http://informahealthcare.com/pdr ISSN: 1751-8423 (print), 1751-8431 (electronic) Dev Neurorehabil, Early Online: 1–9 ! 2014 Informa UK Ltd. DOI: 10.3109/17518423.2014.979955

Peer reactions to early childhood aggression in a preschool setting: Defenders, encouragers, or neutral bystander Chad A. Rose1, David M. Richman2, Katharine Fettig3, Annamarie Hayner3, Carly Slavin3, & June L. Preast1 Department of Special Education, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA, 2Department of Educational Psychology and Leadership, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA, and 3Department of Special Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

Dev Neurorehabil Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Nyu Medical Center on 06/23/15 For personal use only.

1

Abstract

Keywords

Purpose: The purpose of the current study was to determine if peer reactions to aggression among preschool youth were consistent with those conceptualized in the adolescent bullying literature as defenders, encouragers, and neutral bystanders. Research design: Direct observations were used to document patterns for types of peer-directed aggression in early childhood settings to ascertain interaction differences between individuals involved within the bullying dynamic. Methods and procedures: Observations of 50 students in preschool were conducted over 5.5 months. Event recording procedures were used to document aggressive behaviors and reactions from peers and teachers. Results: Results indicated that the majority of aggression was physical. Additionally, peer reactions, as described in the bullying literature for school-aged youth, occurred very infrequently. Conclusion: Peer aggression tended to be more physical, suggesting that early childhood educators should attend to these physical interactions, and cultivate a classroom community that emphasizes social supports and appropriate interactions.

Aggression, bullying, childcare, early childhood, preschool

Introduction The onset of aggressive behaviors among early childhood youth has recently received increased attention [1–3] due to potential detrimental immediate and long-term outcomes [4, 5]. However, early childhood aggression must be viewed through a multifaceted conceptual system, which according to Ostrov and colleagues [4] should include both form (e.g., relational, physical, and verbal) and function (e.g., proactive and reactive). Given the many forms and functions of aggression among early childhood youth, it is conceivable that a subset of these behaviors would be construed as early onset bullying, or a precursor to school-aged bullying [6]. Therefore, it is important to understand the context in which these behaviors occur among early childhood youth to expand prevention efforts for the development of aggressive behaviors, chronic aggression, or other negative outcomes associated with early onset and sustained proactive and reactive aggression. Aggressive behaviors among early childhood youth can emerge as young as 12 months, and typically decline after they reach 3–4 years of age [7]. While early onset of aggression has been documented, little is known about the potential overlap with bullying behaviors and the social roles associated with bullying events [6]. Therefore, the fundamental question for the current study is: Do patterns of aggressive behavior, contextual situations, and social roles described in the bullying literature for school-aged youth

Correspondence: Chad A. Rose, Department of Special Education, University of Missouri, 303 Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USA. Tel: +1 573 882 3269. E-mail: [email protected]

History Received 10 September 2014 Revised 12 October 2014 Accepted 20 October 2014 Published online 30 December 2014

apply to aggression exhibited by early childhood youth (2–6 years old)? One central issue with early childhood aggression and bullying is early intervention, where educators need to be competent in recognizing, treating, and designing environments that prevent future occurrences of aggressive behaviors. While aggression and other challenging behaviors have been documented in all age groups [8], it has been suggested that many educators lack the training necessary to address moderate to high levels of aggression within their classroom [9, 10]. Although teachers are generally comfortable implementing common behavior management strategies (e.g., proximity control, classroom routines, rules, and expectations), they often lack specific training necessary to implement individualized reinforcement-based interventions, collect direct observation data, graph and monitor student problem behaviors (e.g., data-based decisions), and implement school-wide or multicomponent positive behavioral intervention plans [11]. These competencies may be necessary to appropriately recognize and intervene with aggressive behaviors among all students who engage in aggression, including early childhood youth.

Theoretical framework One important component of understanding how to prevent and decrease aggression in classrooms is based on teacher interpretations and definitions of such behaviors. At the present time, aggression can be understood in terms of form and function of these behaviors. According to Bjo¨rkqvist [12], physical, verbal, and indirect aggression follows a relatively consistent developmental pattern, where younger students tend to resort to physical aggression, possibly because they

Dev Neurorehabil Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Nyu Medical Center on 06/23/15 For personal use only.

