program, Program with an RA the Goodwill Girls including one that Curriculum addresses RA Individual Perpetrators and Victims or Targets

What to Look for in Programs

Is the model theoretically Is there a focus on overall driven? social and emotional Is the intervention based development? in research? Is there documented Does the intervention outcome data regarding promote pro‐social the program’s behavior? effectiveness? (Colvin, Tobin, Beard, Hagan, & Is the program socially Sprague, 1998; Greenberg et al., desirable? 2003) (Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, & Hymel, 2010)

10 5/23/2018

The Goodwill The Goodwill Girls Curriculum Girls • The Goodwill Girls curriculum provides ‐ Most effective when part of systemic, educators with a structured group multilayered interventions intervention which offers opportunities for students to learn constructive ‐ Large and small group approaches to conflict, including: ‐ Prevention • Identifying and examining instances ‐ Intervention of relational and social aggression ‐ Remediation • Generating appropriate responses when it occurs.

Tailoring it to Males

The Curriculum • With minor adjustments, group leaders may use the same curriculum with male students or male and female participants • The curriculum is comprised of ten different lessons which are appropriate • For example, the group leader can include for students ages 10 –15 and can be additional examples and discussion of implemented with large (13 – 25) or small (4 – 12) groups aggressiveness, assertiveness, passivity and • Each lesson addresses a separate objective related to relational passive/aggressive scenarios which feature male aggression, approaches to conflict, characters or male friendship situations social skill development and/or perspective taking

Session One Session Two

• The next session starts with welcoming the group • Facilitator(s) introduce themselves, back and reviewing the group rules followed by group members participating in various name games and ice‐breakers • After this is accomplished, the facilitator initiates • Following the ice‐breakers, the facilitator a discussion on the topic of what the group outlines and describes the differences members do to make and keep friends between their group membership and a • This is followed by processing questions designed normal classroom to encourage reflection regarding this issue • In addition, the group works together in • The session concludes with participants reviewing developing “group rules,” which the Unhealthy Friends handout and the facilitator promotes discussion as well as developing trust within the group assigning homework for the next session

11 5/23/2018

UNHEALTHY FRIENDSHIPS

Puts you down and makes you Gives you the silent treatment Tells your secrets to other people feel bad about yourself when she is angry with you Session Three

Is jealous when you spend time Embarrasses you in public Tries to control what you do, say • This session begins with the group with other friends or wear reviewing the homework and the group rules • The facilitator introduces the topic of Always makes decisions for the Threatens to not be your friend relational aggression, and the Relational Does not listen to your ideas two of you unless you do what she wants Aggression Organizational Map is distributed and completed

Wants you to be honest but then Fights with you a lot; yet doesn’t Talks about you behind your doesn’t like when you are solve the problems with you back

“Stealing” a person’s boyfriend to get back at Telling someone you will not be someone their friend anymore unless she Session Three does what you want her to. Criticizing a friend or putting her down to make her feel bad Continued…

• The facilitator then asks the Embarrassing a group to make a connection friend on purpose RELATIONAL Tell a friend’s between the previous to make her look secrets to others session’s discussion of making bad in front of AGGRESSION so that other other people and keeping friends and the Organizational Map people will like activity outlined in the me organizational map.

Talking bad about Spreading rumors about someone behind her someone because you are Ignoring/ Leaving someone back mad at her. out –Not inviting her to lunch, Ignoring her in the hallway, Not speaking to her in class on purpose

Session Three Completion of Continued… Session Three

• Next, the facilitator distributes the Maria and Tara worksheet (see handout) and asks the group to respond to the questions •The definitions are on the worksheet. followed by each group member stating • The session ends with four different group what they would do if members reading these definitions they were in Tara’s • Aggressive situation • Passive • Passive‐aggressive • Assertive

12 5/23/2018

Session Four

Session Four • This session focuses on Continued… the pros and cons of the four approaches to dealing with conflict • The large group is • Following this activity, the smaller broken down into group reconvenes and presents their smaller groups and approach to the other group members members are asked to define, in their own • The facilitator then re‐distributes words, one of the the Maria and Tara worksheet and conflict approaches and discusses the four prompts then to list the pros and presented at the bottom of the cons of their approach worksheet.

