Program Profile: Social Aggression Prevention Program (SAPP)

This is a school-based, small-group program designed to prevent social aggression and increase empathy, prosocial behavior, and social problem–solving skills among fifth-grade females. The program is rated Ineffective. Through treatment group, students demonstrated some statistically significantly improved social problem–solving skills, compared with control group students. There was no effect on prosocial behavior or social aggression.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals/Target Population

The Social Aggression Prevention Program (SAPP) was a school-based, small group program designed to prevent social aggression and increase empathy, prosocial behavior, and social problem-solving skills among fifth-grade females. The program used a manualized curriculum and small group activities. The program emphasized the role of peer influences within conflicts and was designed to foster 1) emotional awareness of oneself and others during conflicts, 2) cognitive understanding of the motivations and consequences related to socially aggressive behavior, and 3) behavioral skills to resolve socially aggressive conflicts. The program goals were to reduce social aggression and increase positive leadership among peers.

Program Activities

SAPP was a school-based prevention program for girls in later elementary school, at an age where many have experienced social aggression but have not developed patterns of use. The target population included all fifth-grade girls regardless of “risk” or other factors. The SAPP group received a semi-structured curriculum, which was conducted in groups of four to seven girls with one group leader. The intervention consisted of 10 weekly 40-minute sessions that were conducted during the school day but outside of the classroom. The program strongly emphasized peers’ roles in perpetuating and dissolving socially aggressive conflicts. Activities focused on increasing emotional awareness, cognitive understanding, and the behavioral skills needed to resolve socially aggressive conflicts in a prosocial manner rather than perpetuate them.

SAPP group leaders used discussion, role playing, modeling, games, and collaboration to 1) increase knowledge of social aggression, 2) build emotional understanding of oneself and others during a conflict, 3) promote positive communication and behavior, 4) provide opportunities to observe, model, and practice social skills, and 5) teach social problem-solving skills.

Key Personnel

The SAPP small groups were led by female graduate students in clinical psychology and other women with experience in counseling elementary-age children.

Program Theory

Social aggression is the use of nonconfrontational behavior that employs a social community, otherwise referred to as subtle confrontational behavior (Galen and Underwood 1997; Underwood 2003). Social aggression is empirically different from overt aggression, in that social aggression perpetration and victimization are associated more with social and psychological adjustment than overt aggression (Crick and Bigbee 1998; Prinstein et al. 2001). When considering social aggression, the use of peers and friendship groups are also qualitatively different. Typically, at least three people are involved in instances of social aggression: the perpetrator, victim, and follower(s). Peer followers are integral components to the equation by spreading rumors, enacting the exclusion, and encouraging the person who perpetrated the crime (Pepler and Craig 1995; Xie, Swift, Cairns, and Cairns 2002). Some researchers have found that prevalence and experience of social aggression varies by gender and age, and girls in late childhood and early adolescence may be at a higher risk than boys (French et al. 2002; Rys and Bear 1997; Xie et al. 2003). The intervention focused specifically on girls because they are often ignored in aggression research and intervention (Giordano and Cernkovich 1997).

The curriculum content for SAPP was guided by the ABCD (affective, behavioral, cognitive, dynamic) model of development, which posits that children’s internal and external coping arises from their combined emotional awareness, cognitive understanding, and behavioral skills (Greenberg, Kusche, and Mihalic 1998). Social–interactional theory laid the framework for the intervention setting, implying that these types of behaviors commonly unfold within a school-based, within-gender peer group social context (Craig and Pepler 2000; Grotpeter and Crick 1996; Paquette and Underwood 1999; Xie, Cairns, and Cairns 2002). Additionally, social learning theory guided the composition of intervention in small groups so that participants could learn from each other (Bandura 1973; Craig, Pepler, and Atlas 2000; Huesmann and Eron 1984).

Study

Cappella and Weinstein (2006) conducted a longitudinal field experiment using six schools from one ethnically diverse urban school district in northern California. Fifth-grade teachers and teachers of fourth/fifth-grade and fifth/sixth-grade classes were asked to participate. A total of 13 teachers volunteered for the study, or approximately one to three teachers per school. The average student population per school was 476 students, with an average fifth-grade class size of 30 students. Approximately 37 percent of students received free or reduced-price lunch. A total of 134 parents provided consent for their children to participate. The sample was predominately made of up fifth-grade students (89 percent) while 11 percent of the students were in fourth- or sixth-grade in combined-grade classrooms. Participants ranged in age from 9 to 12 years. Students were randomly assigned within classrooms to participate in SAPP or in a small-group reading club (RC) control group.

The RC comparison intervention matched the SAPP in structure and time but did not include content related to relationships or conflicts. Rather, RC control students engaged in reading aloud from a chapter book and completed accompanying literacy activities. Women with teaching degrees and/or experience in tutoring children in schools led the RC groups. RC group leaders conducted individual activities rather than group projects and addressed behavioral issues individually. During the first session, students were presented with several book choices, all of which were adventure books that involved a female protagonist. None of the books involved peer relationships as themes. Throughout the 10-week intervention, the comparison RC group kept journals and read aloud from the book while group leaders facilitated activities, writing assignments, and discussions of book content and characters. Goals of the RC intervention included increasing student exposure to words and improving basic reading abilities.

Data collection for this study occurred 2–4 weeks prior to exposure to the intervention, and 2–4 weeks post-intervention. At both times, self-report, peer-report, and teacher-report instruments developed by the researchers based on existing instruments were used to obtain data on participants’ emotional understanding, social problem-solving and social behavior, and other internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Self-report surveys were administered to all girls within the classroom (both pre- and postintervention), but the girls were not privy to the reason for the survey. Undergraduate research assistants and graduate student researchers administered the 15-minute self-report surveys. Peer assessments were conducted for each child in a private setting via a one-to-one interview with a researcher. After each session, average peer-rating scores were computed for each child based on the interview sessions. Teachers were also asked to complete behavior and achievement rating scales for each student in the classroom during the same week in which researchers collected data from the students.

Chi-square analyses and ANOVA procedures were used to establish baseline equivalence between groups in regard to ethnic measures and baseline dependent variables (empathy, social behavior, social problem-solving, and reading achievement). Main effects of the intervention were assessed using ANOVA and ANCOVA techniques. One significant baseline difference was found in regard to reading achievement, in which SAPP participants exhibited higher baseline reading achievement than RC students. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Bullying Prevention Programs

The practice includes programs designed to reduce bullying perpetration and victimization and to increase positive bystander behavior in bullying situations. The practice is rated Effective for reducing bullying perpetration (e.g., overall and physical), reducing bullying victimization (e.g., overall and relational), and increasing positive bystander behavior. The practice is rated Ineffective for increasing bystander empathy for bullying victims and reducing verbal bullying victimization.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - Bullying
	Victimization - Overall bullying victimization
	Victimization - Relational bullying victimization
	Victimization - Physical bullying victimization
	Victimization - Bystander intervention
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Empathy for the victim
	Victimization - Verbal bullying victimization

Selective School-Based Violence Prevention Programs

This practice consists of programs designed to prevent or reduce aggressive or violent behavior in K–12 students who are considered at risk of or who have demonstrated such antisocial behaviors. The practice is rated Effective for reducing aggression in students who participated in school-based violence prevention programs, compared with students who did not participate.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - Aggression

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?