Violence and Aggression in School Settings

Volume 8 Issue 1 Article 4

5-2018

Barbara Katic University of California, Riverside, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie

Part of the Community Health Commons, Educational Sociology Commons, Human Ecology Commons, School Psychology Commons, Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education Commons, and the Social Psychology Commons

Recommended Citation Katic, Barbara (2018) "Violence and Aggression in School Settings," Wisdom in Education: Vol. 8 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol8/iss1/4

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wisdom in Education by an authorized editor of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Violence and Aggression in School Settings

Abstract Violence and aggression continue to cause harm to American schools and communities, which has been visibly illustrated by the continual perpetration of school shootings. In order to prevent these situations for occurring again, the etiology of violent and aggressive behaviors must be studied. Utilizing an ecological perspective, both the risk factors and protective factors of violence and aggression, also known as a dual strategy approach, are examined within an educational context. Specific risk factors reviewed include weapons exposure and social rejection, while protective factors reviewed include school connectedness and pro-social relationships. Implications regarding the prevention of violent and aggressive acts among students, with the goal of creating safer school environments, are provided for each domain.

Keywords violence, aggression, schools, children, adolescents

Author Statement Barbara Katic is a PhD student in School Psychology at the University of California, Riverside, and also works as a school counselor in Los Angeles County.

This article is available in Wisdom in Education: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol8/iss1/4 Katic: Violence and Aggression in Schools

Introduction injure, abuse, damage or destroy” (Merriam- Webster’s collegiate dictionary, 2018). For the past twenty years, acts of school violence have been occurring at alarmingly Theories of Aggression high rates in the United States of America. In the first nine weeks of 2018 alone, there have The complexity of aggression is evident by been at least twelve school shootings in the the various theories that aim to understand its nation (Simon, 2018). As these tragic events role in human nature. In order to better continue to unfold, schools and communities understand aggression, it is important to have are left without answers or solutions. While an understanding of its etiology. For the schools may seem powerless in the aftermath purposes of the paper, key theoretical of a school shooting, power may be reclaimed differences between psychoanalytic theory, through efforts to prevent these violent learning theory, and ecological theory will be events from occurring again. In order to briefly reviewed. Theories of aggression implement successful prevention efforts, one include instinctive/psychoanalytic theories, must discern the factors that brought about physiological arousal theory, frustration- the violence in the first place. While there are aggression theory, learning theory, social- various solutions proposed in preventing cognitive theory, information processing school shootings, the general public has yet to model, general aggression model, and reach a consensus on how to prevent these environmental/situational triggers of tragedies. Limited knowledge in the etiology aggression (Bushman & Bartholow, 2011). of these events, coupled with the passing of The study of aggression, within a time, places students at a heightened risk for psychological framework, dates back to the experiencing violence in their classrooms. work of psychologist Sigmund Freud during the early 1900s. Freud alternated between two Defining Violence and Aggression kinds of theories to explain violence and aggression: aggression as an inborn biological In order to understand violent behavior, instinct, and aggression as being motivated by violence must first be framed in the broader emotions such as anger, hatred and hostility context of aggression. Aggression is defined (Lothane, 2016). Moreover, Albert Bandura’s as “a forceful action or procedure (such as an social learning theory views aggression as a unprovoked attack) especially when intended ‘multifaceted phenomenon’ that is dependent to dominate or master” (Merriam-Webster’s upon the subjective judgments regarding collegiate dictionary, 2018). Aggression is personal responsibility and intent to harm influenced by various factors including those (Bandura, 1978). According to Bandura’s that are biological, psychological, theory, whether an act is perceived as interpersonal, and cultural (Leary, Twenge & aggressive or not will depend on the Quinlivan, 2006). There are different types of judgments of others (Bandura, 1978). Freud aggression, including overt aggression and and Bandura’s theories may be viewed in relational aggression. Overt aggression opposition; While Freud viewed aggression as involves acts of physical harm, while relational an internal experience, Bandura viewed aggression consists of using one’s aggression as more of an external experience relationships as a means to inflict social harm that involved the perceptions of others. (Prinstein, Boergers, & Vernberg, 2001). The ecological perspective combines Thus, acts of violence are considered overt elements of both internal factors for each acts of aggression. Specifically, violence is individual, and external factors of the defined as “the use of physical force so as to environment. Through an ecological framework, interrelationships between

