1 / 232

Coping Power Program: A school-based violence prevention program

Coping Power Program: A school-based violence prevention program. Nicole Powell, Ph.D., Caroline Boxmeyer, Ph.D., & Kathy Andrews, M.A. The University of Alabama September 25-27, 2006. Workshop Agenda. Monday 8:20–10 a.m. Etiology and Treatment of Youth Aggression (Whole Group)

hosea
Download Presentation

Coping Power Program: A school-based violence prevention program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Coping Power Program:A school-based violence prevention program Nicole Powell, Ph.D., Caroline Boxmeyer, Ph.D., & Kathy Andrews, M.A. The University of Alabama September 25-27, 2006

  2. Workshop Agenda Monday 8:20–10 a.m. Etiology and Treatment of Youth Aggression (Whole Group) 10–10:15 a.m. Break 10:15– Noon Coping Power Outcome Research (Whole Group) Noon–1 p.m. Lunch 1–3:05 p.m. (Break into 3 Groups) Child Component: Start-up and Sessions 1-6 Tuesday 8:20–10 a.m.. Child Component: 7 – 11 10–10:15 a.m. Break 10:15- Noon Child Component: 12 – 21 Noon–1 p.m.. Lunch 1–3:05 p.m Child Component: 22 – 29 Wednesday 8:20–10 a.m.. Child Component: 30 – 34 10–10:15 a.m. Break 10:15– Noon Parent Component: Start-up and Sessions 1 – 8 Noon–1 p.m. Lunch 1–3:05 p.m Parent Component: 9 – 16 and Feedback Survey

  3. What is Coping Power? • Manualized cognitive behavioral prevention program • For late elementary and middle school students • Can be readily implemented by school counselors and mental health professionals • Demonstrated preventive effects on delinquency & substance use among at-risk youth (Lochman & Wells, 2002a,b; 2003; 2004)

  4. What is Coping Power (cont.) • Developed by John Lochman & Karen Wells • Facilitate transition to middle school and prevent delinquency and substance abuse • Screener used to identify at-risk aggressive students (2-30%) • Full program: • 34 Child group session • 16 Parent group sessions • 1:1 child meetings and teacher consultation • Abbreviated 1-year program available (24 child, 10 parent sessions)

  5. Why does Coping Power target aggressive children? • An important aspect of any prevention program is that it targets key developmental risk factors for the specific problem of interest • Children’s aggressive behavior predicts later negative outcomes such as delinquency and substance abuse

  6. What is the course of aggressive behavior in childhood? • Frequency of physical aggression steadily decreases from age 2 to 12 (Tremblay & LeMarquand, 2001)

  7. Is aggressive behavior a stable behavior pattern? • Subgroup of chronic aggressive children are at risk of most physical violence during adolescence (Nagin & Tremblay, 1999)

  8. Does children’s aggressive behavior predict later negative outcomes? • School problems and school failure • Substance use • Delinquency

  9. Summary of Stability and Predictive Utility of Children’s Aggression • Although absolute rates of aggressive behavior decline in normative samples after age 2, aggressive behavior remains a stable individual difference variable from age 2 through the early childhood years • Aggressive behavior during early childhood predicts adolescent delinquency, substance use, and school problems • Thus, preventive interventions can target high risk aggressive children, and, from a prevention science perspective, these interventions should address the malleable risk factors that produce and maintain children’s aggressive behavior

  10. Risk Factors on the Developmental Trajectory for Aggressive Behavior(e.g., Coie & Dodge, 1998; Hawkins, Catalano & Miller, 1992; Loeber & Farrington, 2001; Pennington, 2002) • Child Factors: biology and temperament • Family Context • Neighborhood Context • Peer Context • Later Emerging Child Factors: social cognitive processes and emotional regulation

  11. Contextual Social Cognitive Model

  12. Parenting Context Children’s aggression has been linked to (e.g. Patterson, Capaldi & Dishion, 1992; Shaw et al, 1994): • Nonresponsive parenting at age 1, with pacing and consistency of parent responses not meeting children’s needs • Coercive, escalating cycles of harsh parental nattering and child noncompliance, starting in the toddler years, especially for children with difficult temperaments • Harsh, inconsistent discipline • Unclear directions and commands • Lack of warmth and involvement • Lack of parental supervision and monitoring, as children approach adolescence

