language. NewA Cognitive-Ecological Approach to Serving

Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders:

Application to Aggressive Behavior

I,c., &Coleman,nonitoring as aque in specialcriptive review.I, 74,38-56.lore, A. (1996).itive-behavioural

patients with:hild Psychology

Nancy G. GuerraUniversityof New Hampshire

Paul BoxerUniversityof New Orleans

.ecial education.

Tia E. Kim

University of California at Riverside

ABSTRACT: In this article we present a cognitive-ecological model for understanding and preventingemotional and behavioral difficulties and propose directions for school-based intervention programs,

particularly with aggressive children. In the cognitive-ecological framework, intervention effortsshould target certain cognitive skills (e.g., skills that encourage attention to multiple cues in a setting)and knowledge structures (e.g., normative beliefs about appropriate responses to conflict) acrossmultiple contexts that change over time (e.g., classroom, peer, school, family). We also emphasizethe importance of coordination among contextual influences so that children learn consistent, cross-

context standards that encourage prosodal and socially competent behavior. Practitioners working

with students who exhibit emotional and behavioral difficulties should strive to integrate efforts atmodifying cognition as well as context in the service of promoting behavioral change that maintainsover time and across situations.

. Recent advances in understanding thelearning, maintenance, prevention, andtreatment of problematic social behaviors inchildhood and adolescence have emphasizedthe central role of the child's developingcognitions (Beck, 1999; Boxer & Dubow, 2002;Compton et aI., 2004; Crick & Dodge, 1994;Durlak, Rubin, & Kahng, 2001; Eron, 1994;Guerra & Huesmann, 2004; Huesmann, 1998;Lochman & Lenhart, 1995). The developingindividual is seen as an active participant ina learning process linking individual (e.g.,irritability, impulsivity) and environmental(e.g., community violence, poverty) risk factorsto social behavior through cognitive structures,such as beliefs, rules, and schemas, and skills,such as attention, attribution, and problemsolving. This cognitive-ecological view positsthat problem behaviors emerge throughinteractions between individual predispositionand contextual socialization and are

maintained over time and across situations bycognitive "styles" that are shaped by direct and

:0 (3), 259-276 Beha\'ioralDisorders, 30 (3), 277-288

~

observational learning experiences. Cognitivestyles are learned across multiple contextsand, in turn, influence responding acrossthese contexts. The term "ecological" refersto the nested contexts of child development,providing a stage for social interactions,opportunities for social engagement, and anormativeor regulatorystructure that includescosts and benefitsof distinct courses of action(Guerra& Huesmann).

Consider a boy who grows up in anenvironment laced with harsh and hostileencounters with parents, teachers, and peers.Over time, it is likely that these negativeexperiences will influence, at least to somedegree, hisself-perception("nobodylikesme"),perceptionsof others ("theyhave it in for me"),and beliefsabout aggression("it'sOKto hit andbe mean-everybody does it"). Under theseconditions, it is also likelythat he will developcharacteristic biases in social informationprocessing that are based on the presumptionthat others act with hostile intent, leading to

May 2005 / 277

i I

increased perceptions of vulnerability andanger, and a greater likelihood of aggressiveretaliation. Forexample, Dodge and colleagues(Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1997; Dodge, Pettit,Bates, & Valente, 1995) have shown thatchildren who experience harsh parentaldiscipline or are physically abused duringtheir early childhood years are more likely toattribute hostile intent to peers in ambiguoussituations and behave more aggressively thantheir nonexposed peers.

If cognitive patterns linked to emotionalreactions, such as anger, and behaviors, suchas aggression, are learned over time, then itis also the case that they can be "unlearned."In essence, this is a fundamental premise ofcognitive-behavioral interventions; that is,modifying dysfunctional cognition will, inturn, lead to positive effects on emotional andbehavioral adjustment. However, becausethe primary emphasis is on the individual'scognitive deficits and distortions and howthese can be modified, less attention hasfocused on the contribution of the child's total

developmental ecology to the emergence andmaintenance of targeted cognitions (Boxer &Butkus, in press; Durlak et aI., 2001).

Both clinical and psycho-educationalinterventions typically are designed to changehow children think in responseto problematicsocial situations, with less attention focusedon modifying contextual influences on theseemerging cognitions. The assumption is thatonce children correct errors in thinking orreduce deficits in social information-processingskills, they will be better equipped to navigatetheir social and emotional worlds, resulting incorresponding gains in adjustment. Althoughcognitive-behavioral interventions alsoaddresssituational factors that have established or are

maintaining specific symptoms or behaviors(e.g., functional analysis; Haynes & O'Brien,1990), they focus primarily on immediatesituational contingencies rather thanoverarching developmental contexts. In somesense, a focus on the individual as the targetof intervention ignores the continuous anddynamic influence of the social environmenton the child's emerging cognitions. Indeed,one of the most robust findings in both theprediction and intervention literature lookingat youth problem behaviors is the complex andcontinuous interplay between the developingchild and the nested social contexts in which

development unfolds (Bronfenbrenner, 1979;

I'I

Guerra, Huesmann, Tolan, VanAcker, & Eron,1995; Henggeler, Schoenwald, Bourduin,Rowland, & Cunningham, 1998).