Published by CSUSB ScholarWorks, 2018 1 Wisdom in Education, Vol. 8 [2018], Iss. 1, Art. 4

individuals and their surrounding contexts are Risk Factors and Protective Factors emphasized, in addition to the interactions between micro- and macro-level systems Violence among children and adolescents (Harney, 2007). Ecological theory takes into may be viewed through a public health consideration the work of both Freud and approach, which considers both risk factors Bandura by examining the interactions and protective factors (Office of the Surgeon between internal processes/characteristics and General, 2001). The Centers for Disease external contexts. In terms of aggression Control and Prevention includes initiatives among youth, the model focuses on aimed at increasing cooperation between understanding how individual characteristics health, education, and community partners, in of children and adolescents may interact with an effort to promote social and cognitive environmental factors in order to promote or competence among young people (Resnick et prevent victimization and perpetration al., 2004). Collaboration across systems (Espelage, 2014). By focusing on both follows an ecological framework for reducing individual characteristics and environmental violence and aggression among youth. factors, and how these variables interact, a Moreover, the identification of risk and comprehensive framework is provided to protective factors may assist the public in study aggression among children and designing programs in order to reduce adolescents in school settings. violence, whether it be through prevention or Awareness and education regarding youth response (Office of the Surgeon General, violence and aggression is necessary in order 2001). There are various risk factors that are to provide guidance on how to take action. predictive of violence perpetration, including On the contrary, a failure to act, or a failure to weapon carrying, weak social ties/social prevent school violence, will present rejection, suicidal involvement, school consequences for both the individual and problems, poor physical and/or emotional community. Literature has shown that the health, and substance use (Resnick et al., 2004; domain of violence prevention is expanding Office of the Surgeon General, 2001). In towards an ecological perspective that contrast, protective factors have been found includes factors of risk and protection at the to include high academic achievement, healthy individual, family, school, and community relationships with family members, pro-social levels (Resnick, Ireland & Borowsky, 2004). relationships with peers, and school For example, at an individual level, when commitment/connectedness (Office of the students present aggressive behaviors and do Surgeon General, 2001). not receive early intervention, they tend to Utilizing a dual strategy of (1) reduction of have higher rates of conduct problems, risk factors and (2) promotion of protective antisocial behaviors, and mental health factors provides a comprehensive, ecological challenges (Leff, Baker, Waasdorp, Vaughn, framework to address youth violence and Bevans, Thomas, Guerra, Hausman & aggression within school settings. The utility Monopoli, 2014). Increased acts of aggressive of the dual strategy approach in addressing behavior among students leads to higher the perpetration of violence among youth has conflict in classrooms, schools, and the been highlighted across studies (Resnick et al., broader context of the community, 2004; Office of the Surgeon General, 2001; demonstrating a ‘ripple effect’. Examining Anderson, Benjamin & Batholow, 1998; aggression and violence through an ecological Catalano, Haggerty, Oesterle, Fleming & perspective provides opportunities for Hawkins, 2004). Therefore, this paper will positive change through the interpretation of review the literature in terms of risk factors both personal and environmental factors. and protective factors that have been explicitly identified through scientific

https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol8/iss1/4 2 Katic: Violence and Aggression in Schools