2

C. A. Rose et al.

have not developed the sophisticated verbal or social skills needed to obtain what they want without exhibiting physical aggression. With maturation, most children develop more advanced language functioning, and they tend to utilize verbal skills to engage in more subtle forms of verbal aggression [1, 12, 13]. Similarly, as students master even more complex social skills, they learn to assess and manipulate social situations and some children begin to engage in more indirect forms of aggression such as attempting to sabotage peer relationships [12, 13]. While Bjo¨rkqvist’s [12] trajectory for form of aggression is relatively consistent, physical, verbal, and indirect aggression maintains at some level across the lifespan [12, 13]. Therefore, clearly defining behaviors that are classified as aggression is necessary but often difficult to accomplish. Physical aggression includes hitting, kicking, pushing, shoving, or using physical means to obtain an object [14–17]. Verbal aggression includes name-calling, intimidation, insulting, taunting, or shouting [16–18]. Relational (indirect) aggression includes behaviors such as attempting to undermine peer relationships, social exclusion, manipulating peers, spreading rumors, social rejection, and discouraging peers to interact with another peer [15, 17, 19, 20]. Bullying (proactive aggression) roles Within the context of bullying, or proactive aggression, several social roles have been defined to help to identify the conditions in which bullying behavior is present. The identification of these roles has predominantly been defined for late elementary, middle, and high school youth, and it remains unclear whether the social nature of these roles occurs for early childhood aggression. While all incidences of bullying include the aggressor(s) and victim(s), Olweus [21] identified six additional peer roles: (1) followers (actively engage in aggression after the initial bullying incident), (2) supporters (encourage the bully but do take an active role), (3) passive supporters (show signs of liking the bully without displaying open support for aggression), (4) disengaged onlookers (watch the aggressive incident without taking a stand), (5) possible defenders (show subtle signs of disapproval but do not intervene), and (6) defenders (help the victim or discourage the aggressor). In a study of 4–6-year old youth, Monks and colleagues [18] evaluated these roles and concluded that these roles are present in early childhood but it is unclear whether the roles are salient or stable across early childhood aggressive events.

Measurement of early childhood aggression and bullying A commonly used measurement technique for assessing early childhood aggression is peer interview and nomination. During this process, students are asked to nominate their classroom peers that exhibit aggressive behaviors. Initially, students are asked to identify each student in the class via student photos to ensure familiarity with their peer group. This initial step is necessary for measurement fidelity in drawing conclusions about class rankings [15, 22–24]. Next, students are asked to separate their classmates by the defining characteristics of the study (e.g., physical aggression,

Dev Neurorehabil, Early Online: 1–9

relational aggression, likeability, and prosocial behaviors). Using this technique, Crick and colleagues [15] conducted a peer assessment of aggression by interviewing preschool students and asking them to associate pictures of their peers with physical or relational aggression. It was concluded that relational aggression might occur more frequently with females and physical aggression with males among early childhood youth. Similar to peer nominations of aggression, sociometric rating scales of peer status can be collected by asking students to select three classmates that they liked the most, and three who they liked the least [18, 25]. The fundamental principle behind this method of investigation is to determine social networks. Since victims of bullying, especially among older children, are generally rejected and identified as unpopular among their peer group [26–30], social network analyses allow researchers to identify students who may be at risk for increased victimization. While social network analyses appear to be a viable means of predicting future victims of bullying behaviors, actual participation in the different roles of the bullying dynamic cannot be evaluated through indirect measurement. The primary limitation of these indirect measures is the subjectivity of identification and potential erroneous recollections by classroom peers. This subjectivity may be especially germane to early childhood youth because they have limited exposure to peer behavior and may lack an understanding of the social complexities behind proactive and reactive aggression. Therefore, direct observation of early childhood aggression is important to the understanding of aggressive behaviors among early childhood youth and the associations between this observed aggression and the defining characteristics of bullying behavior.

Purpose The purpose of the current study was to analyze peer responses to peer-directed aggressive behaviors, and to assess whether bullying roles in school-age youth are present in a relatively large direct observation sample of early childhood youth attending a privately run community childcare and preschool. More specifically, the aims of this study were to document (a) the forms of aggression exhibited by early childhood youth, and (b) peer and responses to peer-directed aggressive behaviors to determine whether peers not directly involved in the aggressive incident (1) defended the victim, (2) encouraged the aggression, or were (3) a neutral bystander. As a secondary focus, teacher reaction and intervention to peer aggression were observed to document the potential reinforcing properties of teacher involvement.

Method Participants Participants included a total of 50 daycare and preschool students (age range ¼ 2–6 years) represented by 46% female (n ¼ 23) and 54% male (n ¼ 27) from a small urban, Midwestern community. Classrooms were organized by age, where 48% of the sample (n ¼ 24) attended the 2–3-year-old class (Class 1), 32% in the 4–5-year-old class (n ¼ 16), and

Early childhood aggression

Dev Neurorehabil Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Nyu Medical Center on 06/23/15 For personal use only.

