Category: Anger Management

— Research conducted among pupils in three London schools has shown that male street gang affiliates who engage in angry rumination (i.e. think continuously about provoking or negative events and situations) have the greatest tendency towards displaced aggression against innocent others.

This is partly because angry rumination can provide an opportunity for revenge planning and fantasizing, as well as justifying the anger that a person feels, which can make provoked persons feel better. As a result, the desire and motivation for revenge is maintained, prolonged or exacerbated, and ruminating individuals are more likely to be primed with aggressive tendencies.

The research, which was conducted by psychologist Dr Eduardo Vasquez and colleagues at the University of Kent, also concluded that angry rumination could be the psychological path that links gang affiliation to displaced aggression. In other words, if rumination did not occur, displaced aggression might be reduced in gang affiliates. Furthermore, their study showed that rumination is an important predictor of displaced aggression above and beyond other personality characteristics such as trait aggression, anger, hostility, and irritability.

Dr Vasquez, an expert on aggressive behavior and inter-gang violence, explained that ruminating about provoking incidents 'can prime individuals for aggressive responding and facilitates not only direct retaliation against a provocateur, but also displaced aggression toward innocent targets. This is because aggressive priming makes individuals perceive more hostility from others and increases the motivation to lash out, especially if they encounter a safe target, such as a sibling or romantic partner, who might not retaliate in a severe manner.

'Therefore, gang-affiliated youth may be at an increased risk of engaging in displaced aggression as they are more likely to encounter provoking situations and spend more time thinking about aggression-related ideas, such as revenge and getting even.'

Dr Vasquez, who lectures in forensic psychology at the University's School of Psychology, also explained that the team's findings suggest that gang affiliated youth might not aggress simply as a function of highly aggressive personalities. 'Rather, they may be part of a population that is more likely to experience situations that produce a wide range of aggressive behaviors,' he said. 'For instance, their tendency to experience aversive events and to ruminate increases the likelihood that gang-affiliated youth will aggress, even in the absence of proper subsequent justification.'

This research by Dr Vasquez and colleagues is important in that it has also revealed that one promising route for reducing aggression and violence within male street gang affiliates involves developing interventions that focus on decreasing rumination. This may include 'distraction techniques' such as exercise or sporting activity and listening to music. Other types of activities that might prove useful against ruminating include meditation and relaxation techniques, hobbies or reading. 'Such distractions,' he said, 'regulate negative affect by keeping negative thought from being readily accessible and/or by drawing the focus of attention away from negative moods.'

 Merely showing up to work in an environment where bullying goes on is enough to make many of us think about quitting, a new study suggests. Canadian researchers writing in the journal Human Relations published by SAGE, have found that nurses not bullied directly, but who worked in an environment where workplace bullying occurred, felt a stronger urge to quit than those actually being bullied. These findings on 'ambient' bullying have significant implications for organizations, as well as contributing a new statistical approach to the field.

To understand whether bullying in the work unit environment can have a negative impact on a worker's desire to remain in their organization, independent of their personal or direct experiences of workplace bullying, organizational behavior and human resources experts from the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver, Canada surveyed 357 nurses in 41 hospital units.

Their analysis of the survey results showed that targets of bullying were more likely to be thinking of leaving. They also showed a statistically significant link between working somewhere where bullying was going on and a wish to leave. Next the researchers used statistical analysis to test the relationship between turnover intention and whether an individual was experiencing bullying directly. They found that the positive relationship between work unit-level bullying and turnover intentions is stronger for those who rarely experienced direct bullying compared with those who are bullied often.

A number of previous studies have shown a strong correlation between a high staff turnover and bullying within an organization, especially when there is other employment readily available. From an organization's perspective, staff turnover is costly, and when the word gets out about bullying this can also be damaging to reputation.

The study has wider implications in the field of human resources, the authors say, because they examined a broad, varied and generalized experience of bullying. Further, because they relied on hierarchical linear modeling techniques, the researchers could accurately examine the simultaneous impacts of direct bullying and ambient bullying, showing each unique effect above and beyond that accounted for by the other (something not possible with earlier statistical techniques).

"Of particular note is the fact that we could predict turnover intentions as effectively either by whether someone was the direct target of bullying, or by how much an environment was characterized by bullying," said corresponding author, Marjan Houshmand. "This is potentially interesting because we tend to assume that direct, personal experiences should be more influential upon employees than indirect experiences only witnessed or heard about in a second-hand fashion. Yet our study identifies a case where direct and indirect experiences have a similarly strong relationship to turnover intentions."

