Reducing reactive aggression in schoolchildren through child, parent, and conjoint parent‐child group interventions: An efficacy study of longitudinal outcomes

• Date: 01 September 2018
• Published date: 01 September 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12323
• Author: Annis Lai Chu Fung

Reducing reactive aggression in schoolchildren

through child, parent, and conjoint parent-child

group interventions: An efficacy study of longitudinal

outcomes

ANNIS LAI CHU FUNG*

This study was the first to evaluate the effectiveness of three different group interventions

to reduce children’s reactive aggression based on the social information processing (SIP)

model. In the first stage of screening, 3,734 children of Grades 4–6 completed the Reactive–

Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) to assess their reactive and proactive aggres-

sion. Respondents with a total score of z ≥1 on the RPQ were shortlisted for the second

stage of screening by qualitative interview. Interviews with 475 children were conducted to

select those who showed reactive aggression featuring a hostile attributional bias. Finally,

126 children (97 males and 29 females) aged 8 to 14 (M=9.71, SD =1.23) were selected

and randomly assigned to one of the three groups: a child group, a parent group, and a

parent–child group. A signific ant Time 9Intervention effect was found for general and

reactive aggression. The parent–child group and child group showed a significant drop in

general aggression and reactive aggression from posttest to 6-month follow-up, after con-

trolling for baseline scores, sex, and age. However, the parent group showed no treatment

effect: reactive aggression scores were significantly higher than those in the child group at

6-month follow-up. This study has provided strong evidence that children with reactive

aggression need direct and specific treatment to reconstruct the steps of the SIP involving

the selection and interpretation of cues. The intervention could help to prevent severe vio-

lent crimes at the later stage of a reactive aggressor.

Keywords: Child Aggression; Intervention; Reactive Aggression; Child Group; Parent

Group; Parent–Child Group

Fam Proc 57:594–612, 2018

Three decades ago, Dodge and Coie (1987) proposed a two-factor model of aggression

based on the social information processing (SIP) model, namely reactive aggression

and proactive aggression.

Dodge and Coie (1987) distinguished reactive aggression from proactive aggressio n

according to the functions the aggressive behavior serves. Proactive aggression is cold

*Department of Applied Social Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Annis Lai Chu Fung, Department of

Applied Social Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong. E-mail:

annis.fung@cityu.edu.hk.

This work was fully supported by the General Research Fund of the University Grants Committee (Pro-

ject No. 141613). The author declares no conflict of interest that could inappropriately influence the work.

Ethical approval was granted by the Research Committee of City University of Hong Kong. Written

informed consent was obtained from the participants’ parents. Approval was also obtained from all princi-

pals, vice principals, and school administrators of the participating schools.

594

Family Process, Vol. 57, No. 3, 2018 ©2017 Family Process Institute

doi: 10.1111/famp.12323

blooded, intentional, and goal oriented. Aggressive acts are planned in pursuit of rewards

such as materials, dominance, or pleasure. Proactive aggression in childhood is also asso-

ciated with delinquency in adolescence (Vitaro, Gendreau, Tremblay, & Oligny, 1998) , cal-

lous-unemotional traits (Hubbard et al., 2002), and psychopathy (Glenn & Raine, 2009).

In contrast, reactive aggression refers to uncontrolled and unplanned outbursts of anger.

This type of aggression is often a retaliative or defensive reaction triggered by perceived

threat, provocation, or frustration. Reactive aggression is positively associated with dispo-

sitional anger and frustration, impulsivity, and overt physiological displays of anger and

emotional arousal (Hubbard et al., 2002; Raine et al., 2006). Children who show reactive

aggression are, therefore, also more vulnerable to internalizing problems such as depr es-

sion and anxiety (Fite, Rubens, Preddy, Raine, & Pardini, 2014). They tend to have few

friends and negative peer status, and may even experience peer rejection (Price & Dodge,

1989).

When considering schoolchildren in four categories, researchers consistently found

their prevalence in the following descending order: nonaggressive children (78.6–80.3% of

the general population), co-occurring reactively–proactively aggressive children (10.3–

11.3% of the population), reactively aggressive children (5.9–8.6%), and proactively

aggressive children (3.5–4.3%; Dodge, Lochman, Harnish, Bates, & Pettit, 1997). A recent

study conducted in Hong Kong revealed the distribution of aggression subtypes among

Hong Kong adolescents in a similar proportion (nonaggressor 66.2%, reactively –proac-

tively aggressive 19.4%, reactively aggressive 11.1%, and proactively aggressive 3.3%;

Chan, Fung, & Gerstein, 2013). The present study, therefore, was designed to reduce the

most prevalent subtype of aggression–reactive aggression, mainly targeting pure reac-

tively aggressive and reactively–proactively aggressive children.

Although previous studies have examined the effectiveness of both individual parent–

child therapy (Eyberg et al., 2001) and parallel –conjoint group interventions (Hemphill &

Littlefield, 2001) in reducing behavioral problems, they focused on general aggression

rather than reactive aggression. Previous studies reported no difference between the

effects of treatments conducted with and without the child (e.g., Hughes & Wilson, 1989),

but did not differentiate between children with proactive and reactive aggression. Thus,

the current study, to the best of our knowledge, was the first to compare and evaluate a

treatment group for children, their parents, and the parent–child dyad against reactive

aggression specifically.

Social Information Processing Model

The SIP model describes the steps involved in processing a social, behavioral response

(Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge & Coie, 1987). These steps include (1) encoding of social cues,

(2) interpretation of social cues, (3) accessing and organizing a response, (4) evaluating

and deciding on the response, and (5) enactment of the behavior. Reactive aggression is

related to processing deficits or biases at early stages of the SIP model. Researchers have

found reactive aggression to be associated with selective attention to aggressive cues,

which refers to limited information gathering in Step 1 of the SIP model (Dodge et al.,

1997). Children displaying reactive aggression also display a hostile attribution al bias,

which arises from biased processing in Step 2 of the model (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge &

Coie, 1987). Such cognitive bias is only found in reactive aggressors, but unrela ted to

proactive aggression (Lobbestael, Cima, & Arntz, 2013).

The current study addressed these processing deficits in reactively aggressive children

through the design of an intervention delivered in Hong Kong, China. The SIP model of

reactive and proactive aggression has been found to be applicable in the Chinese context

(Xu & Zhang, 2008). Consistent with Dodge and Coie’s (1987) findings in western

Fam. Proc., Vol. 57, September, 2018

FUNG

/

595