Preliminarna Študija Vprašalnika Agresivnega Vedenja

MEASUREMENT OF STUDENTS' AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR IN SCHOOL SETTINGS

Ana Kozina, Educational Research Institute, Slovenia

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Ghent, 19-21 September 2007

ABSTRACT

Aggressive behaviour refers to behaviour that is intended to cause harm or pain. It can be external or internal,direct or indirect. A negative influence on society in general is obvious, but the influence on school work should not be neglected as well. It seems that the problem of aggressive behaviour in school settings has been increasing through the years and therefore affecting school work at many different levels. Therefore it is essential to develop valid instruments for measuring aggression in the school settings in order to control aggressive behaviour and improve the school climate for effective learning.

In the following study we present the development of psycho metrically valid instrument for measuring students’ aggression in school. We will use a newly developed instrument to identify correlates of student aggression according to different student and school factors. The students factors included in the analysis are: gender, age, educational aspirations, activities in spare time and attitudes toward school.The school factors are focused on the level of job satisfaction among teachers and their perception of school safety.

The value of thenew instrument is shown through its metric characteristics and through investigating the role and importance of aggressive behaviour in school. Its practical value is shown in identifications of the student and school factors that are associated with aggression.

Key words: aggression, children, school, instrument construction, metric characteristics

INTRODUCTION

The current study focuses on aggression, children and school. At the beginning it should be stated why these three. Well investigated and many times proven negative influence of aggression puts aggression in focus.Another point worth mentioning is that in trying to identify problems of modern school aggressive behaviour of students clearly represents one of them. While this already partly explains our focus on the school and children, there are still more explanations that need to be considered. One of them is that aggression is a stable personal trait lasting from childhood, through adolescence to adulthood (Loeber, Hay, 1997).As proven in many studies, it is a stable trait and when observed in children,it is a good predictor of later adult criminal behaviour (Ferris, 1996; Carr, 1998; Fossati, Maffei, Acquarini and Ceglie, 2003; van Lier 2005). Therefore, the only sensible thing is to try to influence it in childhood by identifying more aggressive individuals and trying to modify their aggression. That is especially important since aggression predicts future social, psychological, behavioural and educational problems (Schwartz, Nakamoto, Hopmeyer Gorman, McKay, 2006; Crick, 2006). Since school is an important factor in the process of socialization, the aim is to find correlates of aggression in school and try to influence aggression through them. The correlates already identified will be discusses later on.

This paper will present the theoretical background for developinga new instrument for measuring aggressive behaviour of children in the elementary schoolfollowed by presentation of its development, use and its correlates within the school setting. The more specific objectives are:

…to develop new instrument for measuring aggression in school;

…to investigate age and gender differences in aggression;

…to investigate the role of aggression in school;

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

AGGRESSION

As many other psychological phenomena aggression is an extremely complexconcept and therefore,the definition itself is not very easy to obtain. If we have to sum up some of the existing definitions, we can say that majority of them are focused on its intent, expression and factors influencing it.They also include causing harm or intention to cause harm to another or self (Lamovec, 1988). Complexity is also evident from a variety of different aggression types.It could be classified either by its intention or its orientation. In intention oriented classifications, we can find instrumental aggression (orientated towards accomplishing specific goal), constructive aggression (oriented towards construction), destructive aggression (orientated towards destruction, harm…) and frustration aggression (orientated towards releasing energy or frustration). Commonly used classification by its orientationis shown in the figure below.

Factors influencing aggression vary and can be put into several different groups.

-Biochemical factors: testosterone, male gender, low cholesterol, low nitro oxide, low serotonin, increased ER-beta, ER-alpha, dysfunctional amygdale, frontal lobe leisure… (Archer, 1991)

-Chemical factors:ethanol, methamphetamine, alcohol, cocaine, marihuana, lead, apomorphin, fluoxetine and caffeine.

