Aggression and Autonomy in Adolescence

The paper is devoted to the question of whether there is a connection between aggression and autonomy in adolescence, and whether aggressive behavior can be considered as a tool for solving the age-related problem of developing autonomy. We present results of a study on the relationship between aggressive behavior and the level of autonomy in adolescents aged 13—16 years. At the first stage of the study, the sample consisted of 499 respondents. At the second stage, we compared aggression and autonomy in adolescents with and without school records of aggressive behavior, and the sample consisted of 192 respondents. The research tools included the physical aggression scale from the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire, the Legitimized Aggression Questionnaire by S.N. Enikolopov and N.P. Tsibulsky, the Violent Extremism Dispositions technique by D.G. Davydov and K.D. Khlomov, as well as the Autonomy Questionnaire by N.N. Poskrebysheva and O.A. Karabanova. The results showed significant low negative correlations of autonomy indicators with indicators of physical aggression, legitimized aggression and dispositions of violent extremism, which does not confirm the hypothesis of aggressive behavior as a manifestation of autonomy. A comparison of adolescents with and without school records of aggressive behavior showed significant differences in indicators of physical aggression, legitimized aggression and dispositions of violent extremism (they are higher among those who have no such records), but not in autonomy: thus, an attempt to operationalize aggressive behavior through intra-school records showed an unexpected result, problematizing questions about the normalization of aggressive behavior in the school environment and about the role of school records in the prevention of maladaptive behavior. The results obtained do not confirm positive relationship between adolescent autonomy and aggression. At the same time, the limitations of the study necessitate further studies of this problem, requiring a different operationalization of aggressive behavior and an expansion of the range of variables studied.

Introduction

The issue of where and how autonomy can develop and manifest itself in modern adolescents now has no unequivocal answer. On the one hand, there is a traditional linear trajectory of increasing autonomy by expanding ‘parental licenses’ for autonomy and reducing parental control [1; 11]; the Internet provides certain opportunities for autonomous behaviour and includes probing behaviour that contradicts parental norms [6]. At the same time, the areas of the life of adolescents uncontrolled by parents are narrowing [2], uncertainty and unpredictability of society are growing [14], and control over child behaviour by the social environment is intensifying [13]. We were interested in the question of whether aggressive behaviour (purposeful destructive human behaviour that contradicts the norms and rules of human existence in society, aimed at causing harm, physical damage and psychological discomfort [4]) in modern adolescents is considered to be a form of the manifestation of autonomy? The novelty of the study is due to the lack of data on the relationship between the independence of adolescents (understood in this case as autonomy and consisting of four components value, emotional, cognitive and behavioural autonomy [12]) and their aggressive manifestations as a form of protest against adults and an indicator of increasing autonomy.

In the domestic literature so far, there is no uniform conceptual apparatus characterising the growing independence of the child from parents and the strengthening of their autonomy. It is difficult to find data on the connection between aggression and any indicators of autonomy. Several foreign studies show that risky and maladaptive behaviour becomes a variant of acquiring autonomy and solving the age-specific problem of separation under conditions of hyper control from parents when their behaviour is perceived by teenagers as intrusive and compulsive [20; 21]. The understanding of aggression, as a result of frustration [17] for the need for autonomy [18], may be promising in terms of preventing aggressive behaviour in the educational environment, but there is a significant lack of data regarding both family and school contexts of autonomy development in Russian adolescents. According to N. N. Poskrebysheva and O. A. Karabanova [12], such parameters of child–parent relationships as parental control, freedom and autonomy, are important for autonomy development: with autonomy increasing, the relationship is rebuilt from parentally controlled to mutually directed, where planning, regulation and control is divided between the adolescent and the parent; parents of more autonomous adolescents avoid directive interference in the child's activities and try to allow them to regulate their behaviour by themselves. On the other hand, maladaptive behaviour can, on the contrary, be evidence of difficulties with the development of autonomy [15; 23]. Parental control practices are complexly related to psychological problems and manifestations of adolescent autonomy [15; 19; 22; 24]. N. V. Meshkova's research shows that for adolescents with different levels of aggression, antisocial creativity is mediated by different types of values: the higher the importance of the value ‘Autonomy of Action’, the higher the level of aggression. For young football fans, antisocial creativity is mediated by a combination of a high value of hostility and a low orientation to social norms [9]. Thus, an adolescent's separation process associated with increased autonomy from parents can be accompanied by anticipated and actual hostility and aggression. Autonomy can be associated with different behaviours and moral evaluations. For example, it has been shown that low levels of emotional autonomy (awareness of emotional processes, self-regulation) in adolescents are associated with an orientation toward values of care, and high levels are associated with an orientation toward values of justice [10].

