Violence In Schools - A Comparison

Violence in Schools – A Comparison

Running Head: VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS – A COMPARISON

Violence in Schools: A Comparison between Older Secondary Schools, Newer Secondary Schools and Wards (Government Industrial Schools) in Barbados.

PSYC3011: Research Paper in Psychology

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the Degree of Bachelors of Arts (Psychology)

At The University of the West Indies

Martin Hall May, 2005

Faculty of Humanities Cave Hill Campus

1

Violence in Schools – A Comparison

2

Abstract This paper compares violence levels amongst adolescents in older and newer secondary schools and in the Government Industrial Schools (GIS) in Barbados. Through the use of an amended version of the National School Crime and Safety Survey, data was collected and submitted to the Statistical Package of the Social Sciences (SPSS) to be analysed. The results showed high levels of violence in all areas of measure. The results also showed that violence levels in the wards-GIS were higher than the level of violence in students from older secondary schools. Differences in violence were compared amongst gender and living arrangements. Significant differences were also seen within categorical schools. Moreover, recommendations to assist in the problem of violence were given.

Violence in Schools – A Comparison

3

The rising level of violence in schools in Barbados is an ongoing problem mirroring the rising level of violence in society as a whole. Although some researchers and groups believe that there is an exaggeration of violence in schools (Mills, 2001), others believe that any level of violence, even the lowest amount, is too high and the writer of this paper agrees. On the 12th May 2006 in the Nation Newspaper, psychiatrist Dr. Ermine Belle reported that teachers are not equipped to handle the high levels of uncontrollable violence. Stating clearly that violence in schools is not an exaggerated idea but a simple fact. Additionally, a principal at one of the secondary schools in Barbados warned that levels of violence amongst the girls and the number of fights that they were being involved in was becoming increasingly high (Best, 2005). Also, Kim Ramsay, Director of the National Task Force on Crime Prevention said that 40% of the persons incarcerated in Barbados for homicide were under the age of thirty. She also stated that more youth were committing acts of violence than ever before, particularly young women (The Nation Newspaper, 20 September, 2006). Furthermore, The White Paper on Education (1995) cites a high rate of suspensions and expulsions from secondary schools due to fighting, vandalism and assaulting or threatening teachers and principals. These reports on the subject clearly show the conundrum that we are faced with as it relates to youth violence. As a result, it is necessary through questionnaires, observations, interviews and any other means possible to identify the causes of violence and areas where it is most likely to occur and to develop possible interventions that could help to reduce it. Many psychologists, sociologists, and researchers in general have done extensive work in the area of school violence. However, extensive research on the topic has not been conducted in the Caribbean, Barbados in particular, compared to research in other parts of the world.

Violence in Schools – A Comparison

4

It is very important that a definition of adolescent is reached. There is no one definition of adolescence. Although many proffer a definition relating to age range, it is much more than just chronological age. It includes the physical, social and cognitive development of the child as well as age. Some may even go further and propose that it is the development from puberty until an individual achieves economic independence. What is most important is that the particular needs of the child, if not explicitly mentioned, at least, are implicitly implied. A definition of age 11 to 18 will suffice as a reasonable definition for adolescence for this paper. In this paper, the term adolescence will be used synonymously with youth, and violence and aggression are to be taken to mean the same thing. The Panel on the Understanding and Causes of Violent Behaviour defined violence as “behaviours by individuals that intentionally threaten, attempt or inflict physical harm on others” (Reiss & Roth, 1993). There are many definitions of aggression; this is due to the multiplicity of approaches to the study of aggression (Zillmann, 1979). According to Geen (2000), “aggression is the delivery of an aversive stimulus from one person to another, with intent to harm and with an expectation of causing such harm, when the other person is motivated to escape or avoid the stimulus.” Geen (2000) calls this a working definition due to the simplicity of the definition. It is admitted that this definition does not cover all aspects of aggression, for example, reciprocal relationships, and therefore it may be attacked on several points; but, it goes further than the simplest of definitions and includes variables that are used in this paper, and thus is appropriate. These definitions are extremely similar, and when adopted include not just physical harm but any behavior actuated to cause harm and therefore spreading vicious gossip about someone in hopes of ruining that person’s reputation would be considered aggression (Geen, 2000). Another effective way of aggressing against someone could be damaging or destroying their property or even the display of controlled

Violence in Schools – A Comparison

5

gestures like a social snub can be a powerful source of harm, one that is intended by the person delivering it (Geen, 2000). It is very important that the causes of aggression be explored. Various theories were formulated and reasons postulated to explain aggression. These theories include instinct theories, biological theories, environmental theories, the Cognitive Neo-Association Theory, the Social Learning Theory and the Script Theory. Additionally, other factors that influence aggression especially in young persons will be explored, for example, the family, the neighbourhood, the school and peer context, and the adolescence – adulthood transition. There are two types of aggression, these are hostile aggression and instrumental aggression. When someone uses hostile aggression their primary purpose is to harm or injure. This type of aggression is provoked by pain and anger and other upsetting emotions (Toch, 1992). Instrumental aggression, on the other hand, is not necessarily evoked by anger; it is deployed mainly for gain (Toch, 1992). Instinct theorists believe that aggression is inherited and not learnt; it is some form of innate human drive (Gillespie, 1971). Freud explained aggression in terms of a death wish or instinct (thanatos) that is turned outward towards others, through a process called displacement. Aggressive impulses that are not channelled towards a particular person or group are expressed indirectly through safe and acceptable activities like sports, a process referred to in the Psychoanalytic theory as catharsis (Toch, 1992; Dugan, 2004; Smith, 1999). Lorenz (1966) looked at instinctual aggressiveness as a product of evolution. He combined Freud’s theory of aggression and Charles Darwin theory of natural selection. In his interpretation, aggression is beneficial for survival. Stronger animals will eliminate weaker ones and the result will be a