evidence. The literature regarding the specific presence of a weapon may lead to more risk factors of social rejection and weapons- aggressive behavior in individuals, particularly carrying will be reviewed, in addition to the when the individual is already aroused protective factors of school connectedness (Anderson et al., 1998). The phenomenon of and pro-social relationships. The following the ‘weapons effect’ was initially studied over four factors will be examined within a social 50 years ago, by Berkowitz & LePage, in 1967 psychological framework in relation to (Anderson, 1998). The weapons effect occurs violence and aggression in school settings. when a visual of a weapon is presented, Furthermore, implications for preventing subsequently resulting in the increased violent and aggressive acts among students, accessibility of aggressive thoughts through a with the goal of creating safer school spreading-activation process (Anderson et al., environments, will be provided for each 1998). Strong associations between guns and domain. violence form in the long-term memory, and perceiving a gun may activate these Risk Factors associations, thus making aggressive thoughts highly accessible (Anderson et al., 1998). In A risk factor is anything that may increase summary, the simple identification of the probability of an individual to suffer harm weapons “increases the accessibility of (Office of the Surgeon General, 2001). As aggressive thoughts” (Anderson et al., 1998, previously mentioned, risk factors for violence pg. 312). and aggression may include social rejection, While schools may prohibit weapons on exposure to weapons, psychological concerns, campus, individuals still may have access to and substance use (Resnick et al., 2004). It is weapons in the community. Issues critical to identify and understand risk factors surrounding accessing and purchasing in order to prevent harm done to an weapons in society are beyond the scope of individual or community. Through the educational institutions, and remain in the identification of risk factors, targeted efforts hands of government officials and policy- for intervention may be made. For example, a makers. For example, American government student presenting a psychological concern officials have recently proposed arming (an identified risk factor), such as bipolar teachers with weapons in an effort to combat disorder, will likely benefit from mental health school violence (Jackson & King, 2018). In services. Once the school identifies this need, terms of the discussion around creating safe the school may intervene to provide mental school environments (i.e. the argument to arm health supports for the student. Although not teachers with weapons), there are serious risks directly targeting aggression, the support involved in terms of aggression and violence. provided to the student may help decrease According to the weapons effect, increasing future acts of aggression in the school and/or the exposure of weapons at school will in turn community. However, for the purposes of increase the accessibility of aggressive this paper, the risk factors of exposure to thoughts. Therefore, it is imperative for those weapons and social rejection will be examined in leadership positions to consider the in further detail. scientific evidence regarding the weapons effect, and the implications it has regarding Exposure to weapons. the safety of children in school settings.

One factor predictive of interpersonal Social rejection. violence perpetration has been identified as the carrying of weapons (Resnick et al., 2004). The connection between rejection and Replicated research has found that the mere aggression has been documented in various

Published by CSUSB ScholarWorks, 2018 3 Wisdom in Education, Vol. 8 [2018], Iss. 1, Art. 4