We assumed that adolescents' aggression helps them to solve the tasks of realisation of independence and autonomy and thus can be related to autonomy indicators. This study attempted to find the links between aggression and autonomy as well as to compare data from both students who are and are not on the intra-school register.

Research Programme

The objective of the research is to establish the connections between aggression in adolescence and the level of development of personal autonomy.

The hypotheses of the study. 1. There is a positive relationship between the indicators of aggression and autonomy in adolescence. 2. Adolescents included in the intra-school registration have higher levels of aggression and autonomy.

Measures. The study was conducted through an online survey using the following tools:

- the Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire adapted by S. N. Enikolopov and N. P. Tsibulsky includes scales of physical aggression, anger and hostility [5]. The questionnaire measures a personality trait (aggression), but the items in the questionnaire also describe behavioural manifestations (for example, ‘I fight more often than others’), therefore, we used a separate scale of physical aggression. It is validated on the adult sample, but is often used to study adolescents (e.g., [8]);

- the Questionnaire of Legitimised Aggression, by S. N. Enikolopov and N. P. Tsibulsky, for the assessment of socially approved aggression including 5 scales of legitimised aggression—in personal experience, politics, sports, mass media and the educational sphere [7]. The questionnaire was also validated on an adult sample only, but we were interested in the legitimisation of aggressive behaviour in an educational setting. We hypothesised that greater tolerance for aggression could be related to autonomy, if our first hypothesis is correct, we included this instrument in the battery, despite perceived limitations;

- the Violent Extremism Dispositions Questionnaire allows assessing 11 dispositions reflecting an unspecific propensity for extremist behaviour and potentially leading to the formation of separate hostile attitudes towards specific objects (cult of strength, intolerance, conventional coercion, social pessimism, mysticism, destructiveness and cynicism, protest activity, legal nihilism, anti-intraception, tolerance of aggression and conformism) [3];

- the Autonomy Questionnaire by N. N. Poskrebysheva and O. A. Karabanova allows the estimation of emotional, behavioural, cognitive and value components of the development of autonomy of adolescents, as well as its general level [12].

Sample. A total of 1,039 adolescents from 40 schools located in different regions of Russia participated in the data collection. However, in the survey process, many participants avoided answering certain questions in the survey, and therefore, their answers had to be excluded from the overall analysis.

In the first stage, the answers of 499 school students who completed the questionnaire were analysed (Table 1).

In the second stage, the study group consisted of 99 students included in the intra-school register, and the control group consisted of a normalised subsample of 93 students of the same age and gender who were not in the intra-school register (Table 1).

The aim of intra-school registration is the early prevention of school disadaptation and asocial behaviour of minors in accordance with Federal Law No. 120-FZ dated 24.06.1999 ‘On the basis of the system of prevention of neglect and juvenile delinquency.’ Students are placed on the intra-school register as a disciplinary measure, following such manifestations as absenteeism, aggressive attitude towards peers and teachers, committing offences, poor academic performance, failure to comply with the school’s internal regulations, smoking, alcohol and drug use, etc. Often, the intra-school registration is combined with registration in the Commission on Juvenile Affairs and Protection of their Rights, as well as in the Division of Juvenile Affairs of the Department of Internal Affairs. Unfortunately, during the data collection process, it was not possible to establish the specific reasons for the students' registration, as well as how long they have been on the register and what kind of psychological and pedagogical work is done with them in this regard. In designing the study, we assumed that these students, on average, would be characterised by a higher level of aggression, since we considered placement on the in-school register as a disciplinary measure in response to their socially undesirable, including aggressive, behaviour.

Table 1

Characteristics of the sample in the first and second stages

The obtained quantitative data were processed using the Spearman correlation coefficient and the Mann–Whitney U test in the JASP 0.14 programme.