Session Four Concludes Session

• This session ends with the Five group members being asked to discuss which approaches they personally use when dealing • The last session in part with conflict one of the curriculum • In addition, the group is asked focuses on weighing the to take mental notes of which pros and cons of the approaches they use in conflicts different approaches to between this session and the conflict resolution next

Session Five Session Five Continued…

• During the session, two group • After the role‐playing exercise, members role‐play four the group processes which scenarios approach matches each scenario • The audience group members are given a LaShauna and • The Relational Aggression Chrissy Worksheet and asked to Organizational Map is again describe the terms that distributed and group members correlate to the presented are asked to discuss the scenarios. possible consequences associated with each approach to conflict

13 5/23/2018

Session Five LeShauna and Concludes Chrissy –Part I

• This session concludes with • LeShauna: Hi Chrissy! How are you today? asking each group member to • Chrissy: (With an attitude) I am okay. What is describe what he or she would going on? have done if he or she was in • LeShauna: Not much. LaShauna’s position • Chrissy: (ANGRY) You know, I lent you my Usher CD two weeks ago and you still haven’t given it back. What, did you lose it or something? I am never loaning you anything again –you are irresponsible. You better give it back.

• LeShauna: Oh Chrissy, I am so sorry. Remember the other day, I tried to give it back to you after Chemistry class and you told me you didn’t have time to put it in your book bag? I should have tried again, I am so sorry –I am irresponsible.

LeShauna and LeShauna and Chrissy –Part II Chrissy –Part III

• LeShauna: Hi Chrissy! How are you today? • LeShauna: Hi Chrissy! How are you today?

• Chrissy: (With an attitude) I am okay. What is going • Chrissy: (With an attitude) I am okay. What is going on? on? • LeShauna: Not much. • LeShauna: Not much. • Chrissy: (ANGRY) You know, I lent you my Usher CD two weeks ago and you still haven’t given it back. What, did you lose it or something? I am • Chrissy: (ANGRY) You know, I lent you my Usher CD never loaning you anything again –you are irresponsible. You better two weeks ago and you still haven’t given it back. give it back. What, did you lose it or something? I am never • LeShauna: Oh Chrissy, I am so sorry. Remember the other day, I tried to loaning you anything again –you are irresponsible. give it back to you after Chemistry class and you told me you didn’t have You better give it back. time to put it in your book bag? I am irresponsible. • LeShauna: (REAL ANGRY) I am irresponsible? What • (Walk away) are you talking about? How about I smash your • Turn to audience and say: stupid CD and then give you a slap up side your head!!!= • Just wait till I tell everyone what she did last weekend!

LeShauna and Chrissy –Part IV

• LeShauna: Hi Chrissy! How are you today?

• Chrissy: (With an attitude) I am okay. What is going on?

• LeShauna: Not much.

• Chrissy: (ANGRY) You know, I lent you my Usher CD two weeks ago and you still haven’t given it back. What, did you lose it or something? I am never loaning you anything again –you are irresponsible. You better give it back.

• LeShauna: Chrissy, I am not sure why you are so angry. Remember the other day, I tried to give it back to you after Chemistry class and you told me you didn’t have time to put it in your book bag? I think it is wrong for you to call me irresponsible. I will return your CD. Session Six

Session six denotes the beginning of the second half of the Goodwill Girls curriculum.