experimental, correlational, and longitudinal students, schools may want to emphasize studies (Leary, Twenge & Quinlivan, 2006). bullying prevention and programs that Previous literature suggests that experiences support team-building skills (i.e. student of interpersonal rejection are associated with organizations, community outreach activities). higher levels of aggression (Leary et al., 2006). However, further research is needed to Rejection studies have found that rejection understand how to effectively reduce the produces strong effects on behavior (Leary et amount of social rejection among peers in al., 2006), demonstrating a connection to the schools. importance of pro-social behaviors and creating a sense of belonging in school Protective Factors environments. Moreover, the Surgeon General’s report on youth violence found that Protective factors include conditions, that social rejection (described in the report as may interact with risk factors, in order to “weak social ties”) was the most significant reduce their influence on violent behavior risk factor for adolescent violence (Office of (Office of the Surgeon General, 2001). the Surgeon General, 2001). The weaker the Protective factors include “the events, social ties (which may be characterized as low opportunities, and experiences in the lives of involvement in school activities and/or young people that diminish or buffer against unpopularity at school), the higher the risk of the likelihood of involvement in behaviors becoming violent (Office of the Surgeon risky to youth and/or to others” (Resnick et General, 2001). Further demonstrating this al., 2006, p. 424.e4). School connectedness effect, bullying has been linked to social and the enhancement of pro-social rejection. Bullying may be defined as a distinct relationships have been identified through type of aggression that involves an abuse of academic literature as variables that have the power and repeated perpetration (Cook, potential to reduce incidents of violence and Williams, Guerra, Kim & Sadek, 2010). The aggression within schools, and will therefore connection between bullying and social be further examined in this section. rejection was identified in a 2010 meta- analysis by Cook and colleagues. The study School connectedness. found children who bullied other students appeared to have been socially rejected and A sense of belonging, or connectedness, to isolated by their peers during childhood one’s school has been identified as a (Cook et al., 2010). protective factor of violent behavior. A study The connection between social rejection by Duggins and colleagues (2016) utilized a and violence has been studied in previous resilience framework in order to examine cases of school shootings in America. An associations between victimization and analysis of fifteen school shootings in aggression in cases of school bullying. America (from 1995-2001) were evaluated to Resilience theory focuses on the processes examine the possible role of social rejection in that allow individuals to “bounce back” when school violence (Leary, Kowalski, Smith, & faced with adversity (Duggins et al., 2016). In Phillips, 2003). The investigators found that the study, students completed surveys of teasing, ostracism, bullying, and/or romantic family and school connectedness at baseline. rejection were present in twelve out of the School belonging was assessed via 4 items fifteen cases (Leary et al., 2003). Considering taken from the National Longitudinal Study this information, there are clear implications of Adolescent Health (Duggins et al., 2004). for educators and staff in terms of monitoring Results demonstrated that students who social rejection in school settings. In order to reported higher levels of school belonging on strengthen the social connections among the measure reported fewer aggressive acts

https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol8/iss1/4 4 Katic: Violence and Aggression in Schools

(Duggins et al., 2016). The cross-sectional protective factors for adolescent health and results support the compensatory models of behavioral issues. Data examining the effects resilience, however, the longitudinal findings of SSDP and RHC were promising. SSDP were less clear. The authors conclude that data revealed that, at the elementary level, as school belonging may help students to avoid school bonding increased, problem behavior acting aggressively during a time where they decreased (Catalano et al., 2004). Moreover, are experiencing victimization, yet this effect during middle and high school (ages 10-18), may diminish over time (Duggins et al., 2016). school bonding was significantly and The findings demonstrate that a sense of negatively associated with violence in school belonging may decrease aggression adolescence and young adulthood (up to age during victimization, although further 21) (Catalano et al., 2004). The RHC sought research is needed in order to determine to replicate and further extend the SSDP. The whether these effects can be sustained over RHC results found that school bonding had a time. protective effect, particularly for children Catalano and colleagues describe school whose parents were involved in antisocial connectedness as being comprised of two behaviors including drug use and domestic interdependent components: (1) affective violence (Catalano et al., 2004). relationships with school community Both the SSDP and RHC interventions members and (2) an investment in school and sought to increase the competence of academic success (Catalano et al., 2004). They socialization units of school, family, and peer developed the Social Development Model, groups, in order to strengthen school hypothesizing that children must learn connectedness. Outcomes of these school- patterns of behavior from their social wide interventions included improved environment (Catalano et al., 2004). The academic achievement for students and socialization process creates a social bond of reduced school problems, such as violence attachment and commitment between the and aggression (Catalano et al., 2004). child and the social environment/institution. Reducing violence in schools will promote The creation of this social bond subsequently higher academic outcomes, as violence strengthens the child’s commitment to presents a barrier to learning (Catalano et al., conform the norms, values, and behaviors of 2004). Thus, support for school social environment. Further, this social bond connectedness, as a means to reduce school acts as a mediator between what is considered violence, is grounded in theoretical and prosocial versus antisocial behavior in the scientific evidence. In order to decrease context of the environment. Therefore, aggression, and also increase academic aggressive acts are judged based on the values achievement, the literature demonstrates that of the social environment, which in this case, schools should target school connectedness as would be the social environment of the a way to achieve these outcomes for students. school setting. Further, Catalano and colleagues examined Enhancing pro-social relationships. two longitudinal studies to examine the impact of school connectedness in relation to A strong social bond, or connection, to school violence (Catalano et al., 2004). These school has been found to reduce violence studies included two interventions informed among youth (Catalano et al., 2004). In by the Social Development Model: (1) the addition, the quality of relationships in Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP) educational settings has the ability to influence and (2) Raising Healthy Children (RHC) the school’s culture and the student’s ability to (Catalano et al., 2004). Both the SSDP and learn (Evans & Vaandering, 2016). School RHC seek to reduce risk factors and increase settings are inherently social environments,