The purpose of this paper is to describehow a cognitive-ecological model of children'ssocial behavior builds on cognitive-behavioralapproaches to suggest effective avenues forintervention. As described, the cognitive-ecological model emphasizes the role ofcognitions that develop overtime asindividualsnavigate multiple social environments.! Wepropose that the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral interventions for children withemotional and behavior disorders should

be enhanced by simultaneously addressingmaladaptive cognitions and relevantsituational and contextual influences on theseemerging cognitions. Because most of ourwork hasfocused on school-based approachesto the prevention and treatment of children'saggressivebehavior, we illustrate the cognitive-ecological approach as applied to the learningand prevention of aggression in schools.

We begin by discussing specific patternsof cognition and information processingrelated to social behavior. Following this, weexamine specific teacher, peer, and schoolinfluences on both cognition and aggressionthat are potentially malleable via preventionand intervention efforts. We highlight the needto think about developmentally appropriate,universal strategies for preventing theemergenceof distortions or deficits in cognitiveprocessing as well as strategiesfor interveningwith at-risk students. Finally, we discusshow individual and contextual influences

on aggression and social behavior can beintegrated into school-based, multicomponentprevention and intervention programs thataddress complex needs of children over timeand acrosscontexts.

:1

I!

I .

The Cognitive Underpinningsof Children's Social Behavior

In the cognitive-ecological framework,behavior is seen as a product of an array ofcausal influences including individual factors(e.g., temperament, arousal level, brainstructures), environmental socializers (e.g.,family practices), and situational instigators(e.g., stress).These predisposing factors arebelieved to influence behavior, in part, viatheir influence on cognitive processes andstructures that develop over time. Forexample,

-- .. """'=

~

both high levels of impulsivity and high levelsof environmental violence can lead children toshort circuit their searchfor cues in threateningsituations, leading to a hostile attributionalbias that is more likely to trigger aggressiveresponding (Dodge, Bates,& Pettit, 1990).

The cognitive-ecological framework buildson a number of integrative social-cognitivemodelsof behavior (e.g.,Anderson & Bushman,2002; Crick & Dodge, 1994: Huesmann,1998). What these models have in commonis an emphasis on both sequential processingof social information (although this processingcan also occur in simultaneous parallel paths)and an emphasis on latent mental structuresthat guide information processing by reducingthe cognitive workload. A cognitive systemthus includes memory structures that linkcognitive concepts and emotions, knowledgestructures that represent interconnectedconcepts, and an executive program thatmanages the entire system linking inputsto outputs (Huesmann). Over time, bothprocessing styles and mental structurescrystallize, resulting in characteristic patternsof cognition and associatedbehaviors. Further,as children develop more habitual styles ofresponding in familiar situations, cognitiveprocessing becomes more automatic. Inthis fashion, social-cognitive mechanismsare seen as instrumental in the stability andmaintenance of behavior over time and across

situations. Which aspects of cognition andtheir development represent the best bets forintervention? We now turn to a brief review

of cognitive processes and structures thathave been studied in relation to children'ssocial behavior.

In social situations, children are presentedwith an array of internal and external cues;in the interest of cognitive efficiency, theylearn over time to address certain cues andignore others. The salience of different cueshinges on personal and situational factors.An aggressive child is more likely to attendto aggression-promoting cues (e.g., beingbumped-into by a peer) and less likely toproperly address prosocial cues (e.g., thepeer subsequently apologizing). Contextualstimuli also can exert a priming effect, wherecues linked to these stimuli are processedmore reaaily. For instance, if kindness andcaring are repeatedly emphasized in theclassroom, children may be more sensitiveto facial cues that suggest someone's feelingsarehurt.

sI

fs~

1j])

t

~rss

]]

The link between processing of socialcues and behavior also hinges on how cuesare interpreted or causally attributed. A majoremphasis of cognitive-behavioral therapy ison understanding how meanings, attributions,and explanations guide behavior, and howrelated distortions can misguide behavior.For example, social categories such asgender or ethnicity can be used as guides forinterpretation or misinterpretation. A childwho believes that girls are nice and boys aremean may attribute a "stare" from a girl asan attempt at engagementwhile attributing thesame stare from a boy as a show of disrespector provocation. Perhapsthe most robust findinglinking attributions to children's behavior inboth clinical and population samples is thataggressivechildren are more likely to attributehostile intent to others under ambiguouscircumstances (Dodge et aI., 1990; Guerra& Slaby, 1990; Orobio de Castro, Veerman,Koops, Bosch, & Monshouwer, 2002).

In addition to encoding and interpretationof cues, children must select from a range ofavailable responses,evaluate these responses,and select a responsefor enactment. Althoughresponsessuch as aggression and withdrawalseem to be part of an innate behavioralrepertoire, through socialization experienceschildren develop more elaborate andsituation-specific guidelines for generatingresponses and evaluating the outcome ofthese responses.Over time, a child's responserepertoire becomes more sophisticatedand more organized according to rules ofsocial interaction across contexts. Responsesare guided by cognitions including beliefsabout their appropriateness, beliefs aboutconsequences, beliefs about self-ability orefficacy to enact them, and consistency withself-schema. For instance, it is likely that achild who believes that saying "please" is veryimportant will automatically respond in thismanner when making a request.Alternately, achild who believes that "nice guys finish last"will probably generate more aggressive thanpassive responsesin social situations.

In our own work we have been interested

in the role of normative beliefs for behavior,defined as one's perception about theappropriateness of a particular behavior inspecific settings. In the case of aggressivebehavior, we have snown that these beliefsemerge from observation of one's ownbehavior, observation of others' behavior bothin vivo and through media representations,

~1"

I.I ,I I

-..-

and indirect and direct insfruction acrossdifferent contexts (Guerra et aI., 1995). Thesebeliefs begin to stabilize around age seven oreight, consistent with children's engagementin games with rules. As children get older,normative beliefs become increasingly stableand influence subsequentbehavior in relevantareas (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997).