DOI: 10.3109/17518423.2014.979955

20% in the 5–6-year-old class (n ¼ 10). Depending on staffing issues and the number of students in the 5–6-year-old class, the preschool combined these two classes for indoor and outdoor activities. Therefore, the data for these two classes were collapsed (i.e., referred to as Class 2 for the remainder of the manuscript) because approximately 60% of the observations occurred when the two classes were combined into one larger class. Data were not collected on socioeconomic status, disability labels, or race and ethnicity of the students, but each room was relatively heterogeneous, including representation from a variety of cultures (e.g., teacher verbal report of Dutch, Israeli, Spanish, Indian, Chinese, and Italian students) with a range of socioeconomic status. In addition to student participants, three teachers and four paraprofessionals were included in the study. All three teachers were Caucasian females who were veteran educators in their current placements. Paraprofessionals included three females (two Caucasian and one African-American), and one male (Caucasian), with professional roles that fluctuated based on classroom numbers and the educational needs of the students. Generally, one teacher and at least one paraprofessional were present throughout the students’ daily activities. Setting Observations were conducted in classrooms, on the playground, and an indoor large gross motor room. The classroom setting was divided into two different observational categories: centre times and large group circle time. The playground setting was located directly outside the school, and included a jungle gym, path for tricycles, shaded area, open area for cardiovascular activities, and a table for toys and games. Incidents observed in any of the aforementioned areas were considered taking place on the playground. The indoor large gross motor room was utilized for playing during inclement weather. This setting contained bouncy balls, scooters, jump ropes, toys, and an area for cardiovascular activity.

3

Procedures Using the event recording observational form, observations were conducted in 1-h sessions between one and five times per week for a total of 5.5 months. The observers spent the entire hour in the same class during each visit to the early childhood centre and rotated classrooms for observations each time they visited the centre to assure equal observation sessions across the different classrooms. The observer(s) would enter the setting, greet the teacher, and make sure it was an appropriate time to observe (e.g., ensuring a special activity was not occurring). The observer(s) established their position in the room where they could see and hear the students and they both scanned the room for each incident of aggression. After one of the observers observed an aggressive incident, the observer would point in the direction of the incident so the other observer could collect interobserver agreement data on the same incident. At the end of the session, the observers thanked the teacher, confirmed the next observation time, and exited the classroom or activity area. Observation of aggressive behavior During the 1-h observational sessions, students were observed for the following aggressive behaviors: (a) physical, (b) verbal, (c) relational, and (d) social exclusion. Observational definitions and examples of each dependent variable are presented in Table I. Anecdotally, it was difficult to distinguish between manipulations of social structures or simple refusals of play. Thus, as in the direct observation study of students conducted by Werner and colleagues [20], relational aggression was defined as the following: . . . the child saying he/she will not be someone’s friend if they do not do something he/she wants, turning his/her back on someone when he/she is angry at that other child and telling other children not to play with a particular child. Relational aggression was coded for statements and verbal threats, as well as body language and gestures. (p 784)

Instrument development To construct an appropriate observational instrument, two graduate students spent 12 h conducting pilot observations of aggressive behavior in the classrooms. These observations were primarily used to establish agreement on operational definitions (Table I) for the dependent variables, and to determine the most appropriate observational codes and locations and times to observe during the study. Secondarily, the observers were able to familiarize themselves with the students’ and establish pseudonyms for each. Finally, these initial observations were used to minimize observer reactivity by allowing the students to become acclimated to the presence of observers. The observers did not engage the students and directed them to the teacher for assistance if a student approached with a question. Quantitative data were not collected on the number of times children approached the research assistants. However, anecdotal reports from the research assistants indicated that the children approached them 3–5 times per visit during the first 2 weeks of observations, but decreased to 0–1 times per visit for the reminder of the 5.5 months of observation.

Recording bullying roles When an incident of aggression occurred, the observer noted the students involved and assigned them to different roles based on the behaviors they displayed. The student who exhibited aggression was recorded as the aggressor. The recipient of the aggressive act was recorded as the victim. A student who was encouraging the aggressor was recorded as a reinforcer. A student who tried to stop the aggressive behavior told the aggressor to stop by interrupting the incident, supporting the victim by showing disapproval, or by getting the teacher was coded as a defender. Students who were oriented towards the aggressive incident and appeared to be watching the episode were recorded as bystanders as long as they did not engage in any attempts to discourage or stop (i.e., defender) or encourage (i.e., reinforcer) the aggressor. Observation of teacher and paraprofessional reaction When an aggressive incident was observed, the reaction of the teacher and the paraprofessional was also documented.

4

C. A. Rose et al.

Dev Neurorehabil, Early Online: 1–9

Table I. Operational definitions of collected data.

Dev Neurorehabil Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Nyu Medical Center on 06/23/15 For personal use only.