Published by CSUSB ScholarWorks, 2018 5 Wisdom in Education, Vol. 8 [2018], Iss. 1, Art. 4

therefore children and adolescents are violence and aggression, thus creating safer presented with opportunities to develop school environments. relationships with peers, educators, While there are practical examples on how administrators and others within the school to implement restorative practices within an community. The enhancement of pro-social RTI model (Evans & Vaandering, 2016; relationships has been identified as a Winslade et al., 2014), and success has been protective factor in preventing violence documented within school settings (Winslade among youth (Resnick et al., 2004). et al., 2014), there remains a need to initiate Enhancing the quality of positive/healthy scientific research in order further guide and relationships within school settings may be replicate the implementation of its practices viewed through a restorative justice lens. with fidelity. Developing a sound Restorative justice (RJ) has been a grassroots methodology to examine pro-social movement that has been mainly driven by relationships within restorative framework, practice rather than theory (Evans & particularly among peers within school Vaandering, 2016). The RJ movement applied settings, would further advance this domain. to educational settings emphasizes three aspects: the creation of just and equitable Conclusion learning environments, building and maintaining healthy relationships, and healing There is an urgent need to reduce the harm in order to transform conflict (Evans & amount of violence and aggression Vaandering, 2016). Restorative justice may be perpetrated by young people in school implemented into school settings in order to settings, particularly in the United States of promote inclusion and nurture healthy America. To illustrate, the amount of school relationships in schools. Evans & Vaandering shootings in the United States has been (2016) propose two approaches for nurturing continuously causing harm and destruction to healthy relationships: (a) talking circles and (b) both schools, their communities and society. learning to listen and learning to ask, in order In order to prevent these situations from to encourage the growth of relational school occurring again, the etiology of violent and cultures. aggressive behaviors must be studied. Further, restorative practices may Considering the data from the studies compliment a school-wide system of positive reviewed, how much more do we know about behavior supports in a Response to violence and aggression in relation to school Intervention (RTI) model (Winslade, settings? The answer to this question may be Espinoza, Myers, & Yzaguirre, 2014). For framed in terms of risk factors and protective example, Tier 1 interventions may include factors within an ecological perspective. An proactive prevention, relationship building, ecological framework takes into account the restorative conversations, and classroom individual, family, school, and community circles (Winslade et al., 2014). Tier 2 may levels (Resnick et al., 2004). The utility of the include targeted group intervention, such as dual strategy approach, through reducing risk undercover anti-bullying teams, while Tier 3 factors and promoting of protective factors, may involve more intensive supports, such as has been demonstrated across studies. circles of support/accountability, re-entry Furthermore, there are implications for interventions, and peer juries (Winslade et al., preventing violent and aggressive behaviors in 2014). Restorative practices provide educators school settings. with specific steps on how to facilitate pro- When examining risk factors, controlled social relationships within educational experiments have found that the proximity of settings, which may subsequently decrease weapons will increase one’s aggressive thoughts – also known as the weapons effect

https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol8/iss1/4 6 Katic: Violence and Aggression in Schools