Results

Relationship between aggression and autonomy

The analysis showed many statistically significant, but low negative correlations (Table 2). Physical aggression weakly negatively correlates with indicators of cognitive and emotional autonomy, as well as its integral index. The legitimisation of aggression in different environments also shows several negative correlations with autonomy, although it is worth noting that the scales of legitimisation of aggression, in personal experience and in the media that are most relevant to adolescents show fewer connections than other scales of the Questionnaire of Legitimised Aggression. The indicators of violent extremism dispositions, i.e. propensity for violence and potentially hostile attitudes, also show weak negative correlations with autonomy, including conformism being negatively correlated with all four components of autonomy, which indirectly confirms the reliability of the scales. This result does not confirm the first of the hypotheses posited: the data obtained indicate a weak negative or absent correlation between the aggression and autonomy scales. An adolescent's aggressive behaviour is almost unrelated to how high their level of autonomy is in the cognitive, emotional, behavioural or value spheres.

Table 2

Correlations of aggression and autonomy indicators (N = 499)

Legend: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Comparison of aggression and autonomy in the students on and not on the intra-school register

A comparison of indicators of physical aggression, legitimising aggression, violent extremism dispositions and autonomy in the groups of students with and without intra-school registration showed the following results (Table 3). Students on the intra-school register show, on average, significantly lower rates of physical aggression; they also demonstrate significantly less legitimised aggression in personal experience, in education and politics and the overall rate of legitimised aggression is also significantly lower. Such dispositions of violent extremism as the cult of strength, acceptability of aggression, intolerance, anti-intraception and conformism are also lower among those on the register than among those who are not on the intra-school register. No significant differences between the two groups were found for other dispositions of violent extremism (legitimisation of aggression in the media and sports, conventional coercion, social pessimism, mysticism, destructiveness and cynicism, protest activity, normative nihilism), or all components of autonomy.

Table 3

Differences between the indicators of students who are on the intra-school registry and those who are not (N = 192)

Legend: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Thus, contrary to our second hypothesis, the data indicate that aggressive behaviour is not typical for school students who are intra-school registered. On the contrary, different forms of aggression and beliefs about its accessibility are more common for children who are not intra-school registered, that is, those who are not identified in school as a risk group for maladaptive and antisocial behaviour. These results raise the question about the functions of intra-school registration, on the one hand, and about the normativity of aggressive behaviour in the educational environment, on the other.

Discussion

The findings demonstrate that both hypotheses were not confirmed. The results indicate that physical aggression, legitimisation of aggression in different environments and personal experience, as well as manifestations of dispositions of violent extremism, are either weakly negatively or not at all connected with autonomy. This does not coincide with the interpretation of adolescent aggression as a variant of response to intense control and assertion of personal autonomy [9; 17; 20; 21]. On the contrary, in our case, the results suggest that aggression may be indicative of difficulties in developing autonomy [16; 23]. Overall, our results suggest a further problematisation of the relationship between aggression and autonomy, rather than providing definite answers. We can assume that the weak links found are mediated by factors that have not been touched upon in this paper, and further research is needed to clarify these patterns, including the quality of the relationship with parents, features of parental control, anxiety levels, etc. In addition, we face the need to develop instruments to measure adolescent aggression. The attempt to operationalise aggressive behaviour through an intra-school register has been unsuccessful. The intra-school register was introduced as a response to the various forms of antisocial, risky or socially undesirable behaviour of schoolchildren, which is followed up by working with the child, which involves a school psychologist and social pedagogue and the parents of the child. However, our results show that adolescents on the intra-school register are characterised by lower rates of physical aggression compared to the control group and show less acceptance of aggression in personal experience, education and politics. The data show that it is not those children who are characterised by aggressive and antisocial behaviour that are placed on the intra-school register, but those who are vulnerable to its manifestations, perhaps being victimised by their peers. This may indicate a high level of normalisation of aggression in the educational environment and that non-aggression is a signal to include school children in a risk group, put them on the register and increase attention toward them from the social pedagogue, psychologist and parents. This data prompts us to reconsider the target audience for prevention programmes and to focus our efforts, aimed at preventing aggressive behaviour and reducing pro-aggressive attitudes in the school environment, on working with school children who are perceived as being socially adequate. The results also raise questions such as: how and why is the intra-school register used in different educational organisations, what are the typical reasons for placing and removing schoolchildren from the intra-school register, what work is done with children on the register and how their behaviour differs from other students?