Type of aggression

Operational definition

Examples

Exceptions

Physical

A student that makes physical contact to harm another student

Tugging on a student to gain attention

Verbal

A student that teases, uses name calling, taunts, or shouts at another student

Hitting Kicking Grabbing object out away from students Pushing Slapping Punching Throwing an object at another student Name calling (e.g., calling someone a potty name) Teasing (e.g., ‘‘you are dumb’’)

Relational and social exclusion

A student that uses manipulation and social exclusion to control the way peers view another student

Physical and verbal

A student that simultaneously uses physical and verbal aggression to harm another The student orienting their body toward another student and displaying an aggressive behavior without making contact with the peer A student that instigates or uses physical, verbal, or relational aggression A victim is a student that is the recipient of physical, verbal, or relational aggression A defender is a student that tries to stop the physical, verbal, or relational aggression occurring between the aggressor and the victim A student that is not involved in the aggressive incident and does not try to stop the aggression from occurring A student that supports the aggressor by verbally cheering, praising or aggressing with the aggressor. A reinforcer may also support the aggressor by displaying physically aggressive behaviors toward the victim

Physical threat

Aggressor Victim Defender

Bystander Reinforcer

Turning away from a student more than once and not replying to verbal initiations by the student (e.g., ‘‘Will you play with me?’’ repeatedly) Telling other peers not to play them Grabbing an item from a peer and saying ‘‘I hate you’’ Punching, hitting, kicking or displaying other physically aggressive behaviors without making contact Moves toward a peer and hits, kicks, or grabs an item from them Target of behaviors listed above

Calling a peer another student’s name by accident Stating a fact such as, ‘‘your hair is blonde’’ Telling a peer they don’t feel like playing right now

Telling a student that they were playing with a toy and asking for it back Making a gesture such as waving, high five, or thumbs up Obvious incidental contact Obvious incidental contact

Student that steps in between an aggressor and victim either tells the aggressor to stop Student that gains adult’s attention to stop the incident Student is in proximity and is oriented toward the act When an aggressive incident begins, the student comes over and supports the aggressor

The teacher or the paraprofessional response to the interaction was coded as the adult (a) being unaware of the event occurring, (b) seeing or hearing about the event (e.g., a student telling the teacher) and not responding to the aggressor or victim, (c) separating the students by verbally asking the students to move away from one another, or (d) physically separating the students from one another. Interobserver agreement During interobserver agreement sessions, two observers simultaneously and independently collected data. For each aggressive incident, the two observers recorded (a) aggressor pseudonym, (b) victim pseudonym, (c) the exact category of aggressive behavior (e.g., physical, verbal, relational, etc.), (d) peer reinforcers for the aggressor, (e) peer defenders for the victim, (f) peer bystanders, and (g) exact category of teacher response to aggression. Thus, for each aggressive incident, there was an opportunity to agree on a maximum of seven different behavioral categories, and we are only reporting occurrence agreement data to be conservative in our estimates of interobserver agreement. For example, if both

observers agreed that there was no peer reinforcer for the aggressor, we did not include that nonoccurrence agreement in the calculation. Overall occurrence agreement data across all dependent variables were 88% (range from 66 to 100%). Interobserver occurrence agreement data were collected for 38 (16%) of the total 200 aggressive incidences staggered throughout all 5.5 months.

Results Peer responses to aggression The majority of peer responses to aggression in both classrooms were ignoring behaviors (or unaware; neutral bystander). That is, the peers either did not notice most incidents of aggression or they simply did not overtly respond to aggression. Interestingly, very few peer behaviors suggested that peers were encouraging the aggressor, obviously watching without intervening, or defending the victim. Instead, it appeared that the peers did not discriminate between appropriate and aggressive behaviors, or recognize that aggression had occurred between two or more of their peers. Aggregate

Early childhood aggression

DOI: 10.3109/17518423.2014.979955

5

Table III. Frequency of teacher responses across types of behavior and gender. Response

Dev Neurorehabil Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Nyu Medical Center on 06/23/15 For personal use only.

Gender/behavior

Figure 1. Percentage of aggressive events across type of peer response to aggression. Table II. Frequency of teacher responses across types of behavior and classroom. Response Class/behavior Classroom 1 Physical Verbal Relational Social exclusion Physical and verbal Physical threat Total Classroom 2 Physical Verbal Relational Social exclusion Physical and verbal Physical threat Total

Unaware

VR

PS

NR (Saw)

VR and PS

28 1 – – 2 3 34

21 1 – – 1 – 23

1 – – – – – 1

2 1 – – – – 3

– – – – – – –

63 7 1 2 – 1 74

52 2 – – 1 – 55

4 – – – – – 4

– – – – – – –

6 – – – – – 6

Male Physical Verbal Relational Social exclusion Physical and verbal Physical threat Total Female Physical Verbal Relational Social exclusion Physical and verbal Physical threat Total

Unaware

VR

PS

NR (Saw)

VR and PS

66 5 – 1 2 4 78

60 2 – – 1 – 63

5 – – – – – 5

2 – – – – – 2

5 – – – – – 5

25 3 1 1 – – 30

13 1 – – 1 – 15

– – – – – – –

– 1 – – – – 1

1 – – – – – 1

VR, verbal reprimand; PS, physical separation; NR, no response.

to aggression other than physical aggression should be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of observed events. Teacher response to aggression across gender

VR, verbal reprimand; PS, physical separation; NR, no response.