Knowledge structures such as normativebeliefs can influence social information

processing by increasing the salience ofparticular cues or specific responses. Further,simple structures often are linked togetherin a larger organizational framework thatsuggestspossible coursesof action or "scripts"for responding. Scripts are mental constructsthat direct behavior by organizing a person'sunderstanding of a given situation, including alikely sequence of action, preferred response,and expected consequences. Scripts serve tosimplify the cognitive workload and increasethe automaticity of responding.Asdevelopmentunfolds across familiar situations, children'scharacteristic responsesbecome increasinglyguided by associated scripts. For instance,prosodal children presumably have moredominant prosocial scripts, and aggressivechildren are more likely to access regularlymore aggressivescripts.

The cognitive-ecological model empha-sizes the role of contextual influences on the

learning, encoding, and utilization of scriptsfor social interaction and behavior. Contexts

provide rich opportunities to observe patternsof social interaction, frequency of differenttypes of behavior, likely consequences ofdifferent courses of action, as well as toexperiment with different behaviors in differentsituations. For example, a child who grows upin a violent home is likely to encode patternsof interaction under conditions of social

conflict that include yelling, screaming, andother types of aggressivebehaviors. Cues forconflict thus might trigger similar aggressiveinteraction patterns.

Contextual influences impact cognition andbehavior through several mechanisms. Theseinclude observational learning, reinforcement,and normative standards. Observational

learning involves both imitation and activeinformation processing-children mustfrequently make senseof diverse observationsthat do not provide a consistent guide foraction. Further, what is observed in differentcontexts also may vary. Similarly, contexts

-

vary in the extent to which they providereinforcements for specific behaviors. Amongsomeyouth, aggressionmay be highly regardedin the neighborhood and peer contexts,whereas this behavior often is discouragedand punished in family and school contexts.Contexts also provide information aboutnormative standards of acceptable behavior.For instance, youth gangs provide youth withwell-articulated norms and scripts and governalmost every aspect of social behavior andrelationships in that context. Through suchoverwhelming modeling and reinforcement,youth in gangs are likely to generalize thosenorms and scripts to other contexts as well-for example, by believing generally that anyinsult or provocation must be addressedwith aviolent response.

Teacher, Peer, and SchoolInfluenceson Cognitionand Aggression

Given the influence of multiple contextson development, cognition, and behavior, howcan we best design and implement preventionand intervention programs that acknowledge,incorporate, and modify these ecologicalinfluences? From the cognitive-ecologicalperspective, schools represent excellentsettings for prevention and intervention. Inparticular, schools have been identified as keyvenues for the delivery of services related tothe mitigation or prevention of aggressionandother problem behaviors, in part becauseof theopportunities they provide for reaching largenumbers of children and adolescents, thuspermitting universal or large-scale selectedpreventive interventions (Farrell, Meyer, Kung,& Sullivan, 2001).

Within the cognitive-ecological frame-work, schools also represent a setting iordevelopment that includes multiple sourcesofinfluence on student cognition and behaviors.In this framework, how teachers treat studentsand respond to classroom behavior, howstudents interact in the classroom as well as

the lunchroom and playground, and howthe school in general deals with students canpromote or discourage positive or negativebehaviors. Schools thus directly impactstudent cognitive, social, emotional, andbehavioral development by influencing thetransactions of students within the school

sy(rierorfoIe

((ata(wartrtblare>

b~&rea~in

pire

pithdarcIInreatIhwae

eJ

Ist

t~"th

01h.b,&21

d!tcCCIalChd'IHII.h

~ I

system. Further, schools also can influencetransactions between systems, for instance, byencouraging family involvement in student lifeor school work, or by providing opportunitiestor student involvement in community servicelearning activities.

From a cognitive-ecological perspective,contextual influences within schools operateat multiple levels. Teachers, peers, andadministrators come to the school settingwith a distinct set of social-cognitive skillsand beliefs that, in turn, influence how theytreat others. A striking example of how teacherbeliefs influence both their own behaviorand student outcomes comes from a series ofexperiments conducted several decades agoby Rosenthal and colleagues (e.g., Rosenthal&Jacobson,1968). In these experiments,theresearchers demonstrated that teachers' beliefs

about student abilities had a meaningfulimpact on the students' actual academicperformance. They noted that teachersresponded differently to children whom theyperceived as more capable (regardless oftheir actual ability levels) compared to otherchildren, calling on them more frequentlyand providing more encouragement in theclassroom. In turn, these students actuallyimproved on achievement indicators. Theseresults suggest that teachers' beliefs andattitudestowards student achievement affectedtheir actual achievement-relevant behaviorswith students and subsequently students'actualachievement.

Translating this to social behavior, teacherexpectations also should influence howstudents are treated through a similar processthat might actually reinforceand even shapethese behaviors. Indeed, teachers' perceptionsoj and attitudes toward their students oftenhave been shown to relate to students'behaviors in the classroom (Hughes, Cavell,&Jac~son, 1999; Hughes, Cavell, & Willson,2001), underscoring their role as socializingagentsand the importanceof their attitudestoward student behavior (Boulton, 1997;Craig, Henderson, & Murphy, 2000). Teachercognitions also may shape social preferencesand peer culture in the classroom. Forinstance,Chang(2003) observed that when teachersheld more negative attitudes toward studentaggression,students in their classes were morerejecting of aggressive classmates. This effectwas attenuated, however, when coupled withhigher levels of teachers' general warmth

toward students. In this fashion, teachercognition can influence student behavior byinfluencing how peers respond to this behaviorin the classroom and school.

