Can Peer Acceptance and Perceptual Accuracy Impact the Effectiveness of Two Formats of a Preventative Intervention on Functional Subtypes of Aggression in Youth?

IF 3 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Meagan E Heilman, John E Lochman, Robert D Laird, Kristina L McDonald, Joan M Barth, Nicole P Powell, Caroline L Boxmeyer, Bradley A White
{"title":"Can Peer Acceptance and Perceptual Accuracy Impact the Effectiveness of Two Formats of a Preventative Intervention on Functional Subtypes of Aggression in Youth?","authors":"Meagan E Heilman, John E Lochman, Robert D Laird, Kristina L McDonald, Joan M Barth, Nicole P Powell, Caroline L Boxmeyer, Bradley A White","doi":"10.1007/s11121-025-01767-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Coping Power (CP) is an empirically supported school-based intervention for children at risk for aggression. A child's social status with peers and the extent to which they accurately perceive it are important aspects of preadolescent social development that may influence how intervention format affects disruptive behavior outcomes. Further, reactive (RA) and proactive (PA) functional subtypes of aggression have differential relations with peer acceptance. This study is the first to test whether the effects of group (GCP) and individual (ICP) format of CP on RA and PA differed based on children's actual social status (aim 1) and whether they over- or underestimated their acceptance relative to their actual social status (perceptual accuracy; aim 2). This study involved secondary data analyses using a large-scale randomized controlled trial that assigned 360 children ages 9 to 11 (M = 9.74, SD = .62), predominantly male (n = 234, 65%), and Black (n = 273, 75.8%), with elevated levels of aggression to either ICP or GCP condition. Polynomial regression analyses and three-dimensional response surface plots tested and probed significant (p < .05) interactions between either actual acceptance or perceptual accuracy and intervention format on postintervention reactive and proactive aggression. Actual acceptance moderated the effects of GCP on RA, such that those with higher acceptance showed smaller reductions in RA from either preintervention or postintervention to follow-up. Perceptual accuracy also moderated the effects of ICP on PA, with those underestimating their acceptance showing smaller decreases in PA from postintervention to follow-up. These findings provide valuable insights into how children's actual peer acceptance and perceptual accuracy influence CP outcomes for different functional subtypes of aggression based on intervention format, raising important questions about potential mechanisms.</p>","PeriodicalId":48268,"journal":{"name":"Prevention Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prevention Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-025-01767-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Coping Power (CP) is an empirically supported school-based intervention for children at risk for aggression. A child's social status with peers and the extent to which they accurately perceive it are important aspects of preadolescent social development that may influence how intervention format affects disruptive behavior outcomes. Further, reactive (RA) and proactive (PA) functional subtypes of aggression have differential relations with peer acceptance. This study is the first to test whether the effects of group (GCP) and individual (ICP) format of CP on RA and PA differed based on children's actual social status (aim 1) and whether they over- or underestimated their acceptance relative to their actual social status (perceptual accuracy; aim 2). This study involved secondary data analyses using a large-scale randomized controlled trial that assigned 360 children ages 9 to 11 (M = 9.74, SD = .62), predominantly male (n = 234, 65%), and Black (n = 273, 75.8%), with elevated levels of aggression to either ICP or GCP condition. Polynomial regression analyses and three-dimensional response surface plots tested and probed significant (p < .05) interactions between either actual acceptance or perceptual accuracy and intervention format on postintervention reactive and proactive aggression. Actual acceptance moderated the effects of GCP on RA, such that those with higher acceptance showed smaller reductions in RA from either preintervention or postintervention to follow-up. Perceptual accuracy also moderated the effects of ICP on PA, with those underestimating their acceptance showing smaller decreases in PA from postintervention to follow-up. These findings provide valuable insights into how children's actual peer acceptance and perceptual accuracy influence CP outcomes for different functional subtypes of aggression based on intervention format, raising important questions about potential mechanisms.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Prevention Science
Prevention Science PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.40%
发文量
128
期刊介绍: Prevention Science is the official publication of the Society for Prevention Research. The Journal serves as an interdisciplinary forum designed to disseminate new developments in the theory, research and practice of prevention. Prevention sciences encompassing etiology, epidemiology and intervention are represented through peer-reviewed original research articles on a variety of health and social problems, including but not limited to substance abuse, mental health, HIV/AIDS, violence, accidents, teenage pregnancy, suicide, delinquency, STD''s, obesity, diet/nutrition, exercise, and chronic illness. The journal also publishes literature reviews, theoretical articles, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, brief reports, replication studies, and papers concerning new developments in methodology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信