The effect of simulation exercises on the control of aggressive behaviour in children

Abstract

Abstract.— The subjects consisted of two. matched, extremely aggressive (experimental = ExG and control = CoG) groups of twelve 8–year‐old boys. and of one criterion group (CrG) of extrovert, well‐controlled boys. Video‐tape recording of behaviour was used both in pretest (T1) and post‐test (T2). Between T1 and T2 the ExG was submitted to simulation exercises of 8 lessons given in a period of four weeks. The exercises consisted in social problem solutions on the purely cognitive (imaginary and symbolic) level and in role‐playing (behavioral level). The hypothesis was that the combination of cognitive training and observational learning with the aim of making children realise alternatives to aggression in coping with thwarting situations and their after‐effects. would influence individuals with strong aggressive habits to abandon theiraggressive reactions in favour of more constructive behaviour. As to aggression, the results supported the hypothesis. For constructive behaviour, (1) the ExG maintained the samelevel of control of social behaviour in T1 and T2, while a significant drop occurred in the GoC, and (2) the strategies of problem solution improved significantly in the ExG. In T2, the behaviour of the ExG resembled more closely that of the CoG than the behaviour of the CrG, as hypothesized.

Cognitive Orientation and Changing the Impulsivity of Children

“…Notably the effects of the treatment were tested a full eight weeks after termination of the training. The second and third points mentioned above are of importance in view of the fact that no similar generalised effects on behaviours were obtained with other methods of change (e.g., Meichenbaum and Goodman, 1971 ;Pitkanen, 1974).…”

Psychomotor reactions of aggressive and non‐aggressive extrovert children

“…For example, in impulsiveness, the correlations varied from 0.61 (Jigsaw Puzzle) to 0.75 (Toy Game) and in the utilization of space from 0.71 to 0.81 (Table 3). With the other variables the correlations were somewhat lower (de-Psychomotor reactions of aggressivelnon-aggressive children 3 17 Turunen, 1973) though never-coping strategies (Pitkanen, 1974); taking into actheless over 0.42 (significant a t the p<O.Ol level) count the same situations in which the psychoexcept in a few cases, such as task-irrelevant motor variables were coded, the correlations for speech (from 0.26 to 0.33) and intensity of hand aggression a n d control of social behaviour varied movements in PAM (0.35). from 0.12 and 0.13 ( T o y Game) t o 0.57 and 0.51 O n an average, the pretest-posttest correlations (Group Decision), respectively.…”

“…The data were collected in conjunction with the experiment on the effects of simulation exercises on the control of aggressive behaviour in children, which has been reported previously (Pitkanen, 1974).…”

“…Simulation exercises consisted of eight lessons given in a period of four weeks. The exercises included social problem solutions on the purely cognitive level and in role-playing, as described in detail by Pitkanen (1974). The principles behind the whole programme were ( a ) the search for strategies of social problem solution alternative to aggression, (b) the appraisal of different alternatives considering the antecedents of the situation and the after-effects of behaviour, and ( c ) reinforcement of the strategies showing socially well-controlled extroversion.…”

“…The characteristic ways of coping with situations were coded in two main variables (Pitkanen, 1974): 1. Aggressive behaviour 2.…”