Schools also provide a venue for regularand ongoing exposure to the peer group atthe classroom and school level. In part, thisexposure puts a normative "stamp" on certainbehaviors as a function of their frequency andconsequences. Otherwise put, if a majorityof students at a school engage regularly in aparticular problem behavior for which theyare infrequently reprimanded, it is likelythat this behavior will come to be seen asnormative and acceptable. Children learnabout appropriate behaviors by observingthe behavior of similar others in routine

activities.Aggressivebehavior provides a goodillustrationof these "peer contagion" effects, bywhich aggressive children promote aggressiveand antisocial behavior in one another (Boxer,Guerra, Huesmann, & Morales, in press;Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999; Espelage,Holt, & Henkel, 2003). More generally,children exposed frequently to aggression aswitnesses or victims also are more likely tobehave aggressively (Boxer, Edwards-Leeper,Goldstein, Musher-Eizenman, & Dubow,2003; Guerra, Huesmann, & Spindler, 2003;Schwartz, 2000; Singer, Anglin, Song, &Lunghofer,1995).When analyzedat the levelof the classroom (i.e., specifying classrooms asthe units of analysis),it hasbeen shown thatchildren'slevelsofaggressiontendtoco-vary-that is, entire classes may be characterizedas more or less aggressive (Stormshak et aI.,1999). Interestingly, however, a sanctioningeffectalso has been observed at the level ofthe peergroup. Henry and colleagues(2000)foundthatwhen children in a classroommadebehavioral norms against aggressionsalient(i.e., by rejecting aggressive peers), classroomlevelsof aggressionreducedovertime.

Although teachersand studentsare keycomponentsof theoverallecologyof a school,school-levelcharacteristicsalso are importantto consider. For example, rates of studentaggressionappearto be lower when teachersperceive that their school administrationmaintains consistent and effective policiestoward studentaggressionat the school level(Boxer,Musher-Eizenman,Dubow,Heretick,&Danner,2003). Similarly,bullying preventionprograms seem to be most effective whentheyaredesignedaswhole schooleffortsthat

iI'I

I'

-...-- --....-----.---- .- ...

send a clear message indicating bullying willnot be accepted at school (Olweus, 1993).Further, aggressive behavior at school is likelyto be greater at unstructured times and inunsupervised areas-for example, hallwaysduring class period transitions when studentperceptions of danger are higher (Astor,Meyer,& Behre, 1999; Astor, Meyer, & Pitner, 2001;Behre, Astor, & Meyer, 2001). However, it isalso the case that school policies can givemixed messages about acceptable behaviorsand probable consequences. For example,although the "zero tolerance" policy waspopularized in the 1990s as an effectiveresponse to increasing rates of youth violence,it also has received criticism due to inflexibleimplementation and the potential to punishstudents drastically for very minor offenses (d.Casella, 2003).

A cognitive-ecologicalframeworkempha-sizes the role of teachers, peers, and schooladministrators in the emergence and main-tenance of students' cognitive skills, beliefs,and behaviors. As we have pointed out, eachof these socialization agents also brings a setof cognitive skills and beliefs to the table thatshapes their actions accordingly. For example,a teacher who believes that a specific childis aggressive and unlikely to change mayrespond quite differently to that child-beingmore sensitive to aggression-related cues-resulting in increased attention when the childis aggressive and decreased attention when thechild behaves in a prosocial manner. As thechild's aggression increases, he/she may cometo see this behavior as normative, resultingin subsequent increases in aggression (seeHuesmann & Guerra, 1997).

A Cognitive-Ecological Viewon Population-Based andTargeted Prevention

Developmentally oriented practitionersand researchers in the area of children'sbehavioral and mental health often have

advocated the use of preventive, rather thanremedial approaches to promoting children'spsychosocial adjustment-particularly inschool settings (e.g., Cowen et aI., 1996;

. Dubow, Roecker, & D'imperio, 1997). Thisorientation stems from the recognition thatemotional and behavioral disorders are

developmental phenomena, emerging from

the conflation of individual and environmentalrisk factors at multiple levels. Prevention-oriented activities typically fall into twocategories (d. Institute of Medicine, 1994).Population-based prevention activities, alsoknown as universal or primary prevention,provide services to an entire population toreduce the likelihood that some problem willemerge. A zero tolerance policy adopted byschool administrators in an attempt to deteraggression in the entire student populationwould be considered a population-basedstrategy. Targeted(also selected or secondary)prevention activities generally include"at-risk" or "high-risk" individuals and aredesigned to prevent the emergence of a full-scale problem following the initial appearanceof signs or symptoms of the problem. Adiversion program for first-time youthful statusoffenders intended to dissuade them fromescalating into serious antisocial offending isan example of the targeted approach (Tolan &Guerra, 1994).2

Because it is a developmental model, thecognitive-ecological framework may best beapplied to behavioral and emotional difficultiesthrough population-based and targetedprevention services. As discussed earlier, withrespect to aggression, the cognitive-ecologicalmodel specifiesclear sources of both early (e.g..temperamental vulnerability, physical abuse)and later (e.g., aggressive cognitive styles) riskas well as factors that can promote or maintainproblems over time (e.g., violent communities,schools, families, and media; antisocial peeraffiliations). Further, the cognitive-ecologicalmodel identifies riskfactors that may be presentfor an entire population, such as a hostileschool climate or violent media, or presentonly for some portion of a population, suchas domestic violence. Most importantly, thecognitive-ecological model also impliesclearlya point in development after which populationand targeted strategies may begin to showless effectiveness: around middle childhood

