How we know what we know:

1
How we know what we know

• Lies, damn lies and statistics
• All research findings do not have the same value
• Need to critically assess
• information

2
Gangs in schools

• Youngsters drawn to peer groups for sense of
  belonging, purpose, protection
• Schoolboys operating gangs in and around schools
  especially extortion, theft, rape
• Boys in some cases are part of larger criminal
  gangs
• (Safe Schools Initiative, Min of Nat Security,
  2008)

3
Causes and facilitators 1.

• Nature vs. Nurture
• Since 1970s, more integrated framework
  (deWaal,1999)
• Genetic studies on aggression highlight relative
  influences of genes environment (e.g. Aseneault
  et al., 2003)
• Environmental genetic risk interact (Caspi et
  al., 2002, Fox et al., 2005, Jaffee et al,. 2007)

4
Causes and facilitators 2.

• Aggression as adaptive
• Traditionally seen as maladaptive e.g. peer
  disapproval
• Since late 1990s adaptive role recognized.
  Evolutionary psychology suggests selection
  designed to solve problems in specific contexts
• Adaptive function varies with age, context
• (Guerra, 2008)

5
Causes and facilitators3.

• Possible adaptive functions
• Co-opting resources of others
• Defending against attack
• Deterring rivals from future aggression
• Negotiating status and power
• Inflicting costs on same-sex rivals

6
(No Transcript)
7
Causes and facilitators 4.

• Aggression can result in
• Status and honour (e.g. violent gangs)
• Popularity and admiration within peer group
• Material goods, protection, power, deterrence
• (Fagan Wilkinson, 1998 Guerra, 1998)

8
Causes and facilitators 5.

• Aggression - a multiply determined behaviour
• Individual factors
• Personality
• Temperament
• Neuropsychological functioning
• Biological predispositions

9
Causes and facilitators 6.

• Contextual factors
• Parenting practices
• Family socialization
• Peer influences
• School environment
• Community disadvantage
• (Eron, 1987)

10
Risk factors in Jamaica

• I Study of aggression-related factors in Primary
  schools
• II Case control study of aggressive and prosocial
  boys
• III Long term follow-up of aggressive prosocial
  boys

11
I Study of aggression related factors in
Primary schools

• 30 Primary level urban schools - interviews
• 30 Principals
• 185 Selected teachers
• 1416 grade 5 children
• Extensive Observations
• School plant
• Classroom behavior
• Playground behavior
• (Meeks Gardner, Powell, Grantham-McGregor, 2001)

12
Aggression Level

• Directly related to
• Violence in community
• Children seen dead bodies
• Corporal punishments at school

13
Aggression Level

• Negatively related to
• Praise for good work
• Displaying childrens work
• Giving more homework

14
II Case control study of aggressive and
prosocial boys

• Sample
• 101 aggressive boys
• from grades 5 6
• 101 prosocial boys
• matched by grade

(Meeks Gardner, Powell, Grantham-McGregor, 2001
2007)
15
Measurements

• Boys - Questionnaires
• - School achievement tests
• - Verbal IQ (PPVT)
• - Anthropometry
• - Observations
• Parents - Questionnaires
• - Child behaviour (Rutter)
• Teacher - Child behaviour (Rutter)

16
Independent variables different between the
groups

• Child characteristics
• Spelling/ reading
• Hyperactivity
• R20.10

• Environment variables
• Exposure to violence
• Parents commitment to education
• Prays/ church
• Parents marital status
• Beatings (hand)
• Beatings (belt)

R20.28
17
III Follow-up of aggressive prosocial cohorts

• Boys aggressive at age 11 years continued to be
  more violent at age 17 years
• Poorer school achievement
• Greater school drop-out

(Meeks Gardner et al, 2004)
18
Impacts and Outcomes

• Within adaptive framework, aggression and
  violence can have positive benefits.
• May resist interventions to reduce this behaviour
• Strategy to change adaptive value needed

19
What can be done?

• Comprehensive, multi-faceted approach required
• Policy-related
• Interventions and treatments
• Research and monitoring

20
(No Transcript)