data for peer responses to aggressive behavior are presented in Figure 1. Teacher response and settings Teacher response to aggression In addition to peer response to aggressive behaviors, teacher responses were documented for each aggressive behavior that was recorded (Table II). The most common response observed for the 61 aggressive events in Class 1 was a lack of awareness (56%) by the teachers. For example, on 54% (n ¼ 28) of the episodes of physical aggression, a lack of teacher awareness was recorded. When the teacher did observe physical aggression, a verbal reprimand occurred for 40% of the aggressive events (n ¼ 21). These data are similar to that observed in Class 2, where 50% (n ¼ 63) of the physically aggressive acts went unnoticed or ignored, and when recognized, teacher reprimand followed 42% (n ¼ 52) of the episodes. It should be noted, however, that teacher responses

The most common (n ¼ 78) teacher response for all forms of aggression for males was lack of awareness (51%). In 138 instances of physical aggression exhibited by males, 66 (48%) of them went unnoticed, 60 (43%) received a verbal reprimand, five (4%) were physically separated, five (4%) were verbally reprimanded and separated, and two (1%) were observed by a teacher but not intervened upon. Similarly, in 25 instances of physical aggression exhibited by females (53%), teachers appeared to be unaware of the event, teachers responded with a verbal reprimand in 13 instances (28%), and verbally reprimanded and physically separated peers on one occasion (2%). Once again, due to the limited occurrences of other forms of aggression, data should be interpreted with caution. Teacher responses to student behavior across gender are presented in Table III. Forms of aggression across age and gender Figure 2 shows the frequency of all topographies of aggression for the 2–3-year-old Class 1 (black bars) and the 4–6-year-old Class 2 (grey bars) across gender of the aggressor. Results indicate that the vast majority of aggressive incidents were physical aggression for both classes. Overall, males exhibited the most physical aggression, but comparison of female aggression between the two classes demonstrates that female aggression was notably lower in the 4–6-year old class compared with the 2–3-year-old class. Thus, for females only, physical aggression was very infrequent in the 4–6-year-old class. Although physical aggression exhibited by males occurred much less frequently in the 4–6-year-old class compared with the 2–3-year-old males, the vast majority of aggression exhibited by males continued to be physical aggression in the older classroom. Figure 2 also demonstrates that almost all

6

C. A. Rose et al.

Dev Neurorehabil, Early Online: 1–9

Dev Neurorehabil Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Nyu Medical Center on 06/23/15 For personal use only.

Figure 2. Frequency of all topographies of aggression across both classrooms and gender of aggressor.

Table IV. Frequency of behaviors across gender and classroom. Aggressor Class/behavior Classroom 1 Physical Verbal Relational Social exclusion Physical and verbal Physical threat Total Classroom 2 Physical Verbal Relational Social exclusion Physical and verbal Physical threat Total

Victim

Male

Female

Male

Female

48 1 – – 3 3 55

4 2 – – – 6 6

47 2 – – 3 3 55

5 1 – – – – 6

90 6 – 1 – 1 98

35 3 1 1 1 – 41

66 6 1 1 1 1 76

59 3 – 1 – – 63

‘‘moderate’’ aggressors (between six and nine acts), and eight males and 15 females were characterized as ‘‘low’’ aggressors (1–5 acts). Interestingly, a total of six children (five males and one female) accounted for over half of the aggressive incidents (57%) across both classrooms. The detailed results of gender and type of aggression for the aggressors and the victims are displayed in Table IV. Overall, males were more frequently victims of aggression, where males were victims 131 times (66%) and females were victims 69 times (34%) across both classrooms. The ratio of males and females for victimization varied between classrooms, where in Class 1, males were victims in 55 instances (90%), while females were victims in six instances (10%); and in Class 2, males were victims in 76 aggressive events (55%) while females were victims in 63 events (45%). Thus, the gender of the victims in the 4–6-year-old classroom was more equally distributed, while the vast majority of victims in the younger classroom were males. Setting across gender and type of behavior

the aggression exhibited by the early childhood youth was physical aggression, suggesting that the more subtle forms of aggression observed in older children identified as bullying behaviors occurred very infrequently regardless of age or gender. Out of a total of 200 aggressive events, the vast majority was physical aggression (n ¼ 177, 89%). Males exhibited 153 (77%) instances of aggressive behaviors while females exhibited 47 (23%) aggressive behaviors. A secondary question related to patterns of aggression across gender was the issue of whether children this young already demonstrate a consistent pattern of ‘‘high aggressor’’ or if the majority of children exhibited relatively equivocal frequency of aggressive acts. Out of the total sample population (50 children), five males and one female were characterized as ‘‘high’’ aggressors (10 or more aggressive acts), three males and one female were characterized as

Data for aggressive behaviors across setting and gender are presented in Table V. The majority of physically aggressive acts exhibited by males were split between the playground and the centre time with 62 and 52 instances (45% and 38%), respectively. Additionally, circle time resulted in 21 instances (15%) of observed physical aggression for males. Conversely, only eight (21%) acts of female physical aggression occurred on the playground, whereas 23 (59%) occurred during centre time. However, the circle time was similar for males and female with 15% of physical aggression (n ¼ 6) occurring during this observational period for females.