(approximate age 7-10 years old) whenchildren'ssocialcognitionsare likely to beginguiding their social behavior and to becomemore resistant to change (Huesmann, 1998;Huesmann & Guerra, 1997). The cognitive-ecological framework thus underscores theneed to deliver preventive services to childrenduringand prior to the elementary school years,when their social cognitionsare expectedtobe most malleable.

tal.n-vo4).som,to'illbyter:>ned

'y)de"IrelI-ceAus1mis&

heJees:!dthal)':J"

,e)

skin~s,eralntIent:hle

Iymw)d~ninle8;e-le~n's,10

This is not to suggest, however, thatcognitive-ecological interventions would beineffective for children past middle childhood.Certainly, studies of cognitive-behavioral andsocial-cognitive interventions support thenotion that even into adolescence, programsemploying those treatment modalities canyield positive effects (e.g., Guerra & Slaby,1990; Sussman, Rohrbach, & Mihalic,2004; Yung & Hammond, 1995). Further,empirical research supports the utility ofimplementing developmentally tailoredcognitive interventions across the childhoodto adolescence age span (Boxer, Goldstein,Musher-Eizenman, Dubow, & Heretick, inpress). Still, interventions derived from thecognitive-ecological framework are likelyto bemost effective when delivered to youth beforethe youth have established persistent patternsof aversive behavior and related social and

academic problems (Metropolitan Area ChildStudy Research Group, 2002).

Cognitive-Ecological Strategiesfor Population-Based andTargeted Prevention in Schools

Ithas long been recognized that preventionand intervention programs targeting aggressionand antisocial behavior may be most effectivewhen conducted as multilevel interventions

that also target the influence of contexts onbehavior and development. For example, theMetropolitan Area Child Study (MACS;MACSResearch Group, 2002), Project FASTTrackIConductProblemsPreventionResearchGroup,1999), and Project LIFT(Reid, Eddy,Fetrow, &Stoolmiller, 1999) included classroom-based,peer group, and family interventions. Onegoal of the multilevel approach, of course, isto promote consistency across contexts: forexample, what a child learns at school viaclassroom programming should be reinforcedat home and among peers. Still, this goal maybe viewed as operating within the individual-deficit framework. That is, new skills (toreplace or augment those that are presumedto he deficient or deviant) that children learnfor managing conflict or negative arousal canmore eff~ctivelygeneralize in the presence ofcross-context support for implementing thoseskills, The cognitive-ecological frameworkrequires much more than skills transfer. Inthe cognitive-ecological view, ecologies must

change in tandem with individual skills tosupport the emergence and crystallization ofnew cognitions.

Consider the aggressive child enrolledin a multicomponent program that providesboth classroom and family interventions. Thechild may learn new problem-solving skillsin the classroom, and the child's parents maylearn new strategies for managing that child'shehavior in a multiple family therapy groupprogram. To some extent, then, the child'simmediate contexts might change: teachersprovide instruction and reinforcement for newbehaviorsatschool while parentsdo likewisefornew behaviors at home. However, what aboutother classrooms in the school building, andother teachers?What about the neighborhoodsthrough which the child must travel on the wayto and from school, or playground interactionsduring recess?On the home front, what aboutthe parents' interactions with one another, orwith other adults in the home? What about

the child's own neighborhood, and his/herinteractions with peers in that context?What about the television shows the child is

permitted to watch?With regard to population-based preven-

tion approaches to aggressionin the cognitive-ecological framework, Boxer and Dubow(2002) noted ways to modify school ecologiesin accordance with a cognitive-ecologicalview. Forexample, schools can emphasize thepromotion of safety and nurturance rather thanthe reduction of aggression and disruptionby instituting new prosocial extracurricularactivities and fostering positive and meaningfulteacher-student relationships (Morrison,Furlong, & Morrison, 1994). Schools alsocan integrate social and emotional learningconcepts into regular classroom materials(Eliaset aI., 1997). In recent years,a number ofefforts have been underway to improve schoolclimate as a means for enhancing studentengagement, learning, and development.Several different approaches and models havebeen implemented, butthey all shareacommonset of principles. These principles focus onbuilding close-knit learning communities thatemphasize caring and compassion, creating asense of community, providing a welcomingenvironment, increasing and sustainingstudent-adult connections, and setting clearand well-publicized rules and standards foracceptable behaviors at school (Charney,1998; Noddings, 1992).

I,

As mentioned previously, schools alsocan influence transactions between systems.Of particular relevance to population-basedapproaches are policies and strategies forparent engagement. A large literature suggeststhat parent involvement in schools canenhance student outcomes (e.g., Ban, 1993).Parentinvolvement can provide consistency inthe learning and developmental environmentfor chilrlren by establishing mutual goals thatare supported by both parents and teachers,increasing parents' ability to monitor theirchild's learning and behavior, and by creatingactivities that link home and school. These

collaborative strategies should yield normsand rules for behaviors that are consistent at

both home and at school, providing a clearmessage that is reinforced across contexts.Schools therefore can strive to engage theirstudents' families by encouraging teacher-parent communication through formal andinformal meetings, informing parents aboutpolicies and programs through newslettersmailed directly to homes, and enhancingstudent accountability through the inclusionof social and behavioral evaluations in student

report cards.It is also important to note that schools can

serve as the locus of prevention efforts withinneighborhoods and larger communities.Schools might take the lead on efforts toreduce violence in the broader ecology byencouraging or requiring students to engagein prosocial community service activities orhosting after-school activities for students aswell as adults. Schools also can partner withuniversity researchersto expand their servicesand their positive impact (Hunter, Elias, &Norris, 2001).