14 5/23/2018

Session Six Session Six Continued…

• The first activity of the session involves the Assertiveness Revisited worksheet (please • The group facilitator then begins a series see handout) of discussions with the group members • Group members first complete about independently and then are paired off by • What they have heard from each the group facilitator, who will ask the pairs other to label each item on the worksheet as • Why it can seem difficult to be assertive, aggressive, passive, or passive‐ assertive at times aggressive • How each member is learning to become assertive through the group sessions

Session Seven

Session Seven • A “paper person” is to illustrate how hurtful words can be. Continued… • The “paper person” activity involves the group members verbalizing insults • The group facilitator will then against the “paper person” while tearing discuss with the group members a piece off and then having to what the “paper person” may feel, reconstruct the “paper person.” think, and do after being torn down by others’ words • The facilitator also will ask what the group members would say to the “paper person” if it were someone whom they cared about

Tear Down/Build Up Paper outline of a student (have already prepared) Session Seven Concludes Objective: Visually demonstrate the power of words Blue is an average student who earns B’s and C’s in class. Blue is usually nice to other kids, but occasionally gets picked on for his • To conclude the session, the group glasses. Blue has two good friends and likes to play soccer. members are to write a letter to themselves to Step one: Insult Blue without using swear words while remind them of the types of words they simultaneously ripping a piece of Blue and taking it to one’s seat. want to use with their friends and classmates. Process (What, Why, How does this happen in real life?) Step two: Apologize or say helping, kind words to Blue and put each piece back in place with tape. Process (What, Why, How is Blue affected?)

15 5/23/2018

Session Eight Session Eight

• In session eight, the group members play the Goodwill Girls Game, which involves each group member responding to a conflict scenario (Please see handout) • Group members are also permitted to ask questions about the response proposed, which • Strips of paper are provided for the game that convey gives the group member who responded a chance different prompts to answer questions and further elaborate • The strips are cut up and put in a bowl from which the • The group facilitator ends the session by asking group members will choose each group member to express something that he or she learned from another group member

Session Nine Session Nine

• Session nine asks the • After coming up with at least three examples in each group members to category and writing them on focus on what pieces of paper, each group behaviors they exhibit member will read the behaviors that he or she toward others that they would like to “toss” aloud and would like to keep and then actually tosses the piece those they would like of paper in the garbage can to “toss”

Session Nine Session Ten

• The group facilitator may disclose an example of • In the last session, the group how he or she made a members are to write a letter or draw a picture that they would like change in her behavior to share with the group. Topics can and how difficult it was, include what they have learned and then ask the group from the group and what the group members to discuss how has meant to them. difficult it is for them to make these changes

16 5/23/2018

Summary of Session Ten: Completion Program of the Program

• Throughout the • The group facilitator asks each Goodwill Girls group member to share her letter curriculum, each or picture with the group and then session builds on what was learned in the also share what he or she has previous session(s) learned from the group • Most sessions include • The group may then celebrate their some type of last session with food and drink assignment that the group members can work on between sessions

Opportunities for Progress on Growth Empirical Evidence

• The curriculum • The program has been provides opportunities fully implemented in a for each group member quasi‐experimental to work on his or her design in a high school own behavior toward sample in Mid‐Atlantic others while witnessing United States how the other group • members are learning Both experimental and and growing over the non‐treatment control course of the sessions groups have completed the YASB prior to and after participation in the Goodwill Girls curriculum

Who Will Benefit Contributions to the Most? Practice

• Group counseling • The potential contributions of curricula, such as the this study to practice include Goodwill Girls, may be an providing an empirically‐ excellent form of tertiary validated relational intervention for children aggression intervention and adolescents at risk for program designed for use or already participating in with pre‐pubescent and relational and social adolescent students aggression

17 5/23/2018

Logistical Issues Avoid Teaching…Think Therapeutically

• It is important for educators to be • Group facilitators must be mindful to thoughtful in developing a group‐ keep group members involved and active counseling experience by securing in discussion throughout the group permission and support from important stakeholders (e.g., administrators, process so that a psychoeducational parents, and teachers) and being group such as this does not simply organized about group logistics so that become “teaching” to a small group of group meetings are predictable and occur on a regular basis students

We Can Help

• By working with students to successfully navigate many of the social obstacles that may accompany adolescence, educators can assist adolescents in developing into the confident, empathic, and generous adults we believe they can become

18