Violence in Schools – A Comparison

6

stronger and healthier population. Today, these theories are discredited in favour of other explanations but are still referred to for a complete understanding of the topic. Like instinct theories, biological theories believe that aggression stems from inside an individual. It is different to instinct theories because they attempt to describe the mechanism that causes it. Cairns (1972) proposed a theory using mice to support the notion that one’s gene affects aggression; this was also done by Maxon (1998). This was then applied to humans as a genetic explanation for aggression and as a result aggressive people that procreate using this theory would most likely have aggressive offspring (Brain & Benton, 1980). To support the theory, that there is some biological basis to aggression, there is evidence that men with two Y chromosomes commit more violent crimes (Goldstein, 2003). In addition, it is widely believed that male sex hormones cause aggression and that men are more aggressive than women. Adopting this view could cause some controversy. This is because men learn from society to be aggressive, so the issue is whether or not there are gender differences in aggression in young children. Archer (1993) suggests that both genders would behave in very similar ways if they were to be treated identically. Eagly (1987) stated that even though previous research focused on violence differences in children the tendency was that males were more aggressive than females, more so in childhood than in adulthood, but that this disparity occurred in both psychological and ethnographic research, showing that there maybe some difference. Environmental theories purport that stress, frustration, and other factors in the environment cause aggression. One such theory, the Frustration-Aggression Theory, states that there is a cause and effect relationship between frustration and aggression (Landis, 1939). In other words, aggression is always due to frustration and frustration is always due to aggression. When we are blocked from achieving our goal this leads to frustration and ultimately aggression

Violence in Schools – A Comparison

7

((Morlan, 1949). This theory was proposed by a group of researchers led by John Dollard and involved early studies using inmates. The results showed that the higher the frustration, the more likely the person was to behave aggressively (Smith, 2004). Berkowitz revising the FrustrationAggression Theory stated that frustration led to anger, and anger can sometimes lead to aggressive behaviour (Geen & Berkowitz 1967; Smith, 2004; Beck, 2005). Geen & Berkowitz (1967) also stated that frustration is a weak instigator of aggression and that there are other environmental cues that elicit more aggressive behaviour for example, heat, noise and crowding. This theory explains another environmental theory - the Theory of Aggressive Cues, which states that presence of items or persons that are associated with aggression, influences frustrated persons and leads them to aggression. The Weapon Effects Study supports this theory. “The results suggest that weapons can increase the instigation to aggression in aroused and uninhibited individuals.” (Turner, Simons, Berkowitz & Frodi, 1977). Berkowitz expanded on the Aggressive Cues theory and refers to it as the Cognitive Neoassociation Theory. He extended his view after he observed that aggression can result even when actions are not directed directly towards individuals (as cited in Potter, 1999, p. 20). For example the environment may be uncomfortably hot and may make a person irritable and aggressive but it does not mean that the heat was created for them individually. “The effects process begins with an aversive event that stimulates a chain reaction leading to anger which is an emotion which people feel when they become inclined to assault someone verbally or physically” (Potter, 1999). This evokes two compulsive reactions – fight, which is associated with aggression related thoughts and memories and flight, which is associated with escape related responses (Krahé, 2001). After this, further cognitive processing takes place which involves the evaluation of the stimulus situation, possible outcomes, related experiences, and

Violence in Schools – A Comparison

8

socially accepted expressions of emotions (Krahé, 2001). The final emotional state is the by product of cognitive processes. In contrast to instinct theories, the social learning theory of aggression focuses on learnt behaviour. It is one of the most radical and well documented theories that explain aggression. This approach focuses on the role that social influences such as models and reinforcement play on the acquisition of aggression. Children learn aggression by observing it in their parents and peers, and cultural form such as movies, television and colouring books. The Bobo Doll studies show extensively how this aggressive behaviour is adapted. The results suggest that there is a strong correlation between media violence and aggression (Bandura, Ross & Ross, 1961). “Viewing violence can elicit aggressive behaviour by increasing the viewer’s arousal, desensitising viewers to violence, reducing restraints on aggressive behaviour, and distorting views about conflict resolution” (Collins, & Getz, 1976). Children tend to pay more attention to models that are attractive to them. To adapt behaviour, they go through the process of attention, retention, motivation and motor reproduction (Berk, 2006). Motivation can come from vicarious experiences and other forms of reinforcement such as rewards. Script theory is another theory which seeks to explain aggression. Scripts are a set of well-rehearsed highly associated concepts in memory, often involving casual links, goals, and action plans (Abelson, 1981). When items are strongly linked they form a script, which becomes a unitary concept in semantic memory. The learning of an aggressive script can be divided in three distinct phases, as can most learning processes. One is the acquisition and encoding phase, in which the script or rule for guiding behaviour is first acquired and represented internally. The second is the maintenance phase, in which the internal representation is strengthened and elaborated.

Violence in Schools – A Comparison

9

The third is the retrieval and emission phase, in which the internal representation manifests itself in actual behaviour (Huesmann & Malamuth, 1986, p. 3). The acquisition of aggressive scripts is similar to modelling behaviour in the social learning theory of aggression. Therefore, media violence plays a similar role in this theory. Additionally, the family and peers also help to form these scripts/schemas. As was suggested, the family and home setting sets the atmosphere in a child’s life. Early exposure to violence in the family may involve witnessing violence or physical abuse. This is the first environment that the child comes into extended contact with, and learns to accept as normal (Berk, 2006). Therefore, if the home is one which has a lot of noise then the likely result is noisy children and if the setting is an aggressive one then the likely result is an aggressive child. This is especially so if the child is mimicking someone who they look up to and view as a role model. As was previously stated media violence which occurs in abundance in homes, is another instigator of aggressive behaviour. “In many homes, television is the de facto babysitter, with little or no monitoring or supervision of content” (Elliott, 1994). In addition to the family context, some neighborhoods provide avenues for learning and engaging in violence. The existence of gangs and illegal markets soliciting illegal drugs and alcohol provides high levels of exposure to violence and positive rewards for seriously violent behavior. These rewards or reinforcements, makes violence seem necessary and right. Moreover, when people are in a large group or crowd, they tend to loose a sense of their individual identity and take on the identity of the group; this is called deindividuation, for example, members of gangs or football hooliganism. Patterns learnt in the family could be carried over to the school context. The school provides situations where conflict and frustration can cause anger and result in someone