In terms of targeted prevention, a fullyelaborated cognitive-ecological approachrequires a new orientation to the therapeuticenterprise. In this view, for lasting changes, itwould not be sufficient to provide individualcognitive-behavioral treatment focusedon modifying problematic cognitions andbehaviors, even with adjunctive familytherapy, teacher training, or group socialskills training. Returning to the example ofaggression, the practitioner in such a casewould need to consider all possible ecologicalsources of influence on the child's aggression-supporting cognitive style. Responses fromteachers, parents, and peers to the child'sbehavior would of course be important, but itwould also be important to consider the extent

to which the child is exposed to aggressionacross those and other contexts anrl make

recommendations for treatment accordingly.For example, the practitioner would needto assessthe types and levels of aggressionin the child's home environment and offersuggestions for any necessary remediation:Does the child consume violent media? Do

the parents or other adult caretakers engagein frequent verbal conflict or any physicalaggression? Does the child view violence orother antisocial behavior in the neighborhood?If the answer to any of thesequestions isyes,thepractitioner must offer potential modifications,such as reducing the child's access to violentmedia, referring for couples counseling, orfinding appropriate after-school activities tolimit the child's exposure to aggression in thecommunity.

Future Directions and Caveats

Given the large body of researchsupporting a cognitive-ecological view (d.Boxer & Dubow, 2002; Guerra & Huesmann,2004), it seems imperative that researchersand practitioners begin to design, implement,and evaluate prevention activities derivedfrom this model. Although we have focusedon how the cognitive-ecological frameworkcan support efforts to prevent studentaggression, this framework can be applied tocrafting interventions for other emotional andbehavioral problems as well. In some respects,cognitive-ecological approaches to dealingwith problems besidesaggressioncan be baseddirectly on expansions of traditional cognitive-behavioral interventions. Cognitive-behavioralinterventions have received considerablesupport in the childhood intervention literaturefor dealing with a host of other emotional andbehavioral problems including anxiety anddepressive disorders (Compton et aI., 2004;Gaynor et aI., 2003), stress managementand coping (Hains, 1994), and secondaryprevention of mental health problems (Ourlak& Wells, 1998). When compared to othertherapeutic modalities and psycho-educationalprograms, cognitive-behavioral approachesconsistently produce the most significant gains(Barrett & Ollendick, 2004; Compton et al.;Kazdin & Weisz, 2003).

The key to making a cognitive-behavioralintervention one that is cognitive-ecologicallies in the extent to which practitioners are

-

able to address sources of ecological risk inthe specific disorder or problem behavior. Forexample, ecological risk factors for depressioninclude periodic major stressful life eventsand ongoing daily stresses (Compas, Howell,Phares, Williams, & Giunta, 1989). Psycho-educational interventions can of course beused to instruct children on ways to copeand prepare for both types of stress (Dubow,Schmidt, McBride, Edwards, & Merk, 1993).However, practitioners also could work withfamilies and teachers to reduce the prevalenceand impact of everyday hassles, for example,by improving organization in children's homeand classroom environments, reducing familyand peer conflict, helping families accesssocial services for reducing economic stressand helping teachers access resources forstudents. ItshouIdbe noted that problems inthebroader community, such as crime, violence,and poverty, are associated with a range ofpotential negative emotional and behavioraloutcomes, and therefore interventions targetingmodifications to communities can benefit avarietyof child problems.

Itmust be said that shiftingfroma cognitive-behavioral to a cognitive-ecological approachto dealing with emotional and behavioraldifficulties in students is not likely to be aneasy or rapid transition. Besides the typicalbarriers to implementation, such as teacherand parent resistance to changing their ownbehaviors to ameliorate children's difficulties,the cost of providing mental health programsand services, and of coutse, the stability ofchildren's behavioral difficulties (especiallyaggression; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997),cognitive-ecological intervention requires thepractitioner to place even greater demands onindividuals representing sources of ecologicalinfluence, not to mention on whole ecologies.However,one way to facilitate the transition tocognitive-ecological intervention is for school-based practitioners to educate teachers andfamilies about this broader perspective andthus rally their support for new population-basedor targeted programs.

Summary

In . this article, we have presented acognitive-ecological model for understandingand preventing an array of emotional andbehavioral problems, and have suggesteddirections for school based universal and

selected programs, particularly those

. '-

targeting aggressive behavior. Consistentwith the cognitive underpinnings of behaviordiscussed, we believe that efforts shouldtarget certain cognitive skills and knowledgestructures across multiple contexts that changeover time. Of particular importance are social-cognitive skills that encourage attention tomultiple cues in a setting, interpretation ofcues based on factual information rather

than stereotypes or biases, and generation ofresponses and consequences that emphasizeconsideration of both self and others. It alsois critical that contextual influences coalescein their normative orientations so that children

learn consistent standards that encourageprosocial and socially competent behavior.These standards can be communicated throughschoolwide interventions such as the Olweus

(1993) bullying prevention program; theymust also be reinforced at the classroom and

peer level through consistent reinforcementof rules. An emphasis on the cognitivefoundations of behavior in context provides avenue for intervention that is consistent withthe educational mission of schools and their

important role in promoting child well-being.