The authors theorize that although individuals may experience moral indignation at others being bullied, it is perceived as being even more unfair when others are bullied and they are not. The work contributes to a growing area of human relations study, which looks at how third party experiences affect individuals within organizations.

"This work provides insight into the bullying targets' understanding of their experiences and it challenges the 'passive' view of workplace bullying that characterizes the targets of bullying as hapless victims who are too vulnerable and weak to fight their bullies," Houshmand suggests. "Instead, the targets of bullying see 'escaping' their own and other people's bullies as a means to create turmoil and disrupt the organization as an act of defiance."

A new study reveals a simple strategy that people can use to minimize how angry and aggressive they get when they are provoked by others.

When someone makes you angry, try to pretend you're viewing the scene at a distance — in other words, you are an observer rather than a participant in this stressful situation. Then, from that distanced perspective, try to understand your feelings.

Researchers call this strategy "self-distancing."

In one study, college students who believed a lab partner was berating them for not following directions responded less aggressively and showed less anger when they were told to take analyze their feelings from a self-distanced perspective.

"The secret is to not get immersed in your own anger and, instead, have a more detached view," said Dominik Mischkowski, lead author of the research and a graduate student in psychology at Ohio State University.

"You have to see yourself in this stressful situation as a fly on the wall would see it."

While other studies have examined the value of self-distancing for calming angry feelings, this is the first to show that it can work in the heat of the moment, when people are most likely to act aggressively, Mischkowski said.

The worst thing to do in an anger-inducing situation is what people normally do: try to focus on their hurt and angry feelings to understand them, said Brad Bushman, a co-author of the study and professor of communication and psychology at Ohio State.

"If you focus too much on how you're feeling, it usually backfires," Bushman said.

"It keeps the aggressive thoughts and feelings active in your mind, which makes it more likely that you'll act aggressively."

Mischkowski and Bushman conducted the study with Ethan Kross of the University of Michigan. Their findings appear online in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology and will be published in a future print edition.

There were two related studies. The first involved 94 college students who were told they were participating in a study about the effects of music on problem solving, creativity and emotions.

The students listened to an intense piece of classical music while attempting to solve 14 difficult anagrams (rearranging a group of letters to form a word such as "pandemonium"). They had only seven seconds to solve each anagram, record their answer and communicate it to the experimenter over an intercom.

But the plan of the study was to provoke the students into anger, which the experimenters did using a technique which has been used many times in similar studies.

The experimenter interrupted the study participants several times to ask them to speak louder into the intercom, finally saying "Look, this is the third time I have to say this! Can't you follow directions? Speak louder!"

After this part of the experiment, the participants were told they would be participating in a task examining the effects of music on creativity and feelings.

The students were told to go back to the anagram task and "see the scene in your mind's eye." They were put into three groups, each of which were asked to view the scene in different ways.

Some students were told to adopt a self-immersed perspective ("see the situation unfold through your eyes as if it were happening to you all over again") and then analyze their feelings surrounding the event. Others were told to use the self-distancing perspective ("move away from the situation to a point where you can now watch the event unfold from a distance…watch the situation unfold as if it were happening to the distant you all over again") and then analyze their feelings. The third control group was not told how to view the scene or analyze their feelings.

Each group was told the replay the scene in their minds for 45 seconds.

The researchers then tested the participants for aggressive thoughts and angry feelings.

Results showed that students who used the self-distancing perspective had fewer aggressive thoughts and felt less angry than both those who used the self-immersed approach and those in the control group.

"The self-distancing approach helped people regulate their angry feelings and also reduced their aggressive thoughts," Mischkowski said.

In a second study, the researchers went further and showed that self-distancing can actually make people less aggressive when they've been provoked.

In this study, 95 college students were told they were going to do an anagram task, similar to the one in the previous experiment. But in this case, they were told they were going to be working with an unseen student partner, rather than one of researchers (in reality, it actually was one of the researchers). In this case, the supposed partner was the one who delivered the scathing comments about following directions.

As in the first study, the participants were then randomly assigned to analyze their feelings surrounding the task from a self-immersed or a self-distanced perspective. Participants assigned to a third control group did not receive any instructions regarding how to view the scene or focus on their feelings.

Next, the participants were told they would be competing against the same partner who had provoked them earlier in a reaction-time task. The winner of the task would get the opportunity to blast the loser with noise through headphones — and the winner chose the intensity and length of the noise blast.