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 10 aggressing against another. For example, when a student does not live up to an exceptional standard such as, high academic achievement, personal confidence and a capacity for developing and maintaining interpersonal relationships, the demands placed on them by the school and peer groups create stress and conflict. Friends are important sources of companionship and recreation; they share exclusive information and serve as loyal allies. Most importantly, friends provide stability in time of stress, and aid their comrades through their transitioning stages. In light of the above, peer rejected children tend to be more aggressive than other children (Asher & Coie, 1990). When adolescents travel smoothly through the adolescence-adulthood transition it appears to reduce involvement in violent behavior. Adolescents often experience identity confusion which too is a stressor in a person’s life and which also breeds conflict. Elliot (1994) suggests that this transition is made harder when the adolescent is under privileged and therefore open to less opportunities. “Youth from … [poor and disorganized] neighborhoods have lower levels of personal competence, self-efficacy, social skills, and self-discipline” (Elliot, 1994). Due to the preceding statement, broad classes of the potential causes of violence were formed by Moore, Petrie, Braga, & McLaughlin (2003). These are macrosocial structures affecting the communities in which violence occurs. Stable characteristics of the aggressors that make them susceptible to committing violence, these characteristics are produced by some combination of social factors operating on individuals and individual inheritances and experiences that they have. Microsocial processes that create the social dynamics that make it important for the offenders to act violently, directing their violence towards more or less particular targets and enabling the action to be taken. The failure of control mechanisms in the

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 11 family, the community, and at the institutional level, that should have been successful in preventing and controlling the violent events. It is clear that there are several explanations to explain aggression; some are more accepted than others depending on a person’s school of thought. Nevertheless, due to the wealth of information, violent crimes should be on the decline but the contrary is in occurrence. As a result many studies have been conducted, to measure violence but more importantly, reduce it. Some of the studies that were conducted in Barbados and the Caribbean will be examined. Furthermore, the need for this present study will be explained. Victor Hutchinson (2000) conducted a case study on violence in one of the newer secondary schools in Barbados. His study involved interviews and observations of the principal, the guidance counsellor, schools teachers who were teaching at the school for substantial periods and ten students, five who were considered deviant and five who were considered non-deviant. The case study also involved interviews and observations of the parents or guardians of the children interviewed. The study also examined records of the school, relating to incidents of violence. Hutchinson analysed data by percentage distribution frequency counts and compared for patterns. He found that there were high levels of violence and indiscipline correlates between student life and family life. The structure of his study allowed him to examine not only self report answers from students but to capture a fuller picture from teachers and guidance counsellors. In addition, it allowed him to examine the living atmosphere in which each child resided and to draw conclusions from it and thus deserves great merit. Unfortunately, conclusions drawn from ten students might not accurately reflect societal problems as it relates to violence, as a result, a larger sample might be more useful.

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 12 In a much larger study conducted by the United Nations Secretary General (2006) on youth violence in the Caribbean, various aspects of violence were explored. That study, which looked at 16 nations in the Caribbean, collected information in stages. The first major source of information was from published sources and researchers in the area, working in the Caribbean. The second was from questionnaires which were sent by the office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights to all governments in the region. These questionnaires were to provide information on legal framework, institutional framework, and the role of civil society in addressing violence against children. In addition, policies and programmes to address violence against children, data collection and research, awareness, advocacy and training were also topics which the questionnaire sought to gain information. Information was also taken from the Caribbean Consultation on Violence against Children held on March 9-11, 2005 in Port of Spain, Trinidad. This extensive study speaks to violence in work situations, homes and families, communities and on the streets, schools and institutions. The study reports that there is a high level of violence in schools and that a high number of students in the Caribbean had witnessed a violent act at some point in their lives. In addition, the study stated that many students do not feel safe at school. This study which references another study carried out in Jamaica states that 78.5% of the students had witnessed violence in their communities, 60.8% in their schools and 44.7% in their homes. More surprisingly, some students even reported having caused serious injury to persons. The study does admit that further research is needed as it relates to violence against children in institutions. Children’s homes in Jamaica were investigated and the results named the children’s status as dangerous and one that could possibly thwart development. These children were subject to some form of abuse but that abuse was seemingly random. The study did not

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 13 state explicitly if the perpetrators in these cases were staff or other juveniles or if the abuse occurred before they were institutionalised. Subsequently Director of Youth Affairs, Richard Carter (2005) conducted further research on youth violence. The survey, done in the form of a self-administered questionnaire, involved five hundred and twenty-one (521) first to sixth form students from twenty (20) public secondary schools in Barbados. Carter’s research suggested that there is the potential for extreme violence in our school setting. More than half of the students that were interviewed in the study reported that they did not consider school a safe place with 35.1 % cent worried about being hurt whilst there. 60 % of the respondents witnessed fights weekly with 64.3 % of the respondents stating that they had been involved in a violent incident in school. This study encompasses a wide range of students of varying levels and therefore creates a much clearer picture of violence levels in Barbados. The study however does not show which schools show higher levels of violence so that those schools can be dealt with first, a huge disadvantage. If youth violence is to be combated, due to limited resources, policy makers need to know which schools take priority, or simply whether the interventions should start in older secondary schools or newer secondary schools. A long time ago, the only schools that were managed by the Government of Barbados were considered older secondary schools and were modelled after the English Grammar schools and were highly academic in nature. Government then sought to establish other schools for students who did not pass to the prestigious older secondary schools. These schools came to be known as newer secondary schools and had a curriculum that included academics, vocational and technical subjects. Although the Education Act 1990 named all of these schools public schools,