  13. Social Cognitive Processes Acquired by Aggressive Children: Stages of Social Information Processing(Crick & Dodge, 1994) • Cue encoding • Interpretation of intent and of meaning of cue • Social goals • Generate cognitive solutions to perceived problem • Decide which solution to select, based on expected outcomes and values for the expected outcomes • Enactment of solution

  14. Group Activity

  15. Sean H There’s a kid, Herman… he didn’t know it I took his lunch money N There’s a kid in my class named James, and he wears braces P When Kelvin was sick I took him his school work H One day…. I wish someone would break Gary’s arm so he wouldn’t hit H There’s a boy named Jeff…, and I ripped all the buttons off of his shirt H I hit my friend Donny so hard his lip started bleeding. That was funny P There’s this crippled kid at school, and I help him with his lunch tray N Yesterday Tyrone and I finished our work at the same time H There’s a kid, Jamie…I hate him so much that I wish his head would fall off

  16. Hostile Attribution Bias

  17. Hostile Attributions Can be Adaptive

  18. Social Cognitive Processes in Aggressive Children: Appraisal Steps(Crick & Dodge, 1994; Lochman, Whidby & FitzGerald, 2000) • Cue encoding difficulties, by excessively recalling hostile social cues • Hostile attributional biases, and distorted perceptions of self and other in peer conflict situations

  19. Problem-Solving Measure for Conflict(Lochman & Lampron, 1986; Dunn, Lochman & Colder, 1997) Story 1: Some of Ed’s friends borrowed his soccer ball during the lunch period, but they did not return it. When Ed came out of school at the end of the day, the other boys had already started playing with it again. Ed was supposed to go right home after school, and he wanted to have his soccer ball back // The story ends with Ed walking home with his soccer ball. What happens in between Ed not having his soccer ball, and later when he walked home with it?

  20. PSM-C

  21. Social Problem-Solving • Number of solutions generated • Content, or types of solutions generated

  22. Verbal Assertion (Regular and Negative) Direct Action (Regular and Negative) Help-seeking Non-confrontational Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Bargaining Compromise PSM-C Content Codes

  23. PSM-C Story 1 Solutions : James (12 year old) • Ed went up and act like he was fixing to play with the soccer ball, but took the ball and walked away with it. • He could have just took the soccer ball without playing with them • He could have went home and next morning seen them playing with it, and gone up to them and taken it without asking • Next morning if it’s in the locker he could have went in the locker and took it out

  24. PSM-C Story 1 Solutions: David(11 year old) • He told them to give him back his soccer ball so he could go right home • Started a fight

  25. PSM-C Story 1 Solutions: Mark (16 year old) • They won’t let Ed have the soccer ball, right? So went to the principal, told him the situation, he went back to kids and told them to give Ed’s soccer ball back. And if they messed with Ed, they would be expelled from school. See, Ed is the kind of person who doesn’t like violence or to fight, and has values and stuff. • He could have went up there, say if he had a knife or something; he could have cut one of them up • He could have come over to the school with his mom; his mom could have got the ball back

  26. Social Cognitive Processes in Aggressive Children(Crick & Dodge, 1994; Lochman, Whidby & FitzGerald, 2000) • Cue encoding difficulties, by excessively recalling hostile social cues • Hostile attributional biases, and distorted perceptions of self and other in peer conflict situations • Non-affiliative social goals • Generate less competent problem solutions, with fewer verbal assertion, compromise and bargaining solutions • Expect that aggressive solutions will work, and value aggressive solutions more • Poor enactment of solutions, due to weak social skills

  27. Outcome Expectations: Aggression can work for him

  28. Outcome Values: Aggression can be pleasurable

  29. Subtypes

  30. Social Cognitive Difficulties May Vary for Subtypes of Aggressive Children • Severely vs moderately aggressive children • Reactive vs proactive aggressive children

  31. Emotion Regulation: Socialization of Anger • Children’s aggressive behavior has been related to high levels of anger (Eisenberg et al, 1994) • Anger is the emotion that people have most difficulty controlling • Socialization of children’s anger begins with early parent-child interactions, and continues with peers • Anger is facilitated by unsupportive parenting practices, including harsh and avoidant reactions (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1994) • Exposure to environmental anger, such as marital discord, increases children’s anger (e.g. Cummings et al, 1991)