The findings showed that participants who used the self-distancing perspective to think about their partners' provocations showed lower levels of aggression than those in the other two groups. In other words, their noise blasts against their partner tended to be shorter and less intense.

"These participants were tested very shortly after they had been provoked by their partner," Mischkowski said.

"The fact that those who used self-distancing showed lower levels of aggression shows that this technique can work in the heat of the moment, when the anger is still fresh."

Mischkowski said it is also significant that those who used the self-distancing approach showed less aggression than those in the control group, who were not told how to view the anger-inducing incident with their partner.

This suggests people may naturally use a self-immersing perspective when confronted with a provocation — a perspective that is not likely to reduce anger.

"Many people seem to believe that immersing themselves in their anger has a cathartic effect, but it doesn't. It backfires and makes people more aggressive," Bushman said.

Another technique people are sometimes told to use when angered is to distract themselves — think of something calming to take their mind off their anger.

Mischkowski said this may be effective in the short-term, but the anger will return when the distraction is not there.

"But self-distancing really works, even right after a provocation — it is a powerful intervention tool that anyone can use when they're angry."

 Is social media censorship a means to quell a modern uprising? Some politicians and law enforcers during the political turbulence of 2011 thought so but recent research suggests that uncensored citizens experience less violence and longer periods of peace between outbursts than communities subject to censorship. These new findings appear in the Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, published by SAGE.

A consensus is forming around Internet censorship in the wake of last year's uprisings, extending from the Arab Spring to the UK, according to Antonio Casilli, associate professor in digital humanities at Telecom ParisTech, France and Paola Tubaro, senior lecturer in economic sociology at the University of Greenwich, UK. The authors used sophisticated computer modeling to find out if the assumptions that actors' use of media — such as Twitter — fueled mob action through greater awareness were true. Ambiguously, current narratives among the European political establishment suggest social media can be either the tools of liberation (in developing countries) or threats to values of peace and freedom (in Western countries).

The researchers used state-of-the-art agent-based modelling as a starting point. Political conflict is often described as cumulative, involving 'escalating' conflict and sometimes ending with regime change. However, in reality, periods of relative stability punctuated with violent outbursts are more typical. Existing models include a variable called 'vision,' an individual agent's ability to scan his/her neighbourhood for signs of police officers and/or active protesters. Higher vision means greater awareness of one's surroundings and a larger range of possible actions.

In Casilli and Tubaro's computer simulation, censorship narrows down vision. It interrupts the flow of communication and decreases the ability of individuals to appreciate their environment. In this sense, censorship blinds social actors to their own context.

The researchers found that all possible scenarios led to initial outbursts of violence but how the situation evolved was significantly influenced by government social media censorship. In a total censorship scenario, similar to the Egyptian riots, violence levels remained at a maximum. Stronger censorship led to an increase in the average level of endemic violence over time.

According to the model, the "no censorship" situation at first appears bleak, with incessant, high-level violent outbursts that seem larger than in other scenarios. However, looking at average violence levels over time, the uncensored scenario still has the least aggression. Although agents protest, sometimes violently, they are able to return to relative calm for longer periods in-between. The decision to maintain peace is the choice of agents themselves, rather than due to police repression.

This research offers an interesting methodological bridge that shows how rules operating at the micro or individual level can account for collective dynamics. This is particularly interesting at a time when research is trending into two camps, either using micro-motives (such as personality, culture, and morals) or macro-indicators (such as poverty and social stratification) as explanatory factors.

"In the absence of robust indicators as to the rebelliousness of a given society, the choice of not restricting social communication turns out to be a judicious one for avoiding the surrender of democratic values and freedom of expression for an illusory sense of security," say Casilli and Tubaro.

 Students receiving special-education services for behavioral disorders and those with more obvious disabilities are more likely to be bullied than their general-education counterparts — and are also more likely to bully other students, a new study shows.

The findings, published in the Journal of School Psychology, highlight the complexity of bullying's nature and the challenges in addressing the problem, said lead author Susan Swearer, professor of school psychology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

"These results paint a fairly bleak picture for students with disabilities in terms of bullying, victimization and disciplinary actions," wrote Swearer, a national expert on school bullying who has consulted with both the White House and Lady Gaga's Born This Way Foundation on anti-bullying initiatives. "Sadly, these are the students who most need to display prosocial behavior and receive support from their peers."

The research followed more than 800 special-ed and general-ed students between the ages of 9 and 16 at nine different elementary, middle and high schools over time. More than a third — 38.1 percent — said they had bullied other students. At the same time, 67 percent said bullies had victimized them.