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 14 they are still referred to by Barbadians as older and newer secondary schools and the fundamental differences that existed years ago still persist today. This research project seeks to measure the level of violence in the older and newer secondary schools, and also in the Government Industrial Schools (GIS) Summervale (females) and Dodd’s (males) and to compare the results. Of the 263 questionnaires that were distributed, 203 (77%) were returned completed. The older secondary schools that were chosen are Queens College and Combermere Secondary and the two newer secondary schools that were chosen are St. George Secondary and Princess Margaret Secondary. The terms older secondary and upper secondary will be used interchangeably and are taken to mean the same thing as well as the terms newer secondary and lower secondary. This approach is necessary so that levels of violence could be attributed to particular schools for expeditious intervention in those schools as opposed to a more difficult nation wide attempt to reduce school violence. It is certainly not intended to single out any particular school or to widen the gap of inequality between them, but to help foster the preparation of a plan for a safer society and safer schools. This present study utilises the National School Crime and Safety Survey (NSCSS) (Used with permission from Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence, see Appendix II) which is a revised instrument with one of the first instruments being the Adolescence Violence Survey. The Adolescence Violence Survey examined varying types of violence such as inventive violence; common violence; passive aggression; menacing language; severe menacing and impulsive violence (Kingery, 1998). The NSCSS like the Adolescence Violence Survey is a self report questionnaire with multiple response options, yes and no and several likert style scales, where students report their likely actions if they were shoved or hit etcetera or if they believed they were good fighters and so on. The instrument measures student perpetration of

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 15 crime, victimization, defence mechanisms and perceived ability to fight. The predicted outcome of the study is that all three areas of measure would reveal some level of violence but that on a scale GIS would be higher than the older and newer secondary schools and that the newer secondary schools would show a higher level of violence than the older secondary schools. This might be so because of the categories that these three levels are placed in society. With the older secondary schools being labelled as prestigious, the newer secondary being labelled as not as academic and GIS labelled as the deviant group.

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 16 Method Subjects They were 203 participants in this study. Some of the participants were from public secondary schools and the others were from the Government Industrial Schools (GIS). The students were selected randomly with the assistance of teaching staff. There were 35 students from Combermere Secondary School, 52 students from Queens College, 16 students from Princess Margaret Secondary, 61 students from St. George Secondary School and 39 students from GIS. These students ranged from age 11 to age 19 with a mean age of 14.3 years (SD = 1.56). There were 91 males and 112 females. The male complement was comprised of 11 students from Combermere, 34 from Queens College, 6 from Princess Margaret Secondary , 17 from St. George Secondary, and 23 wards from GIS (Dodd’s). The female complement was comprised of 24 students from Combermere Secondary, 18 from Queens College, 10 from Princess Margaret Secondary, 44 from St. George Secondary and 16 wards from GIS (Summervale). Each of the students participated voluntarily and was each given specially marked pencils to encourage participation. Materials The National School Crime and Safety Survey (NSCSS) was used but was amended with permission after a test – retest was done (see Appendix I). A copy of the permission letter to use instrument and amend it is attached (D. White, personal communication, May 9, 2008) (see Appendix II). The amended questionnaire consists of ten (10) items. The first four (4) items collect demographic information such as age and gender. The fifth item and sixth item measures the adolescent’s motivation to fight and their perceived ability to fight respectively. The seventh item measures defence mechanisms and the last two (2) items measures victimisation by

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 17 common aggression and common perpetration. Sample item for motivation to fight is – “I will probably get into a fight if someone (a) shoved me – and allows for answers on a likert scale, for example, 1 strongly agrees – 5 strongly disagree. Reliability alpha was .71, this alpha was deemed to indicate high internal consistency reliability for all scales. Design The design of the questionnaire is a between subjects design. The participants were selected based on the categories they were in, example older secondary, newer secondary and GIS but were selected randomly within the category. The dependent variable in this study was violence and this was measured in various scales. There was the overall violence scale, the defence mechanisms scale, the common perpetration scale, the victimization by common aggression scale, the perceived ability to fight scale and the motivation to fight scale. The independent variables are the various categories that these schools are placed in as previously mentioned. Procedure Initially a letter seeking permission to conduct interviews and distribute questionnaires was sent to the Ministry of Education. Principals of the various schools involved gave permission to interview students, after receiving a letter detailing specific research that was going to be carried out. Students were told about the importance of the research and about the problem that Barbados faces as it relates to violence in schools. They were also told that their answers would remain confidential and that they should answer freely. The questionnaires were administered to GIS (Dodds) individually, through the form of an interview, as some of the juveniles there needed help interpreting some of the questions due to literacy problems. All other questionnaires were administered to the students in a classroom setting. The students at the

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 18 various schools were chosen randomly and the institutions were chosen based on their status as an older secondary school or a newer secondary school or Government Industrial School. The test took approximately 35 minutes to complete and the information was collected over a period of five weeks.

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 19 Results Scores received from students were processed using One-Way ANOVA and Independent Sample t-test. The results show that there was a no significant mean difference amongst the different categories on overall scores on the overall violence scale. F (2,198) = 2.24, N = 203, p > .05. Table 1 shows the results.

Table 1

Mean scores within the categories of lower secondary, upper secondary and wards on the overall violence scale.

