Bernie DeGroat
(734) 647-1847
[email protected]
Violent children may condemn the use of violence as much as other kids do, but for different reasons, a U-M study shows.
ANN ARBOR---Although their reasons may differ, violent boys are no more likely than non-violent boys to approve of hitting others, even when sometimes provoked, according to a University of Michigan study.
"Current psychological theories and clinical expectations would predict that the violent children in our sample would approve of violent acts," says Ron A. Astor, U-M assistant professor of social work and of education. "Nevertheless, the violent children unanimously condemned unprovoked situations based on moral reasoning, rather than social rules, consensus, authority or egocentric personal needs."
In their study, Astor and U-M graduate student William J. Behre asked violent and non-violent children, ages 10-13, to evaluate six scenarios of provoked and unprovoked violence between children at school, parents at home, and children and their parents. Their sample consisted of 17 boys enrolled in a special education day-treatment program for violent children with emotional/behavioral disorders and 17 non-violent boys.
According to Astor, all of the boys in both groups opposed using violence in each of the three unprovoked situations presented. In addition, most of the children used moral justifications to condemn the unprovoked hitting, such as the wrongful intent of the aggressor and a concern for the physical welfare of the victim.
"All of the children judged the unprovoked harm as 'wrong,' even though two of the situations occurred between family members," he says. "This finding has implications for interventions based on the assumption that children raised in an environment of family violence tend to approve of domestic violence."
"All of the children in the violent group had experienced family violence, yet they unanimously condemned family violence based, in part, on moral justifications."
In situations presented where violence was "provoked" (e.g., hitting in response to name-calling, lying, stealing, disobeying authority or hitting), most of the boys in the sample disapproved of hitting back, Astor says. However, while both the violent and non-violent children held similar views about violent retaliation, their rationale differed.
While the non-violent children focused on broad societal rules against hitting for any reason, the violent children emphasized the "severe pain" and "catastrophic result" (e.g., "...it will lead to a big fight and lots of blood and they will call the police...") that may follow an act of violence, the study shows.
"The severity of pain related to future outcomes may explain why this extremely violent group did not approve of hitting in response to these provocations," Astor says. "Specifically, this group may have disapproved of violence because an aggressive response could lead to extremely violent interactions between the victim and perpetrator."
This expectation for violence, he adds, may actually help violent children tolerate name-calling and other provocations in most cases. However, it also may explain their severe behavior when, on those "rare occasions," they resort to violence.
"When the children react to provocation, they may not be reacting to an isolated event," Astor says. "They may be reacting to a series of events that have become too great to tolerate."
In addition, he says that the violent children in the study were more likely to cite specific, rather than general, rules that prohibit hitting as reasons to refrain from using violence. A specific rule may be limited to a particular circumstance and have expectations that permit violence, he adds.
Finally, the study shows that the violent children were more likely than non-violent children to stress rules prohibiting the "moral transgression" of provocations such as name-calling, lying or stealing.
"This implies that the violent group is more sensitive to moral provocation and, therefore, perceives a need to regulate it, while leaving retribution less regulated by rules," Astor says. "If so, the violent group may be more likely to approve of hitting if rules prohibiting provocation are not enforced in a consistent and fair way."
####
RSS