(Anderson et al., 1998). The weapons effect violence prevention, provides a call for school may be theoretically applied to school settings. professionals to work alongside students in an For example, an increase in the exposure of effort to strengthen protective factors and weapons within school settings would lead to create safer school communities (Resnick et an increase in aggressive thoughts, and al., 2004). The review of literature potentially aggressive behaviors, within school demonstrates that addressing violence and settings. While educators may limit the aggression as early as possible would be most exposure of weapons at school, concerns of beneficial for students, as there are various students accessing weapons outside of the factors that influence aggressive behavior (i.e. school must be addressed by the larger social rejection, weapons exposure). Research community. Moreover, literature has shown findings demonstrate that schools provide a that social rejection plays a role in violent and context to both inhibit antisocial (i.e. violent, aggressive behaviors within school settings. aggressive) behavior and also promote Social rejection was identified as the most positive development for students, thus important risk factor for adolescent violence reducing acts of violence and aggression; (Office of the Surgeon General, 2001). In Schools provide opportunities to both order to decrease the amount of social prevent and respond to violent situations. rejection among peers, schools may want to When school systems take the initiative in emphasize bullying prevention and programs reducing the amount of youth violence, it will that support team-building skills, however lead to positive outcomes at the individual, further research is needed to support these school, and community levels. Therefore, it is recommendations. imperative to study how to break the chain of In terms of protective factors, studies have violence that has been plaguing American found that when students feel a sense of schools. connection to their schools, there is a subsequent decline in aggression and violent encounters (Duggins et al., 2016). Through the socialization process, a social bond is created between the child and the social environment (school). A stronger bond will increase the likelihood that the student will adhere to the school’s values, such as treating others with respect. This social bond may therefore play a role in reducing the amount of aggressive and violent behaviors in schools. In addition to school connectedness, another protective factor is the development of pro- social relationships. An example of a framework for fostering pro-social relationships in school settings is restorative justice. Restorative justice is guided by practice, therefore developing a sound methodology to examine pro-social relationships within restorative framework would build upon a research base to support its implementation in schools. A greater understanding of how social contexts, particularly schools, play a role in

Published by CSUSB ScholarWorks, 2018 7 Wisdom in Education, Vol. 8 [2018], Iss. 1, Art. 4