Lower Upper Wards

Mean 50.53 52.94 54.20

Standard Deviation 8.49 9.63 11.29

There was no significant mean difference amongst the different categories on overall scores on the defence mechanisms scale. F (2, 200) = 1.19, N = 203, p > .05. However, there was a significant mean difference amongst the different categories on overall scores on the common perpetration scale. F (2, 200) = 6.28, N = 203, p < .05. As illustrated in Figure 1, students in the categories of the lower secondary school show lower levels of violence as it relates to common perpetration (M = 10.08, SD = 4.21) than students in the upper secondary category (M = 11.25, SD = 5.08) and in the wards (M = 13.56, SD = 6.14)

Figure 1

Mean plots of student scores within the categories of lower secondary, upper secondary and wards on the common perpetration scale.

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 20

Comm on Perpetration

Error Bars show 95.0% Cl of Mean

14.00

13.56 

12.00

11.25 

10.00

10.08 

8.00 lower

upper

wards

category

CI – Confidence Interval

These significant differences were between lower secondary schools and wards (M = 3.49, p = .001) and between upper secondary schools and wards (M = 2.31, p = .046) see Figure 1. There was no significant mean difference amongst the different categories on overall scores on the victimization by common aggression scale F (2, 200) = 2.23, N = 203, p > .05. Additionally there was no significant mean difference amongst the different categories on overall scores on the perceived ability to fight scale F (2, 200) = 2.42, N = 203, p > .05. Moreover, there was no significant mean difference amongst the different categories on overall scores on the motivation to fight scale F (2, 200) = .09, N = 203, p > .05. When scores from the various schools and institutions were submitted the results showed that there was a significant mean difference amongst the different types of schools on overall scores on the overall violence scale. F (5,195) = 4.40, N = 203, p < .05. Table 2 shows the results, also see Figure 2 below.

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 21

Table 2

Mean scores from the various schools and institutions on the overall violence scale.

Dodds Summervale Queen’s College Princess Margaret Combermere St. George Secondary

Mean 51.83 57.63 55.90 51.50 48.54 50.27

Standard Deviation 8.54 13.95 10.43 6.97 6.17 8.90

Figure 2, below, illustrates clearly that there was a significant mean difference between Summervale and Combermere on the overall violence scale (M = 9.08, p = .02), that there was a significant mean difference between Queen’s College and Combermere on the overall violence scale (M = 7.36, p = .005) and that there was a significant mean difference between Queens’s College and St. George Secondary on the overall violence scale (M = 5.63, p = .020)

Figure 2

Mean plots of student scores from the various schools and institutions on the overall violence scale.

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 22

60

58

Mean of Overall Violence

56

54

52

50

48 Dodds

Queen's College Summervale

Combermere

Princess Margaret

St. George Secondary

School or Institution

There was no significant mean difference amongst the different types of schools on overall scores on the defence mechanisms scale. F (5,197) = .76, N = 203, p > .05. However, there was a significant mean difference amongst the different types of schools on overall scores on the common perpetration scale. F (5, 197) = 4.89, N = 203, p < .05. As illustrated in Table 3, these significant differences were between Summervale and Princess Margaret (M = 5.37, p = . 027), between Summervale and Combermere (M = 6.03, p = .001) and between Summervale and St. George Secondary (M = 5.67, p = .001)

Table 3

Mean scores from the various schools and institutions on the common perpetration scale.

Dodds

Mean 12.09

Standard Deviation 5.13

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 23 Summervale Queen’s College Princess Margaret Combermere St. George Secondary

15.69 15.33 10.31 9.65 10.01

6.99 5.87 4.39 3.04 4.20

There was a significant mean difference amongst the different types of schools on overall scores on the victimization by common aggression scale F (5, 197) = 4.18, N = 203, p < .05. There was a significant mean difference between Queen’s College and Combermere (M = 4.12, p = .004) and there was a significant mean difference between Queen’s College and St. George (M = 3.22, p = .012) the results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Mean scores from the various schools and institutions on the victimisation by common aggression scale.

Dodds Summervale Queen’s College Princess Margaret Combermere St. George Secondary

Mean 13.47 15.94 16.35 12.69 12.22 13.13

Standard Deviation 4.60 7.30 5.95 4.80 2.80 4.73

There was no significant mean difference amongst the different types of schools on overall scores on the perceived ability to fight scale F (5, 197) = 1.73, N = 203, p > .05 Neither, was there a significant mean difference amongst the different types of schools on overall scores on the motivation to fight scale F (5, 195) = .400, N = 203, p > .05. No significant mean difference amongst gender on overall scores on the overall violence scale was seen t (199) = 1.650, p = .10. Table 5 illustrates means score for males were (M = 53.52, SD = 9.91) and females (M = 51.30, SD = 9.33)

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 24 Table 5

Mean scores of males and females on the overall violence scale.

Male Female

Mean 53.52 51.30

Standard Deviation 9.91 9.33

There was no significant mean difference amongst gender on the defence mechanisms scale t (201) = -.134, p = .90. Table 6 illustrates mean score for males (M = 6.38, SD = 1.85) and females (M = 6.42, SD = 1.84) Table 6

Mean scores of males and females on the defence mechanism scale

Male Female

Mean 6.38 6.42

Standard Deviation 1.85 1.84

There however was a significant mean difference amongst gender on the common perpetration scale t (201) = 2.253, p = .02. Table 7 illustrates mean score for males (M = 12.14, SD = 5.60) and females (M = 10.52, SD = 5.70) Table 7

Mean scores of males and females on the common perpetration scale.

Male Female

Mean 12.14 10.52

Standard Deviation 5.60 5.70

There was no significant mean difference amongst gender on the victimization by common aggression scale t (201) = .959, p = .34. Table 8 illustrates mean score for males (M = 14.42, SD = 5.70) and females (M = 13.71, SD = 4.91) Table 8

Mean scores of males and females on the victimization by common aggression scale.

