Proximal Peer-Level Effects of a Small-Group Selected Prevention on Aggression in Elementary School Children: an Investigation of the Peer Contagion Hypothesis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 3, June 2005, pp. 325–338 (C 2005) DOI: 10.1007/s10802-005-3568-2 Proximal Peer-Level Effects of a Small-Group Selected Prevention on Aggression in Elementary School Children: An Investigation of the Peer Contagion Hypothesis Paul Boxer,1,5 Nancy G. Guerra,2 L. Rowell Huesmann,3 and Julie Morales4 Received March 9, 2004; revision received August 15, 2004; accepted September 24, 2004 Examined peer contagion in small group, selected prevention programming over one school year. Participants were boys and girls in grades 3 (46 groups, 285 students) and 6 (36 groups, 219 students) attending school in low-resource, inner city communities or moderate resource urban communities. Three-level hierarchical linear modeling (observations within individuals within groups) indicated that individual change in aggression over time related to the average aggression of others in the intervention group. The individual child was “pulled” toward peers’ mean level of aggression; so the intervention appeared to reduce aggression for those high on aggression, and to make those low on aggression more aggressive. Effects appeared to be magnified in either direction when the child was more discrepant from his or her peers. From these results we derive a principle of “discrepancy- proportional peer-influence” for small group intervention, and discuss the implications of this for aggregating aggressive children in small group programs. KEY WORDS: aggression; elementary school; peer contagion; selected prevention; intervention. Youth violence has been the focus of a national children most at-risk and to deliver services in a cost- research agenda for many years (Human Capital Initia- effective manner, many prevention programs recruit par- tive, 1996; Murray, Guerra, & Williams, 1997; Surgeon ticipants who are rated as aggressive and provide inter- General, 2001), and research on the prevention of youth ventions for small groups of identified children. Those violence has been increasing steadily (Acosta, Albus, programs are referred to as selected or secondary preven- Reynolds, Spriggs, & Weist, 2001). However, programs tion programs, and often can result in the creation of inter- implemented to mitigate or prevent aggression and vi- vention groups comprised entirely of the most aggressive olence among children and adolescents typically show youth. only modest to moderate effectiveness (Howard, Flora, Selected prevention activities are designed to pre- & Griffin, 1999; Wilson, Lipsey, & Derzon, 2003), and a vent the emergence of a full-scale disorder following the number of issues related to the optimal design of such pro- initial appearance of signs or symptoms of the problem grams remain unresolved (Boxer & Dubow, 2002; Kerns (Gordon, 1983). With regard to aggressive behavior, this & Prinz, 2002). For example, in order to intervene with typically refers to preventing escalations from aversive and disruptive interpersonal behavior problems to seri- ous violence and antisocial offending (Tolan & Guerra, 1University of Michigan; currently at University of New Orleans. 1994). Given the mix of risk factors commonly associ- 2University of California, Riverside. ated with the development of aggressive behavior (for 3University of Michigan. reviews, see, e.g., Coie & Dodge, 1998; Dodge & Pettit, 4 University of California, Riverside; currently at Division of Children, 2003; Huesmann, 1994), including personal characteris- Youth, and Families of Jefferson County Human Services (Colorado). 5Address all correspondence to Paul Boxer, PhD, Department of Psy- tics (e.g., IQ, temperamental predisposition; Huesmann, chology, University of New Orleans, 2001 GP Building/Lakefront, New Eron, & Yarmel, 1987; Miles & Carey, 1997) as well Orleans, LA 70148; e-mail: [email protected]. as contextual influences (e.g., poverty, family violence; 325 0091-0627/05/0600-0325/0 C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 326 Boxer, Guerra, Huesmann, and Morales Guerra, Huesmann, Tolan, Van Acker, & Eron, 1995; Peer Contagion in Selected Prevention for Aggression Mahoney, Donnelly, Boxer, & Lewis, 2003), children identified for selected prevention activities might be con- The peer contagion hypothesis predicts that inter- tending with a variety of psychosocial difficulties. How- mingling antisocial youth in the context of intervention ever, as the strongest predictor of later aggression and activities encourages them to behave more antisocially. antisocial behavior is early and contemporaneous aggres- For example, those youth can reinforce each other for sion (Borum, 2000; Dubow, Huesmann, & Boxer, 2003; problem behavior during group sessions (e.g., one youth