Limitations of this study: we used tools designed for an adult sample (Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire, legitimised aggression questionnaire); socially desirable answers to questions about aggression are likely; there is a lack of data on reasons for using the intra-school register and further work with the children on this register.

Conclusions

The research data indicate that aggressive behaviour in adolescents is not a form of achieving autonomy and is rather negatively related to it. However, theoretically, aggressive behaviour understood as the frustration of the need for autonomy plays a major role in the development of adolescents' personalities, which raises the question of developing a relevant instrument. Further research is needed in which the connections between different manifestations of aggression and autonomy will be investigated, using more appropriate tools for adolescents. In addition, the characteristics of the family context, the educational environment and the specifics of the peer community need to be investigated to correctly model the relationships between aggressive behaviour and autonomy during adolescence. The results obtained do not provide clear answers to the question of these relationships, but they request further research into the issues highlighted.

1. Bochaver A.A., Polivanova K.N., Pavlenko K.V. Guljat’ ili ne guljat’? Kak sovremennye roditeli organizujut nezavisimuju mobil’nost’ detej [To walk or not to walk? How modern parents organize independent mobility of children]. Gorodskie issledovanija i praktiki // Urban Studies and Practices, 2020, no. 5(3), pp. 38—53. DOI:10.17323/usp53202038-53 (In Russ.).
2. Bochaver A.A., Korzun A.N., Polivanova K.N. Ulichnyj dosug detej i podrostkov [Street leisure for children and adolescents]. Psihologija. Zhurnal Vysshej Shkoly Jekonomiki // Psychology, Journal of Higher School of Economics, 2017. Vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 470—490. DOI:10.17323/1813-8918-2017-3-470-490 (In Russ.).
3. Davydov D.G., Khlomov K.D. Metodika diagnostiki dispozicij nasil’stvennogo jekstremizma [Methods of diagnosing dispositions of violent extremism]. Psihologicheskaja diagnostika // Psychological Diagnostics, 2017. Vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 78—97. (In Russ.).
4. Enikolopov S.N. Nekotorye problemy psihologii agressivnogo povedenija detej i podrostkov [Some problems of psychology of aggressive behavior of children and adolescents]. Social’naja i klinicheskaja psihiatrija // Social and Clinical Psychiatry, 2002, no. 2, pp. 40—45. (In Russ.).
5. Enikolopov S.N., Cibul’skij N.P. Psihometricheskij analiz russkojazychnoj versii Oprosnika diagnostiki agressii A. Bassa i M. Perri [Psychometric analysis of the Russian-language version of the Questionnaire for the diagnosis of aggression by A. Bass and M. Perry]. Psihologicheskij zhurnal // Psychological Journal, 2007, no. 1, pp. 115—124. (In Russ.).
6. Lazhinceva E.M., Bochaver A.A. Internet kak novaja sreda dlja projavlenija deviantnogo povedenija podrostka [The Internet as a new environment for the manifestation of adolescents’ deviant behavior]. Voprosy psihologii // Psychological Issues, 2015, no. 4, pp. 49—58. (In Russ.).
7. Metodiki diagnostiki jemocional’noj sfery [Methods of diagnostics of the emotional sphere]. O.V. Barkanova. Krasnojarsk, 2009, pp. 205—210. (In Russ.).
8. Metodicheskoe rukovodstvo. Sbornik testov programmno-metodicheskogo kompleksa differencial’noj diagnostiki povedencheskih narushenij nesovershennoletnih «Diagnost-Jekspert+» [Methodological guidance. Collection of tests of the software and methodological complex of differential diagnostics of behavioral disorders of minors “Diagnostician-Expert+”]. N.V. Dvorjanchikov, V.V. Delibalt, E.G. Dozorceva, M.G. Debol’skij, A.V. Degtjarev, R.V. Chirkina, A.V. Lavrik. Moscow: FGBOU VO MGPPU, 2017. 198 p.
9. Meshkova N.V. Osobennosti vzaimosvjazi antisocial’no napravlennoj kreativnosti i cennostej u podrostkov s raznym urovnem agressii [Features of the relationship between antisocially directed creativity and values in adolescents with different levels of aggression] [Elektronnyj resurs]. Psihologo-pedagogicheskie issledovanija = Psychological-Educational Studies, 2018. Vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 77—87. DOI:10.17759/psyedu.2018100207 (In Russ.).