Male Female

Mean 14.42 13.71

Standard Deviation 5.70 4.91

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 25

There was a significant mean difference amongst gender on the perceived ability to fight scale t (201) = -3.81, p = .000. Table 9 illustrates mean score for males (M = 6.04, SD = 1.94) and females (M = 6.97, SD = 1.53) Table 9

Mean scores of males and females on the perceived ability to fight scale.

Male Female

Mean 6.04 6.97

Standard Deviation 1.94 1.53

There was a significant mean difference amongst gender on the motivation to fight scale t (199) = 1.33, p = .19. Table 10 illustrates mean score for males (M = 14.53, SD = 4.99) and females (M = 13.70, SD = 4.06) Table 10

Mean scores of males and females on the motivation to fight scale.

Male Female

Mean 14.53 13.70

Standard Deviation 4.99 4.06

There were 121 students who lived in single parent homes, 69 who lived in nuclear family structures and 13 who lived in homes with an extended family structure, Figure 3 illustrates the statistics. Figure 3

The number of participants who lived in single parent, nuclear or extended family structure.

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 26 Living With 140 120 100 80

Frequency

60 40 20 0 Single Parent

Nuclear Family

Extended Family

Living With

There was no significant mean difference on overall scores relative to the living arrangements on the overall violence scale F (2, 198) = 1.73 N = 203, p > .05 Neither, was there a significant mean difference on overall scores relative to living arrangements on the defence mechanism scale F (2, 200) = .10 N = 203, p > .05. However, there was a significant mean difference on overall scores relative to living arrangements on the common perpetration scale F (2, 200) = 3.62 N = 203, p < .05. Table 11 illustrates the results. Table 11

Mean scores of students in various living arrangements on the common perpetration scale.

Single Parent Nuclear Family Extended Family

Mean 11.21 10.70 14.80

Standard Deviation 5.20 4.62 6.40

There was no significant mean difference on overall scores relative to living arrangements on the victimisation by common aggression scale F (2, 200) = .84, N = 203, p > .

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 27 05. Neither was there a significant mean difference on overall scores relative to living arrangements on the perceived ability to fight scale F (2, 200) = 2.64, N = 203, p > .05 nor was there a significant mean difference on overall scores relative to living arrangements on the motivation to fight scale F (2, 198) = 1.73 N = 203, p > .06

Discussion

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 28 203 students from three separate school categories were interviewed in this study, and all of them showed some degree of violence. Interestingly, there was no significant difference between the categories of lower secondary, upper secondary and wards on the overall violence scale. However, GIS did score a higher mean than the other two institutions, and therefore the first research hypothesis, i.e. that GIS students would demonstrate a higher level of violence, must be accepted. The upper secondary category scored higher than the lower secondary category and therefore the second research hypothesis had to be rejected. One possible explanation is that the attention that is placed on the violence which occurs in lower secondary schools and the attention placed on the perceived deviant wards shadows violence which occurs in the upper secondary schools. Lower secondary schools have been plagued with the notion that they were nonacademic, deviant, more vocational, and more suited for under achievers. These results could serve to enlighten persons who always thought negatively of the lower secondary schools. Although the reason that the lower secondary schools scored lower on this scale could be due a sampling bias by the lower secondary schools as students were selected with the assistance of the guidance counsellor. This could be avoided by increasing the sample size of a future study. Findings also show that there is no significant difference on the defence mechanisms scale this implies that the youth in this sample choose to defend themselves in similar ways. Not surprisingly on the common perpetration scale, wards showed a higher mean than the other two categories. This result was expected and is in accordance with the research hypothesis, but the higher secondary schools, measure higher on this scale than the lower secondary. This may have been due to the similar reasons discussed above.

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 29 No differences were seen on the common aggression scale, the perceived ability to fight scale or the motivation to fight scale. It is not unreasonable to suggest that most adolescents deal with violence on these scales in similar ways, hence the reason there are no significant differences but again this result could be due to a sampling bias. When scores were processed by ANOVA in the category of institutions, there were differences between schools on the overall violence scale. As expected there were differences between Summervale and Combermere because of the category they were in (Summervale – wards, Combermere – upper Secondary). There were also differences between Queen’s College and St. George Secondary for the same reason mentioned above. There was also a difference between Queen’s College and Combermere, this was not expected because they both fall into the category of upper secondary school. Again on the defence mechanisms scale, there were no significant differences amongst the types of school, again implying that students or at least this sample dealt with violence in similar ways. On the common perpetration scale, there were significant differences amongst schools; these were between Summervale and Princess Margaret, Summervale and Combermere and Summervale and St. George Secondary. This is because they all fall into different categories. Summervale being labelled as one of the deviant group show that deviant potentiality suits that class. On the victimisation by common aggression scale, there was also a significant difference. These differences were between Queen’s College and Combermere and Queen’s College and St. George Secondary.

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 30 There were no differences on the motivation to fight scale or the perceived ability to fight scale. This maybe that generally adolescents have similar perceptions about fighting ability and are motivated to fight on similar levels and for similar reasons. Both males and females measure similarly on the overall scale. There was no significant difference, although males scored a slightly higher mean than females, it is not enough to address the issue that one sex is more aggressive than the next. This similarity between genders could be that, at least at school, males and females are treated in similar ways. These results are validated by research conducted prior to this study. According to Archer (1993), “men and women would behave identically if treated identically”. The finding that there was no significance difference between genders in aggression scales was also found in previous research by Richardson (2005). She found that aggressive acts between the genders could have been a function of the nature of the relationship of participants, whether intimate, and close friendships or acquaintances. Her findings and this present study suggests that there are more dimensions to aggression and that gender in of itself is not always a clear indicator, although it does impact on aggression. Lines (2007) suggested also that a range of factors exist like mixing with different friends or the efforts of significant teachers and youth leaders who have willed them to be positive products. Some of these factors serve to agitate acute violence. There were no significant differences on the defence mechanism scale. However, in the common perpetration scale males showed a significantly higher mean than females. Males are thought of as more deviant than females and findings on this scale partially confirms that. Their socialisation ensures this. Girls are taught to be lady like and so on, and therefore do not always exude the same amount of deviance as some males (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). According to Frisén, Jonsson, & Persson, (2007) research has shown that boys are more often involved in