-Psychological factors:low arousal, brain dysfunctions, anxiety, hyperactivity, early childhood aggression, early antisocial behaviour, positive attitudes towards aggressive behaviour an low IQ are found to be associated with higher aggression.

-Sociological factors: transformation of sex roles in females, competition, other's aggressive behaviour, failure, parental criminality, neglect, abuse, indulged or strict discipline, inconsistent punishment, low parental involvement, poor family bonding, parents’ support of punishment, frequent residential moves, parent-child separation, educational failure, low bonding to school and dropping out of school.

In general theories explaining aggressive behaviour put different emphasis on different aspects such as characteristics of individual (temperament, learnt behaviour, experiences of aggressive behaviour, physical illness…), characteristics of the environment (frustration, threats, stress, social dynamics…), institutions (school work, bad working conditions...) and cultural influences (social understanding of aggressive behaviour, diametrical expectations, structural unemployment, poverty) (Krall, 2003).

The first in a row of theories that shaped the construct of aggression was instinctual theory, which claims aggression to be inherent in human behaviour. This theory was followed by frustration – aggression theory in 1939 developed by Dollard and Miller and explains that people are likely to become aggressive when they are frustrated. The emphasis on learning was introduces by Bandura and his Social learning theory developed in 1973 (Williams, Boyd, Cascardi and Poythress, 1996).

Science today has accepted the complexity of aggression and is trying to integrate different backgrounds into one stable construct. Instead of partial theories explaining one or two aspects current science is interested in different integrative approaches. For example: aggression as a way of coping with stress, aggression as a masculine way of controlling environment, aggression as a result of productive coping with reality, and aggression as a consequence of economical poverty (Krall 2003).Aggression as a way of coping with stress evolves on the basis of unsuccessful conflict solving and is, therefore, a result of coexistence of individual and environmental factors. When a conflict appears, the first to follow is the evaluation of importance of the conflict for an individual involved. This evaluation is followed by a decision, regarding the conflict solving strategy. When certain conflict is evaluated as an important one and when strategies for solving the conflict are limited, the probability of aggressive behaviourincreases(Krall, 2003). The other example is aggression as a result of socio – environmental conditions. This approach shows another way of interaction with environment by taking into account thesocial environment. It focuses mainly on the meaning individual assigns to himself and his environment.

AGGRESSION IN SCHOOL SOUROUNDINGS

Most common types of aggression observed in school settings are physical, verbal and psychological aggression (Popp, 2003). These types are commonly observed, especially physical aggression, due to the ease ofspotting. In majority of the studies, the most frequent aggression found in school surroundings was physical and verbal aggression. By verbal aggression, we understand different forms of calling names, nicknames, and spreading rumours that lead to social stigmatism and exclusion. A study in Germany showed the presence of physical violence in schools (vandalism, fights, blackmailing) and also presence of verbal aggression especially in higher grades. The result of the study mentioned show that 50 to 60 % of children showed verbal aggression, while physical aggression was reported only by 2 % of children. But here we have to take under consideration that verbal and psychological aggression have longer lasting consequences and these forms of aggressions are more difficult to spot (Popp, 2003). There are of course all kinds of aggression found in the school surroundings but physical and verbal aggression are most common and nevertheless, easier to observe. A variety of different forms of aggression found in schools is shown in the table below.

Table 1. Classification of aggressive behaviour in school.

latent aggression / manifest aggression
being angry, threatening, taking things... / towards class mates / torture, blackmail, attacking, attacking with weapons, robbing…
yelling at, damaging clothes, skipping classes... / towards teachers / attacking, hurting, threats with knife, stocking, phone aggression, threatening letters...
spraying, sketching, destroying flowers, throwing bottles, slamming doors, damaging… / towards objects / destroying furniture, windows, eliciting fire, damaging cars…
verbal and physical harassments ... / sexual aggression / rape
pulling hair out, scratching face… / auto aggression / suicide

(Belser, 1999; Krall 2003)