Discussion The results of naturalistic descriptive observations of 50 early childhood students attending a community childcare and

Early childhood aggression

DOI: 10.3109/17518423.2014.979955

Table V. Setting across gender and type of behavior. Setting

Dev Neurorehabil Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Nyu Medical Center on 06/23/15 For personal use only.

Gender/behavior Male Physical Verbal Relational Social exclusion Physical and verbal Physical threat Total Female Physical Verbal Relational Social exclusion Physical and verbal Physical threat Total

Playground

Gross motor

Tables/ centers

Circle time

62 2 – – – – 64

3 – – 1 – – 4

52 3 – – 3 2 60

21 2 – – – 2 25

8 2 – 1 1 – 12

2 – – – – – 2

23 2 – – – – 25

6 1 1 – – – 8

preschool indicated that the vast majority of aggressive incidents in this young sample are physical aggression for both boys and girls. It is interesting that the level of physical aggression exhibited by boys was much lower in the 4–6-year old class compared with the 2–3-year old class, but other forms of aggression (verbal and relational) that have been documented in the bullying literature did not occur very often in either of the classroom. Girls demonstrated the same developmental pattern of reduced physical aggression in the 4–6-year-old class, but their pattern was slightly different in that physical aggression was almost nonexistent in the older classroom. Another interesting finding was that even as physical aggression was lower in older boys and almost absent for the older girls, there was no increase in other forms of aggression that are reported to occur relatively frequently in school-aged children involved in bullying, or proactive aggression, incidences. Boys were overwhelmingly more likely to be the aggressor in both the younger and older classrooms and a victim for the younger classroom only. Interestingly, boys and girls were relatively equally likely to be a victim of aggression in the older classroom. Finally, one surprising finding was that we observed very few incidences of aggression where another peer participated in the aggressive event by (a) defending the victim, (b) watching but not intervening, or (c) encouraging the aggressor. This was surprising given that the bullying literature describes these other roles as occurring quite commonly for school-aged children involved in bullying [31–33].

Implications for individuals with disabilities While the focus of this study did not directly identify or evaluate the participatory involvement of individuals with disabilities, several implications can be drawn from the early childhood sample. First, it should be noted that much of the extant literature suggests that students with disabilities are disproportionately involved within the bullying dynamic as both perpetrators and victims [34, 35]. Rose and Espelage [36] argue that characteristics associated with some

7

disabilities may increase the risk for involvement. For example, students with Autism Spectrum Disorder may have deficits in social and communication skills that increase the likelihood of repeated victimization [35, 37], and students with emotional/behavioral disorders or behavioral-oriented disabilities may engage in higher levels of aggressive behaviors that could be construed as bullying [36, 38]. Therefore, educators should implement early intervening services to reduce bullying behaviors [39]. To contextualize bullying involvement among early childhood youth, Hong and Espelage [40] suggest that bullying is based on complex interactions between the individual and the systems that surround the individual, including familial, peer group, school, community, and societal factors. Unfortunately, the complexity association with bullying may be more germane for students with disabilities, because they may struggle to situate themselves with their peer groups and school community [35]. For example, in a nationally represented sample, Son et al. [41] reported that victimization among students with disabilities in pre-school to early elementary increased over a 3-year period (i.e., 21% in year 1, 25% in year 2, and 30% in year 3). Therefore, it is necessary for early childhood educators to recognize and intervene at the early onset of bullying-type behaviors, especially for students who have been identified with a disability, or students who may be at-risk for disability diagnoses [6, 35].

Teacher identification of aggressive behaviors Unfortunately, one concerning finding was that the vast majority of aggression resulted in no response from a teacher, and when the teacher did respond it was most commonly in the form of a verbal reprimand. Teachers often underestimate the prevalence of aggression in their classrooms [42], and their intervention strategies are often based on their perceptions of the incident [43, 44]. Therefore, this lack of teacher response could be attributed to a failure to identify the incident as aggression, or the teacher’s perception of a lack of sufficient severity of the behavior to warrant intervention. Regardless of the reasoning, it is concerning that the majority of aggressive incidents occurred without a teacher response, but the most concerning fact is that verbal reprimands (the most common consequence from teachers) can increase aggression for children with problem behavior that is sensitive to positive reinforcement in the form of teacher attention [45]. Therefore, early childhood educators should learn to recognize and intervene in aggressive behaviors through a highly structured classroom, as well as teach students to engage in meaningful interactions, create opportunities to increase social competence and peer level interactions, and directly teach effective social and communication skills [46].

Limitations The primary limitation of this study is that the participants were subject to a sampling bias given that it was a convenience sample of early childhood youth in one early childhood centre. That is, it is unclear whether the results of this study generalize to other students in similar early childhood centers or other geographic locations. The results

Dev Neurorehabil Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Nyu Medical Center on 06/23/15 For personal use only.