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 31 physical bullying than girls, both as bullies and victims but the sex difference is less pronounced for verbal bullying and is sometimes the reverse for indirect bullying. There was no significant mean difference amongst gender on the victimisation by common aggression scale but there were significant differences on the perceived ability to fight scale. Males perceive themselves as being more able to fight than females. Findings also show that males were more motivated to fight than females. Although, “there is the possibility that the two genders have the same degree of motivation to be aggressive but … men are more likely to act out such violent impulses [more so] than women” (Archer & Lloyd, 1985). Most of the students in this study lived in a single parent household 121 (59.6 %) with only 13 (6.4 %) students living in homes with an extended family structure. There were no significant differences on any scale except in the common perpetration scale. Surprisingly, children in extended family homes scored higher on this scale, this result may have been different if the sample size was larger. Previous research suggests that adolescents in single parent homes are more deviant because single parents have fewer resources (Lareau, 1989; Thompson, Alexander & Entwisle, 1988), have less time to supervise them (Thomson, McLanahan, & Curtin, 1992) and are less likely to form strong parent child bonds as the only breadwinner (Bellair & Roscigno, 2000). This study adds to the body of literature on violence research studies in Barbados. Violence from these findings appears to be a social epidemic. To reduce it persons must first admit that the violence levels are out of control. Although some of the results received were not expected. The study shows that there is a high level of violence and that the highest level is seen in the Government Industrial Schools. Therefore social partners should seek recommendations as how to deal with this problem and employ any interventions at the GIS first.

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 32 Increased security, which in an intervention that has limited scope, is one of the most common recommendations aiming to reduce violence, however, evidence shows through research that this is very ineffective (Johnson & Johnson, 1995). This could be due to the previously discussed frustration aggression theory, where a more intense secured atmosphere serves as a precipitate to violence. A neighbourhood or community intervention which is a comprehensive approach involving all institutions that serve the youth is a reasonable deterrence for violence (Elliott, 1994). It should include all institutions that serve youth, such as, the family, school, health agencies, and justice systems. This umbrella group could then develop task focus groups such as family support programmes, community development cooperation, school based clinics and counselling facilities. These specialised focus groups are important, studies have shown that single approach programmes prove to have a mild positive affect in reducing aggression and violence behaviour even when compared to multiple approach programmes (Park-Higgerson, Perumean-Chaney, Bartolucci, Grimley, & Singh, 2008). For example, the counselling role should be one that is focused on by one sub group, if it is generalised the focus may be lost and others factors may become the focus. According to Lines (2007) not all high-risk youngsters become violent adults and sometimes counselling provides positive change. It is recommended for future research to conduct longitudinal studies to see how the students within the three main categories progress. These studies could test whether adolescents in the various categories continue to be aggressive or if they become productive products of society. Also, teachers could be interviewed, using the already developed teacher version of the questionnaire, to see if there is any connection between what they view as violent and what adolescents view as violent. Additionally, future research should compare socio-economic status

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 33 within the categories; this could provide social care providers with the much needed information necessary to attend the problem of underachievement and aggression due to poverty. Finally, a larger sample size should be used, collecting data from a larger number of the secondary schools, thereby allowing for the research interest to paint a clearer picture of the problem on the whole.

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 34 References Abelson, R. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist, 36(7), 715-729. Retrieved January 11, 2009, from http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1982-04621-001&site=ehost-live&scope =site Archer, J. (1993). Male Violence: London: Routledge Archer, J. & Lloyd, B. Sex and Gender. USA: Cambridge University Press. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal Of Abnormal And Social Psychology, 63, 575-582. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct =true&db=mnh&AN=13864605&site=ehost-live&scope=site Beck, S. (2005). Social Psychology. Retrieved on January 9, 2009, from http://www1.appstate.edu/~beckhp/aggfrustrationagg.htm Bellair, P., & Roscigno, V. (2000, June). Local Labor-Market Opportunity and Adolescent Delinquency. Social Forces, 78(4), 1509-1538. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=3421673&site=ehost-live&scope=site Berk, L. E. (2006). Child Development (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Best, R. (2005, June 14). Best on Tuesday – Violence among girls. The Nation Newspaper. from http://www.nationnews.com Brain, P. F. & Benton, D. (1980). The Biology of Aggression. Netherlands: Sijthoff and Noordhoh International Publishers Cairns, R. B. (1973). Fighting and Punishment from a Developmental Perspective.

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 35 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1972 (pp. 59-124). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Carter, R. (2005). Report on Violence in Schools and Community Survey. Ministry of Education. Barbados Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A. & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990) Peer Rejection in Childhood (S. R. Asher & J. D.Coie, Eds). USA: Cambridge University Press Collins, W., & Getz, S. (1976). Children's social responses following modeled reactions to provocation: Prosocial effects of a television drama. Journal of Personality, 44(3), 488. Retrieved April 29, 2009, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx ? direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7379415&site=ehost-live&scope=site Dugan, M. A. (2004). Beyond Intractability. Retrieve January 8, 2009, from http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/aggression/ Eagly, A. H. (1987) Sex Differences in Social Behaviour: A Social-role Interpretation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Education Act 1990 Cap 41 of the Laws of Barbados Elliott, D. S. (1994). Youth Violence: An Overview. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/publications/papers/CSPV-008.pdf Frisén, A., Jonsson, A., & Persson, C. (2007). Adolescents’ Perception of Bullying: Who is the Victim? Who is the Bully? What Can Be Done To Stop Bullying? Adolescence. Retrieved January 18, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN= 28031059&site=ehost-live&scope=site Geen, R. G. (2000). Human Aggression (2nd ed.). Retrieved January 05, 2009, from

