A conceptual framework for preventing aggression in elementary schools

• Published date: 01 March 2019
• Date: 01 March 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21231
• Author: Alan R. Ellis

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A conceptual framework for preventing aggression

in elementary schools

Alan R. Ellis

Department of Social Work, North Carolina State

University, Raleigh, North Carolina

Correspondence

Alan R. Ellis, Department of Social Work, North

Carolina State University, CB 7639, 1911

Building, Raleigh, NC 27695-7639.

Email: arellis@ncsu.edu

Pervasive physical conflict generates negative outcomes.

This paper (a) thoroughly describes the problem of early

aggression, (b) identifies emotion regulation (ER) and

social information processing (SIP) skills as targets for

aggression prevention, and (c) locates skills training

within a new conceptual framework. According to this

framework, prevention programs should teach ER and SIP

skills early and should target contextual factors. Multiple

professions are well positioned to intervene using existing

tools. Aggression prevention research should consider

both emotion and cognition, improve measurement and

study design, and incorporate theories that address skill

development as well as the social justice implications of

aggression prevention.

1|INTRODUCTION

Galtung (1990) described a triangle of reciprocal relations among three forms of violence: direct,

structural, and cultural. Galtung asserted that progressing from violence to peace requires addressing

all three forms simultaneously. Similarly, Bronfenbrenner (1993) theorized that humans belong to

interacting systems on multiple levels—micro-, meso-, exo-, macro-, and chronosystems—and that

understanding human development requires an ecological perspective that considers all of these

systems.

Cultural (macrosystem) values such as individualism make aggression a greater part of socializa-

tion in the United States than elsewhere (Yang, Fu, Zhao, & Chen, 2013), and the current national

discourse features many types of violence. The historical and current cultural tendencies toward

aggression make the present an opportune time to improve aggression prevention. This paper is

designed to support aggression-prevention work by presenting a conceptual framework. In the paper,

I focus on direct (vs. structural or cultural) violence and on the individual (i.e., microsystem) level,

but I incorporate contextual information and argue for a comprehensive approach to aggression pre-

vention. Thus, the paper may be amenable to integration with broader or differently targeted

Received: 11 February 2018 Revised: 8 June 2018 Accepted: 11 June 2018

DOI: 10.1002/crq.21231

© 2018 Association for Conflict Resolution and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 2019;36:183–206. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/crq 183

violence-prevention and peace-promotion strategies, despite its primary focus on the prevention of

physical conflict in elementary schools.

1.1 |Overview

Physical conflict permeates U.S. schools, and early aggression places children at risk for chronic vio-

lence, delinquency, and other negative outcomes. This paper presents a conceptual framework for

understanding and preventing aggression in elementary school. Section 2 describes the prevalence of

childhood aggression, its consequences, risk and protective factors, and typical developmental trajec-

tories. Section 3 presents a theoretical rationale for targeting social skills, specifically emotion regula-

tion (ER) and social information processing (SIP), to prevent aggression. The final section locates

skills training within a conceptual framework that incorporates environmental, family, and individual

factors, and discusses implications for policy, practice, and research.

2|AGGRESSION AND CHRONIC CONDUCT PROBLEMS

Violence is “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself,

another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of

resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation”(World Health Orga-

nization, 2002, p. 4). This paper focuses on reactive aggression—i.e., violence in response to per-

ceived threat or harm (Dodge, 1980)—in U.S. elementary-school-aged children (ages 6–11). Because

proactive aggression and social aggression have different etiologies, they deserve separate treatment

(Dodge, 1980; Fontaine, 2006; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008). Where the literature is thinner, I have

broadened the discussion (e.g., described externalizing problems generally or aggression in adoles-

cents) to allow interpolation, demonstrate that aggression severity can increase with age, and high-

light the importance of early intervention.

2.1 |Prevalence

Most studies estimating the prevalence of childhood aggression have been small. A review by Egger

and Angold (2006) found problem behavior in 7–25% of preschoolers, and Schaeffer et al. (2006)

measured chronically high levels of aggression and disruptive behavior in 9% of girls and 15% of

boys in Baltimore elementary schools. Vazsonyi and Keiley (2007) observed 72% prevalence but low

mean severity in 10,107 Tucson-area elementary and middle-school students. The Tucson study

found more aggression in African Americans, children with low socioeconomic status (SES), and

especially males, and less aggression in Asian students.

Most studies of specific aggressive behaviors have involved adolescents. In the 2015 Youth Risk

Behavior Survey, 23% of high-school students reported fighting physically in the past year (Kann

et al., 2016), with higher prevalence in 9th grade versus 12th (28% vs. 17%), males versus females

(28% vs. 17%), and black and Hispanic students (32% and 23% respectively) versus white students

(20%). Eight percent of high-school students reported fighting physically at school, one fifth reported

being bullied at school, 6% said they had been threatened or injured with a weapon at school, and 3%

reported being in a physical fight resulting in serious injury. Hemphill et al. (2009) obtained similar

findings from Washington State adolescents.

184 ELLIS