8

C. A. Rose et al.

of this study should be considered a very preliminary descriptive analysis that needs to be subjected to increased methodological rigor with regard to sampling techniques and the number of participants. However, to date, only one other study [18] has attempted to document, via direct observation, when and under what conditions bullying behaviors and roles emerge among early childhood youth. Another substantial limitation of this study was that the research assistants collecting in vivo classroom data struggled to comprehend the content of verbal interactions between the participants. Given that the current findings suggested that relational aggression occurred very infrequently in this sample of early childhood youth, one potential confound is that the observers may have simply missed subtle and quite verbal behavior between participants that may have been construed as relational aggression. Future investigators should consider using planted microphones to record verbal behavior to assure valid measurement of low volume and subtle forms of verbal aggression or relational aggression occurring in natural environments that contain a great deal of loud and extraneous sounds (e.g., other children yelling, crying, laughing).

Future research and conclusion Given the current push towards implementing a more preventative approach for reducing severe challenging behavior such as aggression, the results of the current study suggest that early childhood centers and preschools may be an ideal setting to implement preventative strategies for aggression that occurs more frequently among early school-aged youth involved in bullying (e.g., indirect and relational aggression). One potential avenue for future research is to identify strategies targeted for early childhood youth ‘‘high aggressors’’ that would teach them how to navigate social complexities with their peers without aggression (i.e., targeted social and communication skills training), while simultaneously teaching them that aggression results in loss of privileges and preferred activities. Although this line of research will yield useful findings, another potentially fruitful line of research would be to identify effective strategies for creating and teaching acceptable and safe peer delivered antecedents and consequences that facilitate the development of a community of ‘‘defenders’’ in early childhood and preschool classrooms. That is, aggressive behaviors are social behaviors that might be prevented, or reduced early in the developmental process, if aggressors learned from a very young age that peers will not tolerate aggression towards anyone. This is quite speculative, but the early childhood years appear be a sensitive period where social conventions and normative behaviors are learned. An increased emphasis on ‘‘supporting your peers’’ in early childhood curricula may cultivate a more socially supportive environment that may prevent the development of bullying behaviors among schoolaged youth.

Declaration of interest The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the article.

Dev Neurorehabil, Early Online: 1–9

References 1. Monks CP, Smith PK, Swettenham J. Psychological correlates of peer victimisation in preschool: Social cognitive skills, executive function and attachment profiles. Aggressive Behavior 2005; 31(6):571–588. 2. Ostrov JM, Crick NR. Forms and functions of aggression during early childhood: A short-term longitudinal study. School Psychology Review 2007;36(1):22–43. 3. Ostrov JM, Ries EE, Stauffacher K, Godleski SA, Mullins AD. Relational aggression, physical aggression and deceptions during early childhood: A multimethod, multi-informant short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 2008;37(3):664–675. 4. Ostrov JM, Murray-Close D, Godleski SA, Hart EJ. Prospective associations between forms and functions of aggression and social and affective processes during early childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 2013;116(1):19–36. 5. Pouwels JL, Cillessen AHN. Correlates and outcomes associated with aggression and victimization among elementary-school children in a low-income urban context. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 2013;42(2):190–205. 6. Rose CA. Bullies and victims: Understanding bullying in a early childhood context. Early Years 2011;32(1):18–21. 7. Alink LRA, Mesman J, van Zeijl J, Stolk MN, Juffer F, Koot HM, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van Ijzendoorn MH. The early childhood aggression curve: Development of physical aggression in 10- to 50-month-old children. Child Development 2006; 77(4):954–966. 8. Robers S, Zhang J, Truman J, Snyder TD. Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2010. Washington: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice; 2010. Report NCES 2011-002/NCJ 230812. 9. Walker HM, Colvin G, Ramsey E. Antisocial behaviour in school: Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole; 1995. 10. Westling W. Teachers and challenging behaviour. Remedial and Special Education 2010;31(1):48–63. 11. Baker PH. Managing student behaviour: How ready are teachers to meet the challenge? American Secondary Education 2005; 33(3):51–64. 12. Bjo¨rkqvist K. Different name, same issue. Social Development 2001;10(2):272–274. ¨ sterman K, Kaukiainen A. The development of 13. Bjo¨rkqvist K, O direct and indirect aggressive strategies in males and females. In: Bjo¨rkqvist K, Niemela¨ P, editors. Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1992. pp 51–64. 14. Crick NR, Casas JF, Ku HC. Relational and physical forms of peer victimization in preschool. Developmental Psychology 1999; 35(2):376–385. 15. Crick NR, Ostrov JM, Werner NE. A longitudinal study of relational aggression, physical aggression, and children’s socialpsychological adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 2006;34(2):131–142. 16. Farver JAM. Aggressive behaviour in preschoolers’ social networks: Do birds of a feather flock together? Early Childhood Research Quarterly 1996;11(3):333–350. 17. Monks CP, Smith PK, Swettenham J. Aggressors, victims, and defenders in preschool: Peer, self-, and teacher reports. MerrillPalmer Quarterly 2003;49(4):453–469. 18. Monks CP, Ortega RR, Torrado VE. Unjustified aggression in preschool. Aggressive Behavior 2002;28(6):458–476. 19. Crick NR, Grotpeter JK. Relational aggression, gender, and social– psychological adjustment. Child Development 1995;66(3): 710–722. 20. Werner RS, Cassidy KW, Juliano M. The role of social-cognitive abilities in preschoolers’ aggressive behaviour. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology 2006;24(4):775–799. 21. Olweus D. A profile of bullying at school. Education Leadership 2003;60(6):12–17. 22. Crick NR, Casas JF, Mosher M. Relational and overt aggression in preschool. Developmental Psychology 1997;33(4):579–588.

