Association between measures of aggression and bullying among juvenile and young offenders

Abstract

This study addresses the relationship between aggression and behaviors indicative of bullying in a sample of incarcerated male juvenile and young offenders. The study also addresses whether or not offenders who bully others and/or are bullied themselves can be identified by the type of aggression that they report. Ninety-five juvenile and 196 young offenders completed a self-report behavioral checklist (DIPC: Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behavior Checklist) that addressed their experience of and involvement in behaviors indicative of bullying. They also completed the Aggression Questionnaire (AQ), a measure of physical and verbal aggression, anger and hostility. Four categories of offenders were identified from the DIPC -pure bullies, pure victims, those who were both bullies and victims (bully/victims), and those not-involved in bullying behavior. As predicted, behaviors measured on the DIPC that were indicative of 'bullying others' correlated positively with scores on the AQ. There was no indication, however, that physical AQ and physical bullying on the DIPC were the same constructs. There was a closer association between verbal AQ scores and verbal bullying on the DIPC. Bullies and bully/victims reported higher levels of physical and verbal aggression, and bully/victims reported higher levels of hostility and anger, than the other categories. It is concluded that although there are similarities between the AQ and the DIPC, there is no evidence that they are measuring the same type of aggression, although different groups involved in bullying can be partly distinguished by their scores on the AQ. Aggr.

Implicit cognitive aggression among young male prisoners: Association with dispositional and current aggression

“…In reflection of the finding that impulsive implicit cognitive aggression predicted higher levels of dispositional aggression, this could simply suggest that victims of aggression in prison are characterised by increased levels of dispositional aggression, which would be consistent with the finding that one third of the sample were engaging in both perpetration and victimisation. The concept of a mutual perpetrator-victim group in prisons is well recognised (Ireland & Archer, 2004;Ireland, 2005) and it could be argued that the current findings are reflective of a tendency for prison victimisation to be associated also with perpetration. However, it does suggest a relationship between elements of increased levels of victimisation (not increased levels of perpetration) and implicit cognitive aggression which is perhaps worthy of further study, highlighting further how the interplay between implicit cognitive processing and its facets may not be straightforward within a forensic (prisoner) sample.…”

“…While aggression research has considered behavioural control in detail by examining areas such as impulsivity using explicit methods of measurement (e.g. Ireland & Archer, 2004), what has not been considered is the distinction between impulsive implicit cognitive aggressive processing and the more cognitively effortful implicit aggressive processing. It could be logically expected, for example, that it would be the more impulsive implicit cognitive processing likely associated with aggression than that requiring more cognitive effort.…”

“…Impulsive implicit cognitive processing in this instance would be considered more an extension of explicit impulsive processes (e.g. behaviour) already known to relate to increased aggression (Ireland & Archer, 2004). …”

Aggression Behaviors in Children with and without Hearing Impairment

“…The highest score that can be received from the scale is 170, while the lowest score is 34. The shortness and simplicity of BPAS make it easier to apply the scale on both children and individuals having difficulties to understand (O'Connor et al, 2001;Ireland & Archer, 2004).…”

Estudo das relações entre bullying e esquemas iniciais desadaptativos em estudantes universitários

“…Revidam agressões, constituindo uma tentativa de prevenir futuras ações dos bullies; ou encontram indivíduos mais vulneráveis para quem são agressores, com o intuito de fortalecer sua própria imagem (Fante, 2005;Ireland & Archer, 2004;Wal, 2005). Esse grupo comparado aos outros papéis supracitados mostra-se mais propenso a exibir condutas delinquentes e agressivas, baixos índices de comportamento pró-social (Arseneault et al, 2006;Holmberg & Hjern, 2008;Kim, Koh, & Leventhal, 2005;Sourander et al, 2007).…”