Acommonly shared belief strongly influenced by frequent media reportingis that aggressive behaviour in schools is increasing.This hypothesis, however, still needs to be proven.The study conducted in Germany, for example, shows that this is not the case and that between 1994 and 1999 aggression had not increased at all (Fuchs, 2001, Popp, 2003).Another question still waiting to be answeredrefers to different factors connected to aggression in school. So far, there has been evidence of important connections between aggression and grades, teacher – student relations, identification with learning material andthe school climatein general (Krall, 2003). The influence of the grades is based on high parental expectations. Not reaching these high standards results in conflicts and aggressive behaviour(Popp, 2003, Tomori, 2000, Dekleva, 2000).As far as the teacher – student relations are concerned, the characteristics leading into more aggressive behaviour are rigid behaviour of a teacher and the use of institutionalized ways of power. Whenwe consider thesocial climate in a classroom, the emphasis is put on connectedness among students, friendly relations and absence of unhealthy competitiveness (Popp, 2003).Important differences in aggressive behaviour were established among different types of schools (Krall, 2003).

MEASUREMENTS OF AGGRESSION

When addressing aggression in the school all conclusions must be result of valid, reliable and objective measures of aggression. The method of projection was commonly used in the past. It still is in the use today although the general trend is moving towards the use of self evaluation questionnaires and within school settings also towards teachers’ and peers’ evaluation questionnaire. Questionnaires and scales have a lot of advantages such as objectivity, validity, reliability, easy usage and so forth. Their most frequent criticism refers to giving false, usually socially more acceptable answers, which is a common case with aggression due the perception as aggression being negative trait. This could be avoided by including the so called scales for measuring the need for social acceptance. The most frequently used measure for aggression is Buss Durkee Hostility inventory (1957). It measures seven specific types of aggression: assault, indirect aggression, irritability, negativism, resentment, suspicion and verbal aggression. Researchers can therefore discover not only how aggressive person is, but also how this aggression is manifested.

Our instrument belongs to the group of self evaluation measures.In attempt of getting as honest responses as possible it is going to be administered anonymously.

INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT

LA (Lestvica Agresivnosti) Aggression Questionnaire was developed in need of valid, reliable and objective instrumentfor measuring different types of aggression in school. The aim was to develop a new instrument, specifically constructed for and adapted to school use.

The item construction was based on detailed review of the literature and types of aggressive behaviour found in other studies on aggression in elementary schools. The goal was to include as many different types of aggression as possible (verbal, indirect, physical, suspiciousness, internal, auto aggression, anger, hostility, negativism…) and direct them towards different objects important in the school environment (class mates, teachers, selves, objects, parents…).Following this empirical plan, 96 items were set to compose first version of LA aggression questionnaire. All items were self evaluating, meaning that students reported about their own aggression. Afterwards, the first step was to determine metrical characteristics of this newly developed instrument in order to use it in school and to identify correlates of aggression.

In order to achieve our goals, the study was organized in two parts;the first one being a preliminary study on a convenience sample and the second one being the main study on representative sample for Slovenia.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

A preliminary study of LAAggression Questionnairewas conducted on a convenience sample of 162 (90 male and 79 female; average age in months was 143, 61 with SD = 23,062) students in elementary school and the first version of LA with 96 items was used. Responses were given on seven point scale (1= strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3= mostly disagree, 4= something in-between, 5= mostly agree, 6= agree, 7= strongly agree). The items were positively evaluated with two exceptions (recoded in the later stage), meaning that the higher score stands forthe higher level of aggression.

Data for the preliminary study was gathered in 2 elementaryschools in Sloveniain September 2005. The time for giving responses was not limited and majority of questionnaires were completed in 15 minutes.

The purpose of the preliminary study was to extract items with good metric characteristics and to include them in second version of LA aggression questionnaire and therefore; descriptive statistics, structure analyses and reliability analyses were conducted. Due to a low standard deviation indicating low level of differentiation among students at different levels of aggression three items were eliminated.