Huesmann, Eron, & Dubow, 2002), children likely are insults the group leader and the others laugh), expose best identified for selected activities through a detailed, one another to new antisocial ideas and experiences (e.g., multi-informant assessment of aggression and related be- one youth informs another of an easy burglary target), havior problems (Flanagan, Bierman, Kam, & Conduct and form enduring relationships that could increase their Problems Prevention Research Group, 2003). exposure to one another’s deviance over the long term. In other words, it is precisely the selected prevention strategy that might result in iatrogenic effects for an intervention Selected Prevention for Aggression program. By aggregating youth who display higher-than- average levels of aggressive, antisocial behavior, an in- There are several ways in which selected prevention tervention ostensibly intended to reduce or prevent such programming for aggression can be implemented. Given behavior might actually increase it. the utility of schools for delivering violence prevention Evidence for the peer contagion hypothesis has been services (Farrell, Meyer, Kung, & Sullivan, 2001), one documented in randomized intervention studies. Dishion of the more common approaches is to employ classroom et al. (1999) noted that short-term benefits had accrued “pull-out” programs for students labeled as “at risk” or from a cognitive-behavioral group intervention to reduce “high risk.” In this approach, students are removed from problem behavior among high-risk adolescents. However, their regular classrooms for a period of time (typically 30– results from a 3-year follow-up indicated that treated 60 min) to receive prevention programming in a different youth were more likely to self-report tobacco use, and room. Hudley and her colleagues and Lochman and his were rated as more delinquent by teachers, than non- colleagues have used this strategy effectively in small- treated youth. Similar observations of the negative effects group interventions for anger and aggression among ele- of aggressive peers have been found in recent longitu- mentary and young middle school students (Hudley et al., dinal studies. For example, Espelage, Holt, and Henkel 1998; Hudley & Graham, 1993; Larson & Lochman, 2002; (2003) observed peer-group effects on individual aggres- Lochman & Lenhart, 1993). Feindler and her colleagues sive behaviors in a sample of students in sixth through have obtained success with similar programs for older eighth grade. Students were grouped according to their students (Feindler, Marriott, & Iwata, 1984; Feindler & naturally occurring peer group affiliations (i.e., groups Scalley, 1998). of friends identified via social network analysis). Results The selected approach has some clear benefits. revealed significant between group variation in individual For example, teachers and parents can see that youth aggression outcomes. Specifically, higher levels of aggre- in need of services are receiving them; through “pull- gated fighting and bullying within peer groups at time out” programs teachers and classmates receive respite 1 predicted increased fighting and bullying at time 2 for from particularly disruptive youth. Further, selected pro- the individuals comprising those groups, after controlling gramming can be less of a strain on financial and hu- individual aggression at time 1. man resources over the short-term when compared to Although there is a growing body of evidence sup- broad-based universal or intensive indicated program- porting the peer contagion hypothesis, there are still many ming. Still, this approach has potential costs. Recent questions regarding the process by which this occurs. Oth- theory advanced by Dishion and colleagues (Dishion, erwise put, it is important to disentangle characteristics of Bullock, & Granic, 2002; Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, aggressive groups that are most predictive of impact on 1999) based upon a body of research into adolescent individual aggression. For instance, it may be that mere peer relations and the development of antisocial behavior exposure to the aggression of peers in a group influences (Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989; Patterson, Dish- changes in individual aggression such that exposure to ion, & Yoerger, 2000; Poulin, Dishion, & Burraston, 2001; more aggressive peers leads to greater increases in ag- Poulin, Dishion, & Haas, 1999; Reid, Patterson, & Snyder, gression over time in a direct fashion. In contrast, it may 2002) offers a contraindication to the selected prevention be that children are differentially affected by group ag- approach. gression depending upon their own individual levels of Proximal Peer Effects 327 aggression at the outset of group formation such that ex- with a variety of peers (such as organized sports, recre- posure to more aggressive peers