NOTES

1. It is important to note that although thismodel emphasizes the context-cognition-behavior link, this does not mean thatemotional reactions are not considered.

In many instances, emotions may be thestrongest predictor of behavior, for instance,perceptions of distress blamed on others canlead to an upward spiral of extreme rage thatleads to reactive, hostile, and under-controlledaggression. Similarly, distress blamed onself can lead to a downward spiral of shameand withdrawal (Beck, 1999). Alternately,children who are prone to strong emotionalreactions might be too overwhelmed during asocial encounter to search for relevant cues,generate solutions, ete. (e.g., lemerise &Arsenio, 2000). As this illustrates, we do notdeny the innate primacy of many emotionalreactions, but contend that most eventstrigger a chain of emotional and cognitivereactions, such that emotions are moderatedby cognitions and cognitions are moderatedby emotional reactions.

I'I

,I

2. A third type of prevention-indicated ortertiary prevention-is similar in concept

"" - n '_ __

I 'j

II,

, III I"

I ~:i

ii"

-.~0.____.____.__..____-------------

and execution to remediation or intervention

for full-scale psychosocial problems (e.g.,the use of stimulant medications for attention-

deficit/hyperactivity disorder). To refer toit as "prevention" is essentially a semanticconvention, and thus, we do not discussit here.

REFERENCES

Anderson, C. A, & Bushman, B. j. (2002). Humanaggression. Annual Review of psychology, 53,27-51.

Astor, R. A., Meyer, H. A, & Behre, W. j. (1999).Unowned placesand times: Mapsand interviewsabout violence in high schools. AmericanEducation ResearchJournal, 36, 3-42.

Astor, R. A., Meyer, H. A., & Pitner, R. O. (2001).Elementary and middle school students'perceptions of violence-prone schoolsubcontexts. Elementary School Journal, 101,511-528.

Ban, j. R. (1993). Parentsassuring student success(PASS):Achievement made easy by learningtogether. Bloomington, IN: National EducationalService.

Barrett, P.M., & Ollendick, T. H. (2004). Handbookof interventions that work with children andadolescents: Prevention and treatment. New

York:Wiley.Beck, A. T. (1999). Prisoners of hate. New York:

Harper Collins.Behre, W. j., Astor, R. A, & Meyer, H. A. (2001).

Elementary and middle school teachers'reasoning about intervening in school violence:An examination of violence-prone schoolsubcontexts. Journal of Moral Education, 30,151-183.

Boulton, M. j. (1997). Teachers' views on bullying:Definitions, attitudes, and ability to cope.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67,223-233.

Boxer, P., & Butkus, M. (in press). Individualintervention for aggressionin early adolescence:An application of the cognitive-ecologicalmodel. Clinical CaseStudies.

Boxer, P.,& Dubow, E. F.(2002). A social-cognitiveinformation-processing model for school-basedaggressionreduction and prevention programs.Applied and Preventive Psychology, 10,177-192.

Boxer, P., Edwards-Leeper, L., Goldstein, S. E.,Musher-Eizenman, D., & Dubow, E. F. (2003).Exposure to "low-level" aggression in school:Associations with aggressive behavior, futureexpectations, and perceived safety. Violence &Victims, 18, 691-704.

Boxer, P., Goldstein, S. E., Musher-Eizenman,D., Dubow, E. F., & Heretick, D. (in press).Developmental issues in the prevention of

- ---,-. -----.-.-------.-

school aggression from the social-cognitiveperspective.Journal of Primary Prevention.

Boxer,P.,Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R., & Morales,j. (in press). Proximal peer-level effects ofa small-group selected prevention on agg-ression in elementary school children:An investigation of the peer contagionhypothesis. Journal of Abnormal ChildPsychology.

Boxer, P., Musher-Eizenman, D. R., Dubow, E. F.,Heretick, D. M. L., & Danner, S. A. (2003).Validity of teacher perceptions of studentaggression: A cognitive-ecological perspec-tive. Unpublished manuscript, Universityof Michigan.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of humandevelopment: Experiments by nature and design.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Casella, R. (2003). Zero tolerance policy in schools:Rationale, consequences, and alternatives.Teacher's College Record, 105, 872-892.

Chang, L. (2003). Variable effects of children'saggression, social withdrawal, and prosocialleadership as functions of teacher beliefs andbehaviors. Child Development, 74, .535-548. .

Charney, R. S. (1998). Teaching children to care:Management in the responsive classroom.Greenfield, MA: Northeast Foundation forChildren.

Compas, B.E.,Howell, D. c., Phares,V.,Williams,R. A, & Giunta, C. T. (1989). Risk factors

for emotional-behavioral problems in youngadolescents:A prospectiveanalysisof adolescentand parent stress. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 57, 732-740.

Compton, S. N., March, j. S., Brent, D., Albano, A.M., Weersing,V. R.,& Curry, j. (2004). Cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy for anxiety anddepressivedisorders in children and adolescents:An evidence-based medicine review. Journal of

the American Academy of Child and AdolescentPsychiatry, 43, 930-959.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group(1999). Initial impact ofthe FastTrackPreventionTrial for conduct problems: I. The high-risksample. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 67, 631-647.