The study found that students who received special education services were at increased risk for bullying others, for being bullied, for being sent to the school office for disciplinary problems and for engaging in antisocial behavior. In particular, students with observable disabilities — language or hearing impairments or mild mental handicaps — reported the highest levels of bullying others and being bullied themselves.

"The observable nature of the disability makes it easy to identify those students as individuals with disabilities, which may place them at greater risk for being the easy target of bullying," Swearer and her co-authors wrote. "Also, being frustrated with the experience of victimization, those students might engage in bullying behavior as a form of revenge."

Also among the study's findings:

• Students with non-observable disabilities, such as a learning disability, weren't affected as much. They reported similar levels of bullying and victimization as students without disabilities, and reported significantly less victimization compared with students with more outward behavioral disabilities.
• As general-education students who bullied others progressed through middle school, their bullying behaviors increased through and peaked at seventh grade — and then steadily decreased.
• Both boys and girls engaged in bullying. Gender differences in both general-education and special-education students were statistically insignificant when it came to the behavior.
• For students in general education, there was a major difference by grade level in their experience with victimization. Fifth-graders reported much more victimization than sixth-, seventh-, eighth- and ninth-graders. But for students in special education, there was no difference by grade level.

The authors suggest several steps to address their findings. First, anti-bullying interventions emphasizing prosocial skills should be implemented for students, regardless of their ability. Students in general education could help the process by serving as prosocial role models for students with disabilities. Also, the authors suggest, helping students with observable disabilities become better integrated into general-education classes may help prevent them from being bullied.

"Programming should be consistently implemented across general and special education, should occur in each grade and should be part of an inclusive curriculum," the authors wrote. "A culture of respect, tolerance and acceptance is our only hope for reducing bullying among all school-aged youth."

In addition to Swearer, the study was authored by Cixin Wang at the Kennedy Krieger Institute at Johns Hopkins University; John W. Maag, professor of special education at UNL; Amanda B. Siebecker of Boys Town Behavioral Health Clinic; and Lynae J. Frerichs, a pediatric psychologist with Complete Children's Health in Lincoln.

The double terrorist attack in Norway last July, which claimed 77 lives, has moved violent acts committed by single individuals up the political, media and now research agendas. Known as “lone wolf terrorism,” these acts are carried out independently of established terrorist organizations.

In his new report Understanding Lone Wolf Terrorism, Dr. Ramón Spaaij, from La Trobe University in Australia and the University of Amsterdam, examines this so-far largely unexplored phenomenon.

According to Ramón Spaaij, "While lone wolf terrorism incidents still account for only a very small percentage of the total number of terrorist attacks, the number of lone wolf incidents has been on the rise in recent decades.” Indeed, the report shows that international security agencies now consider acts of terrorism carried out by individuals as one of the most likely forms of terrorist attack. Spaaij's report examines and maps the extent and nature of lone wolf terrorism, by drawing on a combination of international data from terrorism databases and high-profile case studies, including Anders Behring Breivik's acts in Norway last summer. Such acts tend to be carefully planned and prepared.

For the first time, an in-depth analysis is provided of the key features of lone wolf terrorism worldwide over the last four decades. The report provides insights for those working to prevent or minimize the effects of terrorism and political violence, by exploring what drives the lone wolf terrorist to commit mass violence and discussing how this phenomenon can be countered effectively.Dr. Spaaij said, “Overall, a significant discrepancy exists between the recent political and media attention for lone wolf terrorism on the one hand, and scientific investigation of this phenomenon on the other. Systematic research projects into lone wolf terrorism have been few and far between."

His report focuses on six key dimensions of lone wolf terrorism: its definition; where, how, and how frequently it occurs; what motivates lone wolf terrorists; radicalization and potential links with other terrorist networks or ideologies; how the acts are planned and carried out; and what lessons can be learned from government responses to these acts over the last 40 years.

Media violence does have an effect on children's behavior and a concerted public health response involving parents, professionals, the media and policymakers is needed to reduce its effects.

That is the conclusion of a study presented 27 June 2012, to the Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society's Division of Forensic Psychology by Professor Kevin Browne. The conference takes place at Cardiff Metropolitan University.

Professor Browne, who holds the Chair of Forensic Psychology and Child Health in the Centre for Forensic and Family Psychology at the University of Nottingham, and his colleague Catherine Hamilton-Giachritsis surveyed research on children and violent films, television and computer games published over the past 18 years.