10. Molchanov S.V., Poskrebysheva N.N., Zapunidi A.A., Markina O.S. Razvitie lichnostnoj avtonomii kak uslovie formirovanija orientacii podrostka v moral’noj sfere [Development of personal autonomy as a condition for the formation of orientation of an adolescent in the moral sphere]. Kul’turno-istoricheskaja psihologija = Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2015. Vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 22—29. DOI:10.17759/chp.2015110402 (In Russ.).
11. Polivanova K.N., Bochaver A.A., Pavlenko K.V. Razvitie povedencheskoj avtonomii podrostkov i roditel’skij kontrol’ na primere nezavisimyh peremeshhenij po gorodu [Development of behavioral autonomy of adolescents and parental control on the example of independent movements around the city]. Sovremennaja zarubezhnaja psihologija = Modern Foreign Psychology, 2020. Vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 45—55. DOI:10.17759/jmfp.2020090404 (In Russ.).
12. Poskrebysheva N.N., Karabanova O.A. Issledovanie lichnostnoj avtonomii podrostka v kontekste social’noj situacii razvitija [Research of personal autonomy of an adolescent in the context of the social situation of development]. Nacional’nyj psihologicheskij zhurnal // National Psychological Journal, 2014, no. 4(16), pp. 34—41. DOI:10.11621/npj.2014.0404 (In Russ.).
13. Sergeeva O.V., Laktjuhina E.G. Social’nye aspekty cifrovizacii detskoj gorodskoj mobil’nosti [Social aspects of digitalization of children’s urban mobility]. Zhurnal issledovanij social’noj politiki // Journal of Social Policy Research, 2019. Vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 507—524. DOI:10.17323/727-0634-2019-17-4-507-524 (In Russ.).
14. Khlomov K.D. Podrostok na perekrestke zhiznennyh dorog: socializacija, analiz faktorov izmenenija sredy razvitija [An adolescent at the crossroads of life roads: socialization, analysis of factors of changes in the development environment]. Psihologo-pedagogicheskie issledovaniya = Psychological-Educational Issues, 2014. Vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 2—10. DOI:10.17759/psyedu.2014060102 (In Russ.).
15. Adolescent perceptions of parental privacy invasion and adolescent secrecy: an illustration of simpson’s paradox. E. Dietvorst, M. Hiemstra, M.H.J. Hillegers, L. Keijsers. Child development, 2018. Vol. 89, no. 6, pp. 2081—2090. DOI:10.1111/cdev.13002
16. Bateman A.W. Conformism as a symptom of adolescent breakdown: A clinical case. Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 1996. Vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 135—142. DOI:10.1080/02668739600700141
17. Berkowitz L. Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 1989. Vol. 106(1), pp. 59—73. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59
18. Deci E.L., Ryan R.M. The «what» and «why» of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 2000, no. 11, pp. 227—268. DOI:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
19. He Y., Yuan K., Sun L., Bian Y. A cross-lagged model of the link between parental psychological control and adolescent aggression. Journal of Adolescence, 2019. Vol. 74, pp. 103—112. DOI:10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.05.007
20. Kapetanovic S., Bohlin M., Skoog T., Gerdner A. Structural relations between sources of parental knowledge, feelings of being overly controlled and risk behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Family Studies, 2020. Vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 226—242. DOI:10.1080/13229400.2017.1367713
21. Kerr M., Stattin H. What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 2000. Vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 366—380. DOI:10.1037/0012-1649.36.3.366
22. Kokkinos C.M., Algiovanoglou I., Voulgaridou I. Emotion regulation and relational aggression in adolescents: parental attachment as moderator. Journal of child and family studies, 2019. Vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 3146—3160. DOI:10.1007/s10826-019-01491-9
23. Laghi F., Liga F., Baumgartner E., Baiocco R. Identity and conformism among Italian adolescents who binge eat and drink. Health, Risk and Society, 2012. Vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 361—376. DOI:10.1080/13698575.2012.680952
24. Symeou M., Georgiou S. Externalizing and internalizing behaviours in adolescence, and the importance of parental behavioural and psychological control practices. Journal of Adolescence, 2017, no. 60, pp. 104—113. DOI:10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.07.007