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 36 http://www.mcgrawhill.co.uk/openup/chapters/0335204716.pdf Geen, R., & Berkowitz, L. (1967). Some conditions facilitating the occurrence of aggression after the observation of violence. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 666-676. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=aph&AN=8935140&site=ehost-live&scope=site Gillespie, W. (1971). Aggression and instinct theory. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 52(2), 155-160. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from PsycINFO database from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1974-20267001&site=ehost-live&scope=site Goldstein, J. S. (2003). War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa. New York: Cambridge University Press. Government Information Service. (2006). Out of Control. The Nation Newspaper. from http://www.nationnews.com Huesmann, L. R., & Malamuth, N. M. (1986). Media Violence and Antisocial Behaviour: An Overview. Journal of Social Issues. 42, 1-6 Retrieved on January 11, 2009, from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/malamuth/pdf/86jsi42_1.pdf Hutchinson, V. (2000). A study of violence and indiscipline in a secondary school in Barbados. MA. University of the West Indies. Barbados Johnson, D. W. & Johnson R. T. (1995). Reducing School Violence through Conflict Resolution. USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Kingery, P. M., 1998 the Adolescent Violence Survey – A Psychometric Analysis University of Kentucky, USA Krahé, B. (2001). The Social Psychology of Aggression. New York: Psychology Press.

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 37 Landis, C. (1939). [Review of Frustration and aggression]. Psychological Bulletin, 36(8), 699-700. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2006-01837-018&site=ehost-live&scope=site Lareau, A. (1989) Home Advantage: Social Class & Parental in Elementary Education. New York: Falmer Press Lines, D. (2007). Violence in School: What Can We Do?. Pastoral Care in Education. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24998472&site=ehost-live&scope=site Lorenz, K. (1966). On Aggression. London. Harcourt, Brace & World. Maccoby, E. E. & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The Psychology of Sex Differences. USA: Stanford University Press Maxon, S. C. (1998). Homologous Genes, Aggression and Animal Models. Developmental Neuropsychology, 14, 143–156 Moore, M. H., Petrie, C. V., Braga, A. A., McLaughlin, B. L., (Eds). (2003). Deadly Lessons: Understanding Lethal School Violence. Case Studies of School Violence Committee: National Research Council and Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press Morlan, G. (1949). A note on the frustration-aggression theories of Dollard and his associates. Psychological Review, 56(1), 1-8. Retrieved April 29, 2009 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1949-03113001&site=ehost-live&scope=site Park-Higgerson, H., Perumean-Chaney, S., Bartolucci, A., Grimley, D., & Singh, K.

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 38 (2008). The Evaluation of School-Based Violence Prevention Programs: A MetaAnalysis. Journal of School Health. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=a9h&AN=33533368&site=ehost-live&scope=site Potter, J. W. (1999). On Media Violence. New York: SAGE. Reiss, A. J., & Roth, J. A. (1993). Understanding and Preventing Violence: A Sourcebook of International Research. New York: National Academies Press. Richardson, D. (2005). The Myth of Female Passivity: Thirty Years of Revelations About Female Aggression. Psychology of Women Quarterly. Retrieved October 19, 2008 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct= true&db=a9h&AN=18035858&site=ehost-live&scope=site Smith, A. (2004). Theories of Aggression. Retrieved November 29, 2008, from http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1809 The National School Crime and Safety Survey. (1998). Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence. The George Washington University. Thomson, E., McLanahan, S., & Curtin, R. (1992). Family Structure, Gender, and Parental Socialization. Journal of Marriage & Family, 54(2), 368-378. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9206082090&site=ehost-live&scope=site Thompson, M., Alexander, K., & Entwisle, D. (1988). Household Composition, Parental Expectations, and School Achievement. Social Forces, 67(2), 424. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 39 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=5285587&site=ehostlive&scope=site Toch, H. (1992). Violent Men: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Violence. Hyattsville, MD: American Psychological Association. Turner, C., Simons, L., Berkowitz, L., & Frodi, A. (1977). The Stimulating and Inhibiting Effects of Weapons on Aggressive Behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 3(4), 355-378. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database. United Nations Secretary General. (2006). Violence against Children in the Caribbean Region Regional Assessment: Study on Violence against Children. Retrieved on November 16, 2008 from http://www.uwi.edu/ccdc/downloads/ Violence_against_children.pdf White Paper on Education Reform for Barbados. The Planning Section, Ministry of Education, Youth Affairs and Culture, Barbados. July 1995. Youth Crime on rise. (2006, September 20). The Nation Newspaper. from http://www.nationnews.com Zillmann, D. (1979). Hostility and Aggression. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 40 Appendix I

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 41

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 42

Violence in Schools – A Comparison 43 Appendix II Dear Martin Hall, The original Adolescent Violence Survey has been revised more than a few times. In its current form, it is called the National School Crime and Safety Survey or NSCSS. There are no restrictions on the use of the NSCSS; we simply ask that you cite the Hamilton Fish Institute as the source for the instrument. Please note that questions 1-15 on the student form and questions 1-13 on the staff form are standard. You may add questions to the supplemental section for your specific needs. I have attached current versions of both surveys. Good luck. We look forward to reading your research paper. Please let us know if you have any other questions. Sincerely yours, Dennis L. White, Research & Policy Analyst Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence The George Washington University 2121 K Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20037-1830 202-496-8491 202-496-6244 (fax) http://www.hamfish.org