They found that the research is of widely varying quality, but that there evidence that in young children violent imagery has short-term effects on arousal, thoughts, and emotions, increasing the likelihood of aggressive or fearful behavior.

The evidence is less consistent for older children and teenagers, while the small amount of good quality research that discusses sex differences suggests that boys are more likely to show aggression after viewing violent media than girls.

In his paper Professor Browne sets out a number of recommendations for parents, professionals, the media and policymakers. It includes a call for education in media awareness to be included in the school curriculum.

Professor Browne says: "Long-term outcomes for children viewing media violence are difficult to establish, partly because of the methodological difficulties in linking behavior with past viewing, and there is only weak evidence from correlation studies linking media violence directly to crime. However, there is some evidence that suggests children who grow up in violent families are more susceptible to violent images.

"Research shows that the children from violent homes are already predisposed to anti-social behavior and delinquency and this predisposition influences their increased preference and memory for violent images from media entertainment and computer games. Compared to other children they are more likely to act out violent scenes and incorporate what they see into their violent acts.

"Therefore, violent media entertainment and computer games have to potential to actively increase the frequency of violent crime, in those children already predisposed to aggression as a result of adverse past experiences. By contrast, other children have a passive response to violent images and are more likely to develop a fear of crime and be desensitized to violence by others.

"Parents who leave the children unsupervised viewing their adult DVD or computer game collection may damage their children's mental health. Most parents do not wish their children to see violent imagery before they are ready for it, but we do not always make it easy for them. For instance, a film may be given a 12 certificate, but toy shops can be filled with merchandise linked to the film but aimed at much younger children. Not surprisingly, these children then have a strong desire to see a film for which they are much too young."

How good are married couples at recognizing each other's emotions during conflicts? In general, pretty good, according to a study by a Baylor University researcher. But if your partner is angry, that might tell more about the overall climate of your marriage than about what your partner is feeling at the moment of the dispute.

What's more, "if your partner is angry, you are likely to miss the fact that your partner might also be feeling sad," said Keith Sanford, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychology and neuroscience in Baylor University's College of Arts & Sciences. His study — "The Communication of Emotion During Conflict in Married Couples" — is published online in the American Psychological Association's Journal of Family Psychology.

"I found that people were most likely to express anger, not in the moments where they felt most angry, but rather in the situations where both partners had been feeling angry over a period of time," he said. "This means that if a couple falls into a climate of anger, they tend to continue expressing anger regardless of how they actually feel . . . It becomes a kind of a trap they cannot escape."

Common spats that might fester deal with in-laws, chores, money, affection and time spent on the computer.

Sanford found that when people express anger, they often also feel sad. But while a partner will easily and immediately recognize expressions of anger, the spouse often will fail to notice the sadness.

"When it comes to perceiving emotion in a partner, anger trumps sadness," he said. Previous research has found that genuine expressions of sadness during a conflict can sometimes draw partners closer together, and it potentially can enable couples to break out of a climate of anger.

"A take-home message is that there may be times where it is beneficial to express feelings of sadness during conflict, but sad feelings are most likely to be noticed if you are not simultaneously expressing anger," Sanford said.

The findings were based on self-reporting by 83 married couples as well as observation and rating of their behavior by research assistants, who were given permission by the couples to videotape them through a one-way mirror. Couples were asked to choose two areas of conflict and talk to each other about them — one chosen by the wife, the other by the husband. They also were asked to rate their emotions and those of their partners before and after each discussion.

Couples' "insider knowledge" of one another might be expected to make it easier for them to read each other, Sanford said. But the only time in which couples made significant use of insider knowledge to distinguish emotions was in interpreting "soft" emotions — such as sadness or disappointment — in conflicts about specific events, the study showed.

While women expressed soft emotions more, they were no better at perceiving hard or soft emotions, Sanford said.

*Sanford has developed a free interactive internet program for couples titled the "Couple Conflict Consultant" located at www.pairbuilder.com. This program provides a personalized assessment of 14 different areas of conflict resolution and a large resource bank of information and recommendations for couples.

Aggressive dog ownership is not always a sign of attempted dominance or actual delinquency. A study carried out at the University of Leicester's School of Psychology has found that younger people who are disagreeable are more likely to prefer aggressive dogs, confirming the conventional wisdom that dogs match the personality of their owners.

Researchers found that low Agreeableness was the best predictor of a preference for those dogs seen as more aggressive, such as bull terriers or boxers. Individuals low in Agreeableness are typically less concerned with others' well-being and may be suspicious, unfriendly and competitive.

