|
Guide to Effective Programs
for Children and Youth |
Social Relations Interventions
OVERVIEW
The social relations intervention is aimed at aggressive/rejected and nonaggressive youth. Rejected children were considered disliked by their peers and lacked leadership skills. The social relations intervention is designed to inhibit responses of violence and aggravation of aggressive/rejected, and nonaggressive/rejected black children. The intervention includes positive social skill training elements and cognitive behavioral elements that promote deliberate, nonimpulsive problem solving skills. A study of the social relations interventions found that the program was effective in promoting positive social skills and behavioral strategies with aggressive/rejected children. The intervention was not shown to be effective for nonaggressive/rejected children.
The social relations intervention is designed to provide aggressive or rejected Black children with positive social skills training to promote prosocial behaviors and cognitive-behavioral elements. The intervention aims at reducing aggressive responses and promoting problem-solving. The program consists of four components: social problem solving, positive play training, group-entry skill training, and dealing effectively with strong negative feelings. The components are designed to alter rejected children’s low peer acceptance and affect children’s response to interpersonal conflicts and problems. The training occurs over the course of 26 individual sessions and 8 group sessions with small groups of children. Seven sessions are dedicated to social problem solving and nine sessions are dedicated to enhancing skills involved in positive relationships. These sessions occur during the school day in either groups or individually. Staff members are encouraged to vary the time spent on parts of the curriculum. Children are provided with feedback about their social behavior.
The social relations intervention uses cognitive-behavioral therapy procedures with an added component of anger-management. Previous studies of cognitive behavior therapy indicate successful results with aggressive children (follow this link). This intervention combines previously explored cognitive behavior therapies with an anger-coping program.
Lochman, J. E., Burch, P. R., Curry, J. F., & Lampron, L. B. (1984). Treatment and generalization effects of cognitive-behavioral and goal-setting interventions with aggressive boys. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 52(5), 915-916.
Evaluated population: Participants included 76 boys who attended 8 different elementary schools and ranged from ages 9 to 12. The children picked to participate had the highest teacher ratings of aggression.
Approach: Students were randomly assigned to four groups consisting of anger coping, goal setting, anger coping plus goal setting, or a control group. The subjects in the anger-coping group and the anger coping plus goal setting group met weekly for 12 sessions. These sessions focused on increasing the boy’s social problem-solving skills. The boys assigned to the goal-setting treatment met for 8 weeks to establish goals, monitor goals, and receive contingent reinforcement. Data were collected prior to the intervention and readministered 4 to 6 weeks after the intervention. Measures included scales measuring aggression, passivity, self-esteem, and problem-solving skills.
Results: Results of the study indicate that children in both anger-coping interventions displayed significant reductions in disruptive and aggressive behaviors ( F(1,72) = 5.37, p<.03) when compared with the control group. These boys also decreased their aggression at home and displayed a nonsignificant tendency for improved self-esteem. Furthermore, there were no significant effects for social acceptance. The mixed findings produced by this study support the idea of refining the intervention to produce stronger social validity by identifying which subject variables are related to improvement in aggressive children.
Lochman, J. E. (1985). Effects of different treatment lengths in cognitive behavioral interventions with aggressive boys. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 16(1), 45-56.
Evaluated population: Participants in this quasi-experimental study consisted of 22 males ranging in age from 9-12. Subjects were identified by their teachers as the most aggressive and disruptive boys in the class. The subjects participated in an Anger Coping with Goal Setting treatment, Anger Coping only intervention, Goal Setting only treatment, or no treatment control group.
Approach: Students were assigned to the anger coping plus goal setting treatment group and participated for 45-60 minutes each week for a total of 18 weeks. Again, this intervention used cognitive behavioral and interpersonal cognitive problem solving strategies to create positive behavioral changes in students. The focus of the program was on the following four items: 1)the ability to take others’ perspective in social situations 2) the awareness of physiological arousal when angry, and reinforcement of the use of this awareness as a cue to begin problem-solving, the inhibition of reflexive aggressive responses 4) social problem-solving thinking, with steps involving the accurate identification of the problem, generation of alternative solutions, consideration of consequences, and the selection of a response. Data were collected using the Breyer’s Behavioral Observation Schedule for Pupils and Teachers. Trained raters made 20-minute observations of the subjects prior to intervention and then at the follow-up three to four weeks after the intervention. Child behaviors were coded as on-task appropriate behavior, passive off-task behavior where the child is inattentive but not disruptive, and disruptive-aggressive off-task behavior. Boys in this study were compared with the 76 boys in the previous study (Lochman, 1984) and analyses were completed comparing the two groups.