References https://search.proquest.com/eric/docview /62076668/E96EB85A660A4983PQ/1?ac Aggression (2018). In Merriam-Webster’s countid=14521 collegiate dictionary. Retrieved February 20, Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., 2018, from https://www.merriam- Kim, T. E. & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors webster.com/dictionary/aggression of bullying and victimization in childhood Anderson, C. A., Benjamin, A. J. Jr., & and adolescence: A meta-analytic Bartholow, B. D. (1998). Does the gun pull investigation. School Psychology Quarterly the trigger? Automatic priming effects of 25(2), 65-83. doi:10.1037/a0020149 weapon pictures and weapon names. Duggins, S. D., Kuperminc, G. P., Henrich, Psychological Science 9, 308-314. C. C., Smalls-Glover, C, & Perilla, J. L. Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of (2016). Aggression among adolescent aggression. Journal of Communication 28(3), victims of school bullying: Protective roles pp. 12-29. Retrieved from of family and school connectedness. https://search.proquest.com/psycinfo/do Psychology of Violence 6(2), pp. 205-212. doi: cview/1302282944/fulltextPDF/EC63C6 10.1037/a0039439 7906DD424DPQ/4?accountid=14521 Espelage, D. L. (2014) Ecological Theory: Berkowitz, R. (2014) Student and teacher Preventing Youth Bullying, Aggression, responses to violence in school: The and Victimization, Theory Into Practice, 53(4), divergent views of bullies, victims, and 257-264, bully-victims. School Psychology International doi:10.1080/00405841.2014.947216 35(5), 485-503. doi: Evans, K. & Vaandering, D. (2016). 10.1177/0143034313511012 Nurturing Healthy Relationships. In The Bernat, D. H., Oakes, J. M., Pettingell, S. L., & Little Book of Restorative Justice in Education: Resnick, M. (2012). Risk and Direct Fostering responsibility, healing, and hope in Protective Factors for Youth Violence: schools. 59-78. New York, NY: Good Results from the National Longitudinal Books. Study of Adolescent Health. American Giancola, P. R., Mezzich, A. C., & Tarter, R. Journal of Preventive Medicine 43(2), E. (1998). Disruptive, delinquent, and Supplement 1, 2012, S57-S66. Retrieved aggressive behavior in adolescent females from https://ac.els- with a psychoactive substance use disorder: cdn.com/S0749379712003327/1-s2.0- Relation to executive cognitive S0749379712003327- functioning. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 59, main.pdf?_tid=4fc04f42-ae9f-4640-9345- 560-567. 81f6261f2474&acdnat=1520219079_69936 Harney, P. A. (2007) Resilience Processes in a5bd53140947944de09cc111559 Context. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment Bushman, B. J. & Bartholow, B. D. (2010). & Trauma, 14(3), 73-87, doi: Aggression. In Baumeister, R., F., & 10.1300/J146v14n03_05 Finkel, J. E. (Eds.), Advanced social psychology: Jackson. D. & King, L. (2018, February 22). The state of the science (pp. 303-340). New Trump doubles down on arming some York, NY: Oxford University Press. teachers to prevent school shootings. USA Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Oesterle, S., Today. Retrieved February 22, 2018, from Fleming, C. B. & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p The importance of bonding to school for olitics/2018/02/22/trump-says-only- healthy development: Findings from the highly-trained-teachers-should-have-guns- social development research group. Journal immediately-fire-back-if-savage-sicko- of School Health 74(7), 252-261. Retrieved attac/362242002/ from Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., &

https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/wie/vol8/iss1/4 8 Katic: Violence and Aggression in Schools

Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, rejection, and M. (2001). Overt and relational aggression violence: Case studies of the school in adolescents: Social-psychological shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 202-214. adjustment of aggressors and victims. Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M. & Quinlivan, E. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 30(4), pp. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a 479-491. doi: determinant of anger and aggression. 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3004_05 Personality and Social Psychology Review 10(2), Resnick, M. D., Ireland, M., & Borowsky, I. 111-132. Retrieved from (2004). Youth violence perpetration: What http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10. protects? What predicts? Findings from the 1207/s15327957pspr1002_2 national longitudinal study of adolescent Leff, S. S., Baker, C. N., Waasdorp, T. E., health. Journal of Adolescent Health 35(5), Vaughn, N. A., Bevans, K. B., Thomas, N. 424.e1-424.e10. A., Guerra, T., Hausman, A. J. & doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.01.011 Monopoli, J. M. (2014). Social cognitions, Simon, D. (2018, March 2). Nine weeks into distress, and leadership self-efficacy: the year and there have already been 12 Associations with aggression for high-risk school shootings. CNN. Retrieved March minority youth. Development and 2, 2018, from Psychopathology 26, 759-772. doi: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/us/sc 10.1017/S0954579414000376 hool-shootings-2018-list-trnd/index.html Lothane, H. Z. (2016). Violence as a Violence. (2018). In Merriam-Webster’s collegiate manifestation of evil. Psychoanalytic Inquiry dictionary. Retrieved February 20, 2018, 36(6), 454-475. doi: from https://www.merriam- 10.1080/07351690.2016.1192384 webster.com/dictionary/violence Office of the Surgeon General (2001). Youth Winslade, J., Espinoza, E., Myers, M. & violence: A report of the Surgeon General. Yzaguirre, H. (2014). Restorative Practices U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Training Manual. Retrieved February 1, Retrieved February 2018 from 2018, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2 http://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/books/ 0669522 3. Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Vernberg, E.

Published by CSUSB ScholarWorks, 2018 9