However, the study found no link between liking an aggressive dog and delinquent behaviour, or the possibility that liking an aggressive dog is an act of 'status display' to show off or attract romantic partners.

Dr Vincent Egan, lead researcher on the study, said: "This type of study is important, as it shows assumptions are not the whole picture. It is assumed owners of aggressive dogs (or dogs perceived as aggressive) are antisocial show-offs. But we did not find persons who expressed a preference for aggressive dogs had committed more delinquent acts, or reported showing off more.

"However, we did find a preference for a dog with an aggressive reputation was related to being younger and being lower in Agreeableness (i.e., being less concerned with the needs of others, and being quicker to become hostile)."

The study looked at the reasons why some people prefer aggressive dog breeds. Professor Egan explained:

"A lot of human behaviour involves status display and dominance, and evolutionarily this helps with finding mates. Basic personality also influences a lot of our behaviour. By measuring both at the same time, we could see whether they each had an influence on liking aggressive dogs, or whether one was due to another.

"We were surprised mating effort did not have an influence here, but think it might be because we looked at a wider age range. A preference for a non-aggressive dog may also make a statement about a person; liking a pedigree Labrador or a clipped Poodle may be as much a statement as having a pit-bull with a studded collar."

In the study, participants indicated their preference for different types of dogs, and filled in personality tests. The dogs were independently rated according to how aggressive people perceived them to be. Bull terriers were rated as most aggressive, followed by boxers; retrievers and cocker spaniels were seen as least aggressive.

Analysing the findings, the research team found that certain personality factors indicated a preference for dogs perceived to be more aggressive. Low agreeableness and higher conscientiousness were related to a preference for aggressive dog breeds. Younger people were also more likely to prefer the aggressive breeds.

Surprisingly, the results indicated a small effect suggesting that those who liked aggressive dogs showed signs of conscientiousness – being careful, reliable and thoughtful about their actions. This contradicts the perception that owners of aggressive dogs are always irresponsible.

Dr Egan said: "These results with conscientiousness were unexpected, but the effect is a small one, and needs to be repeated in a different group of people. Studies of this kind tend to only look at a restricted age ranges, which may exaggerate findings which do not occur across the entire lifespan, so we believe a stereotype is always true, whereas it may only be true under certain conditions. Our study employed a broader age range.

"We were surprised to find a small association between a preference for aggressive dogs and greater Conscientiousness (i.e., valuing and following rules). However, dogs also prefer rules and firm boundaries themselves. We speculate that cheap dog-training classes would be enjoyable and beneficial for both dog and owner."

The findings were published last week in the journal Anthrozoos.

 While it may be cute when a 3-year-old imitates his parent's bad behavior, when adolescents do so, it's no longer a laughing matter.

Teens who fight may be modeling what they see adult relatives do or have parents with pro-fighting attitudes, according to a study to be presented April 29, at the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) annual meeting in Boston.

"Parents and other adults in the family have a substantial influence on adolescents' engagement in fighting," said Rashmi Shetgiri, MD, FAAP, lead author of the study. "Interventions to prevent fighting, therefore, should involve parents and teens."

Dr. Shetgiri, assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Children's Medical Center, Dallas, and her colleagues conducted 12 focus groups with 65 middle and high school students to discuss why youths fight and how violence can be prevented. Groups were divided by race/ethnicity and whether students were fighters or nonfighters based on self-report.

Youths said they fight to defend themselves or others, to gain or maintain respect, to respond to verbal insults or because they are angry due to other stressors. Girls also cited gossip or jealousy as reasons for fighting.

The discussions showed that parental attitudes toward fighting and parental role modeling of aggressive behavior influence youth fighting. Family attitudes also may prevent youths from fighting. Many Latino students, for example, noted that their parents condoned fighting only when physically attacked and said not wanting to hurt or embarrass their parents could prevent them from fighting.

Peers also can have a positive or negative influence on fighting by de-escalating situations or encouraging violence.

The conversations also revealed that nonfighters use various strategies to avoid confrontations such as walking away, ignoring insults or joking to diffuse tension. Fighters, however, said they are unable to ignore insults and are aware of few other conflict-resolution methods.

Potential interventions suggested by youths include anger and stress management programs led by young adults who have overcome violence, and doctors counseling youths about the consequences of fighting.

"Our study suggested that there may be differences between boys and girls, and racial/ethnic groups in risk and protective factors for fighting," Dr. Shetgiri concluded. "This has important implications for violence prevention programs and individuals working with violent teens.