Results: Results of the study found that the longer, 18-session format produced significantly greater improvement in On Task behavior and a reduction in passive Off Task behavior when compared with all other groups with the exception of the 12-week Anger Coping Group, which was marginally significant. The 18-session intervention also showed a reduction in disruptive-aggressive Off Task behavior when compared with the 12-session goal setting and control groups but not significantly different from the two anger control groups. The author concludes that the longer treatment is more effective. It must be noted that the two sample groups were similar in racial composition and level of disruptive and aggressive classroom behaviors, but that the 18-week intervention sample was younger (due to a lack of 6th grade classrooms participating) and initially more On Task and less passively Off Ttask than the 12-week intervention sample.
Lochman, J. E. (1992). Cognitive-behavioral intervention with aggressive boys: Three-year follow-up and preventive effects. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 60(3), 426-432.
Evaluated population: 145 boys randomly assigned to three conditions: anger-coping (AC), untreated aggressive (UA), and nonaggressive (NON). The AC group was recruited from three annual cohorts of boys who had received the AC intervention and were followed-up with to examine longer-term effects. The 31 boys assigned to the AC group were identified by their teachers as aggressive and disruptive. The boys in the UA groups were boys that had not been treated for aggressive or not yet assessed. The NON boys were identified as nonaggressive by their peers.
Approach: The subjects received follow-up assessment from 2.5 to 3.5 years after the Anger Coping intervention ended. The Anger Coping intervention is described above. Of the sample, 34% of the boys could not be found or re-assessed, and parental consent was only obtained for 62 percent of the boys who were re-contacted. Outcome variables such as self-esteem (F (1,94) =5.46, p. = .022), social problem solving (F(1,69) = 6.16, p= .016), delinquent behavior ( F(1,94) =5.77, p= .018), and psychopathology were assessed with interviews or paper-and-pencil tests. Measures included the National Youth Survey, the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, the Problem-Solving Measure for Conflict, and the Behavioral Observation Schedule for Pupils and Teachers.
Results: Results indicate that the cognitive-behavioral intervention created longer-lasting effects in certain areas of functioning with aggressive boys. The treated aggressive boys had higher levels of self-esteem and lower rates of irrelevant solutions to social problems. These boys also had lower rates of drug and alcohol involvement. Overall, however, the intervention did not have longer term impacts on delinquency or classroom behavior.
Lochman, J. E., Coie, J. D., Underwood, M. K., & Terry, R. (1993). Effectiveness of a social relations intervention program for aggressive and nonaggressive, rejected children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 1053-1058.
The researchers collected data by administering in a self-concept scale. Teachers also completed a behavior checklist. Two other peer nominations and ratings variables were collected at each of the three time periods. Children were nominated by the peers as leaders or cooperative students. The staff consisted of female psychology graduate students and a doctoral-level psychologist. This program differed from previous experiments with the social relations intervention. Though the program contained the same four components as the prior interventions, this version focused more on identifying problem situations that lead to aggressive behavior and developing contracts for students to follow in school.
Results: Results at the one year follow-up did not document effects for the entire intervention group, but the intervention was found to be effective for the aggressive, rejected subgroup of children. This group showed significant reductions in aggression ( F(1,43) = 5.50, p<.01) and social rejection ( F(1,43) = 3.52, p<.07). Furthermore, improvements in peer prosocial behavior were noted at postintervention and the 1-year follow-up.
The authors note that the small sample size limits the generalizability of the study. Further research could be used to continue exploring this typology system. Future studies should also focus on more comprehensive interventions for more pervasive, long-lasting behavior changes.
Lochman, J. E. (1985). Effects of different treatment lengths in cognitive behavioral interventions with aggressive boys. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 16(1), 45-56.
Lochman, J. E. (1992). Cognitive-behavioral intervention with aggressive boys: Three-year follow-up and preventive effects. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 60(3), 426-432.
Lochman, J. E., Burch, P. R., Curry, J. F., & Lampron, L. B. (1984). Treatment and generalization effects of cognitive-behavioral and goal-setting interventions with aggressive boys. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 52(5), 915-916.
Lochman, J. E., Coie, J. D., Underwood, M. K., & Terry, R. (1993). Effectiveness of a social relations intervention program for aggressive and nonaggressive, rejected children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 1053-1058.
Program categorized in this guide according to the following:
Evaluated participant ages: third grade students / Program age ranges in the Guide: mid-childhood (6-11)
Program components: School-based, Counseling/therapy
Measured outcomes: life skills; social/emotional health; behavioral problems
Program information last updated 09/25/06
|
|
© Child Trends 2003 |