The rest of the item set was included in the component analysis for investigating the structure of the new instrument. A prior test for analyzing sufficiency of data for principal component analyses showed that data were suitable for analyzing structure (Kaiser – Meyer – Olkin = 0,668; Bartlett’s test of sphericity: χ2 (4560) = 7900, 191; p = , 000). With taking Kaiser Guttmann criteria (eigen value over one) under account 6 components explaining 42,431 % of the total variance were found. Items that were strongly correlated to these six components and that were logical in terms of the content were kept. This resulted in six components: anger/hostility, (16 items), verbal aggression (15 items), physical aggression (12 items), internal aggression (14 items), aggression towards authority (5 items) and suspiciousness (3 items).

Cronbachs’Alpha as a measure of internal consistency was used as a method of reliability. The results showed sufficient reliability for the first five scales(α1=,845; α2=,864); α3= 825; α4=,799; α5=,786) and not for the sixth componentwhich was eliminated.Reliability analysis conducted on item levels resulted in the single items being dropped from anger/hostility and aggression towards authority components.

With the High and low groups method differentiation on item level was analysed. Students were divided into three different groups (with low, medium and high level of aggression) and differences on sole items between these groups were calculated. The outcome was an elimination of two items in the internal aggression scale.

The result of all these analyses was the second version of LA aggression questionnaire with 58 items.

MAIN STUDY

In the main study the second version of LA Aggression Questionnaire with 58 self evaluation items was administered with a threedifferent versions with rotated items in order to control the effect of tiredness.Scale was transformed into Likert scale response format (1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= something in between, 4= agree, 5= strongly agree). Three LA was administered together withTIMSS Field Test Questionnaire in March 2006 on a representative sample of 2780 fourth and eight grade students in Slovenia, participating in TIMSS 2007 Field Test Study. TIMSS (Trends in International Math and Science Study) is conducted by IEA (Evaluation of Education Achievement) and assesses achievements in the mathematics and science inthe fourth and eight grades and collects a rich array of background information. TIMSS students’ questionnaires for the fourth and eight grade were used to investigate the role of aggression in school. Therefore, theTIMSS National Field Test Data Base was usedto link ofthe school and students factors to the factors of LA. The data on students'gender, age, use of spare time, educational aspirations and attitudes towards school were used. The data on teachers’ perception of job satisfaction and school safety were also used from the TIMSS teachers’ questionnaire for the fourth grade andeight grade math and science teachers.

The first goal was to analyse the structure of the instrument in order to find out weather it remains the same as in the preliminary study. A prior test for analyzing sufficiency of data for principal component analyze showed that data were suitable for analyzing structure (Kaiser – Meyer – Olkin = 0,971; Bartlett’s test of sphericity: χ2 (1891) = 51973,446; p =,000).

Table 2. Outcomes of exploratory factor analyses of second version LAAggression Questionnaire.

eigen value / % of variance / cumulative %
1 / 19,780 / 31,903 / 31,903
2 / 3,471 / 5,598 / 37,501
3 / 2,074 / 3,346 / 40,847
4 / 1,700 / 2,742 / 43,589
5 / 1,613 / 2,602 / 46,191

Note. As a method of extraction principal component analyses was used.

The results were consistent withthe preliminary study, again showing the structure of the six components (Kaiser Guttmann criteria) and againthe sixth component was left out. On a more representative sample, a higher percent of the total variance is explained with the first five components.

These five components formed a foundation for five scales or five types of aggression measured by the new instrument, named: anger/hostility, verbal aggression, physical aggression, internal aggression and aggression towards authority.

Certain parts of this structure are consistent with other questionnaires measuring aggression (Buss, Perry, 1992). Loadings on the first factor are high on all items and similar results were found also elsewhere (Buss, Perry, 1992).This puts anger into focus. One explanation isthat anger is psychological base for aggression. The fact is that people are more likely to act aggressively when they are angry. Correlates of anger and aggression are a result of other studies as well (Smith, Furlong, 1998; Campano, 2004).