  32. Emotion Regulation: Socialization of Anger • Children’s language skills can assist in fostering their self-regulation and social interaction • Aggressive children’s weak verbal abilities can make it difficult for them to directly communicate their needs and ideas • Among aggressive deaf children, poor communicative competence has been directly linked to their aggressive behavior (r=.49), and intervention focusing on anger management and problem solving has enhanced their communication competence (Lochman, FitzGerald, Gage, Kannaly, Whidby, Barry, Pardini, & McElroy, 2003)

  33. Effects of Anger-Related Processes on Social Information Processing • Schemas and expectations, affecting encoding and interpersonal perceptions • Threat inductions, affecting attributions • Revenge and dominance social goals, affecting selection of solutions to social problems • Automatic vs deliberate processing, affecting selection of solutions to social problems

  34. Social Goals and Adolescent Boys’ Problem-Solving (Lochman, Wayland & White, 1993) You are changing classes at school, and are hurrying down the hall to the next class. Several guys are standing by the wall laughing with each other, and they are watching kids as they go by. While you’re noticing these guys, a new kid at your school whom you don’t know very well is coming down the hall from the other direction, and suddenly bumps into your shoulder hard, knocking your books to the floor.

  35. Social Goals and Adolescent Boys’ Problem-Solving (Lochman, Wayland & White, 1993) In this situation how important would these goals be to you? • Get away from the situation as soon as possible. • Let him know who’s boss, in charge • Get back at him • Work things out and get to know him better

  36. Social Goals and Adolescent Boys’ Problem-Solving (Lochman, Wayland & White, 1993)

  37. Social Goals: Solutions for Attaining Dominance Goal

  38. Social Goals: Solutions for Attaining Affiliation Goal

  39. Social Goals: Solutions for Attaining Main Goal

  40. Social Goals and Developmental Patterns Problem Solving: Selman’s Structural Model of Interpersonal Negotiations • Level 0 - hit, grab, fight, ignore, hide, flee, whine [preadolescent and adolescent aggressive] • Level 1 - one-way negotiation: assert, command, bully [preadolescent nonaggressive; adolescent aggressive] • Level 2 - reciprocal exchange: accommodate, barter, reason, influence [adolescent nonaggressive] • Level 3 – mutual, collaborative negotiations

  41. Automatic Processing Automatic Processing Automatic Processing

  42. Effects of Deliberate vs Automatic Processing on Problem Solving (Lochman, Lampron & Rabiner, 1989; Rabiner, Lochman & Lampron, 1990) • When emotionally activated, children use more automatic processing • Aggressive children use more impulsive automatic processing • Assessed deliberate processing with aggressive and nonaggressive elementary school boys by requiring them to wait 20 seconds before giving solutions to hypothetical vignettes of social problems, and by using multiple choice response formats • Assessed automatic processing by requiring boys to immediately give a solution to vignettes, and by using open-middle response formats

  43. Effects of Deliberate vs Automatic Processing on Problem Solving • Both aggressive and nonaggressive boys who use automatic processing produce 50 % fewer verbal assertion solutions and three times more direct action solutions than when they use deliberate processing (e.g. instructed to wait 20 seconds before responding)

  44. Effects of Automatic Processing on Problem Solving Memory Bin Response Enactment Stimulus PerceivedThreat Direct Action DirectAction Verbal Assertion HelpSeeking . . .

  45. Effects of Deliberate Processing on Problem Solving Memory Bin Response Enactment Stimulus PerceivedThreat Direct Action Verbal Assertion Verbal Assertion HelpSeeking . . .

  46. Effects of Automatic Processing on Problem Solving Memory Bin Response Enactment Stimulus PerceivedThreat Verbal Assertion Verbal Assertion Direct Action HelpSeeking . . .

  47. Summary: Developmental Sequencing of Risk Factors • As children move on escalating trajectories towards serious adolescent conduct problems, there is a developmental stacking of risk factors (e.g., community + temperament + parenting + peer rejection + social cognitive deficiencies + school failure + deviant peers) over time • Later interventions must address multiple risk factors • Thus, early preventive interventions can impact children’s increasingly stable aggressive behavior before additional risk factors accumulate

  48. Coping Power Intervention Research

  49. Coping Power Intervention Research Supported By: • National Institute of Drug Abuse • Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (SAMHSA) • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • US Department of Justice

More Related