Dev Neurorehabil Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Nyu Medical Center on 06/23/15 For personal use only.

DOI: 10.3109/17518423.2014.979955

23. Juliano M, Werner RS, Cassidy KW. Early correlates of preschool aggressive behaviour according to type of aggression and measurement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 2006; 27(5):395–410. 24. McEvoy MA, Estrem TL, Rodriguez MC, Olson ML. Assessing relational and physical aggression among preschool children: Intermethod agreement. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 2003;23(2):53–63. 25. Boulton MJ, Truman M, Chau C, Whitehand C, Amatya K. Concurrent and longitudinal links between friendship and peer victimization: Implications for befriending interventions. Journal of Adolescent 1999;22(4):461–466. 26. Baker K, Donelly M. The social experiences of children with disabilities and the influence of environment: A framework for intervention. Disability & Society 2001;16(1):71–85. 27. Davis S, Howell P, Cooke F. Sociodynamic relationships between children who stutter and their non-stuttering classmates. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2002;43(7):939–947. 28. Martlew M, Hodson J. Children with mild learning difficulties in an integrated and in a special school: Comparisons of behaviour, teasing, and teachers’ attitudes. British Journal of Educational Psychology 1991;61(3):355–372. 29. Nabuzoka D, Smith PK. Sociometric status and social behaviour of children with and without learning difficulties. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 1993;34(8):1435–1448. 30. Whitney I, Smith PK, Thompson D. Bullying and children with special educational needs. In: Smith PK, Sharp S, editors. School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London, UK: Routledge; 1994. pp 213–240. 31. Craig WM, Pepler DJ. Peer processes in bullying and victimization: An observational study. Exceptionality Education Canada 1995;5: 81–95. 32. Craig WM, Pepler DJ. Observations of bullying and victimization in the school yard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology 1997; 13(2):41–59. 33. Salmivalli C, Lagerspetz K, Bjo¨rkqvist K, Kaukiainen A. Bullying as a peer group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior 1996;22(1):1–15. 34. McLaughlin C, Byers R, Vaughn RP. Responding to bullying among children with special educational needs and/or disabilities. London, UK: Anti-Bullying Alliance; 2010.

Early childhood aggression

9

35. Rose CA, Monda-Amaya LE, Espelage DL. Bullying perpetration and victimization in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education 2011;32:114–130. 36. Rose CA, Espelage DL. Risk and protective factors associated with the bullying involvement of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders 2012;37(3):133–148. 37. Blake JJ, Lund EM, Zhou Q, Kwok O, Benz MR. National prevalence rates of bullying victimization among students with disabilities in the United States. School Psychology Quarterly 2012; 27:210–222. 38. Swearer SM, Wang C, Maag JW, Siebecker AB, Frerichs LJ. Understanding the bullying dynamic among students in special and general education. Journal of School Psychology 2012;50: 503–520. 39. Llewellyn A. Perceptions of mainstreaming: A systems approach. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 2000;42:106–115. 40. Hong JS, Espelage DL. A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggressive and Violent Behavior 2012;17:311–322. 41. Son E, Parish SL, Peterson A. National prevalence of peer victimization among young children with disabilities in the United States. Children and Youth Services Review 2012;34: 1540–1545. 42. Bradshaw CP, Sawyer AL, O’Brennan LM. Bullying and peer victimization at school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff. School Psychology Review 2007; 36(3):361–382. 43. Ellis AA, Shute R. Teacher responses to bullying in relation to moral orientation and seriousness of bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2007;77(3):649–663. 44. Kochenderfer-Ladd B, Pelletier ME. Teachers’ views and beliefs about bullying: Influences on classroom management strategies and students’ coping with peer victimization. Journal of School Psychology 2008;46(4):431–453. 45. Derby KM, Wacker DP, Sasso G, Steege M, Northup J, Cigrand K, Asmus J. Brief functional assessments techniques to evaluate aberrant behaviour in an outpatient setting: A summary of 79 cases. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis 1992;25(3):713–721. 46. Rose CA, Monda-Amaya LE. Bullying and victimization among students with disabilities: Effective strategies for classroom teachers. Intervention in School and Clinic 2012;48:99–107.