Cowen, E. L., Hightower, A D., Pedro-Carroll, j. L.,Work, W. c., Wyman, P. A, & Haffey, W. C.(1996). School-based prevention for childrenat risk: The Primary Mental Health Project.Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Craig, W. M., Henderson, K., & Murphy, j. G.(2000). Prospective teachers' attitudes towardbullying and victimization. School PsychologyInternational, 21, 5-21 .

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A (1994). A review andreformulation of social information processingmechanisms in children's adjustment.Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101.

I

I

I

I

I

I

.. I

Dishion, T.)., McCord, J., & Poulin, F.(1999).Wheninterventions ha'm: Peer groups and problembehavior. American Psychologist,54,755-764.

Dodge, K.A., Bates,j. E., & Pettit,G. S. (1990).Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science,250, 1678-1683.

Dodge, K.A., Pettit,G. S., & Bates,j. E.(1997). Howthe experience of early physical abuse leadschildren to become chronically aggressive. InD. Cicchetti & S. L.Toth (Eds.),Developmentalperspectives on trauma: Theory, research, andintervention (Vol. 8, pp. 262-288). Rochester,NY:Universityof Rochester.

Dodge, K.A., Pettit, G. 5., Bates, j. E., &Valente, E.(1995). Social information-processing patternspartially mediate the effect of early physicalabuse on later conduct problems. Journal ofAbnormaJPsychology, 704,632-643.

Dubow, E.F.,Roecker,C. E.,& D'imperio, R.(1997).Mental health. In R.T.Ammerman & M. Hersen(Eds.),Handbook of prevention and treatmentwith children and adolescents: Intervention in

the realworld context (pp. 259-286). New York:Wiley.

Dubow, E. F., Schmidt, D., McBride, J., Edwards,5., & Merk, F. L. (1993). Teaching childrento cope with stressful experiences: Initialimplementation and evaluation of a primaryprevention program. Journal of Clinical ChildPsychology,22, 428-440.

Durlak, j. A., Rubin, L. A., & Kahng, R. D. (2001).Cognitive behavioral therapy for childrenand adolescents with externalizing problems.Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 75,183-194.

Durlak, j. A., & Wells, A. M. (1998). Evaluation ofindicated preventive intervention (secondaryprevention) mental health programs forchildrenand adolescents.AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology,26,775-802.

Elias,M. )., Zins, j. E.,Weissberg, R. P., Frey,K. S.,Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., et al. (1997).Promoting social and emotional learning:Guidelines for educators. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervisionand CurriculumDevelopment.

Eran,L. D. (1994).Theoriesof aggression:Fromdrivesto cognitions.In L. R. Huesmann(Ed.),Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp.3-11). NewYork:Plenum.

Espelage,D. L.,Holt, M. K.,& Henkel, R. R.(2003).Examinationof peer-groupcontextual effectson aggression during early adolescence. ChildDevelopment, 74, 205-220.

Farrell,A. D., Meyer,A. L.,Kung,E.M., & Sullivan,1 N. (2001). Development and evaluation ofschool-hased prevention programs. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology,3D, 207-220.

Gaynor,S. T., Weersing, V. R., Kolko, D. j., Birmaher,B., Heo, j., & Brent, D. A. (2003).The prevalenceand impact of large sudden improvements

during adolescent therapy for depression: Acomparison acrosscognitive-hehavioral, family,and supportive therapy. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology,77, 386-393.

Guerra, N. G., & Huesmann, L. R. (2004). A

cognitive-ecological model of aggression.Revue Internationale de Psychologie Socia Ie, 2,177-204.

Guerra,N. G., Huesmann, L.R.,& Spindler,A. (2003).Community violence exposure,social cognition,and aggressionamong urban elementary-schoolchildren. Child Development, 74,1507-1522.

Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R., Tolan, P. H.,VanAcker, R., & Eron, L. D. (1995). Stressfulevents and individual beliefs as correlates of

economic disadvantage and aggressionamongurban children. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 63, 518-528.

Guerra, N. G., & Slaby, R. L. (1990). Cognitivemediators of aggressionin adolescentoffenders:II. Intervention. Developmental Psychology,26,269-277.

Hains, A. A. (1994). The effectivenessof a school-

based, cognitive-behavioral stressmanagementprogram with adolescents reporting high andlow levels of emotional arousal. The SchoolCounselor, 42, 114-125.

Haynes, S. N., & O'Brien, W. H. (1990). Functionalanalysis in behavior therapy. Clinical Psych-ology Review, 70, 649-668.

Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Bourduin,C. M., Rowland, M. D., & Cunningham, P. B.(1998). Multisystemic treatment of antisocialbehavior in children and adolescents. New York:Guilford.

Henry, D., Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R.,Tolan, P.,Van Acker, R., & Eron, L. D. (2000).Normativeinfluences on aggression in urban elementaryschool classrooms. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 28,59-81.

Huesmann, L. R., (1998). An information processingmodel for the development of aggression.Aggressive Behavior, 74, 13-24.

Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Childrens'

normative beliefs about aggression and

aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 72, 408-419.

Hughes, j. N., Cavell, T. A., & jackson, 1. (1999).Influence of the teacher-student relationshipon childhood conduct problems: A prospectivestudy. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28,173-184.

Hughes, ). N., Cavell, T. A., & Willson, V. (2001).Further support for the developmentalsignificance of the quality of the teacher-studentrelationship. Journal of School Psychology, 39,289-301.

Hunter, L., Elias, M. )., & Norris, j. (2001). School-

based violence prevention: Challenges andlessonslearned from an action researchproject.Journal of School Psychology,39, 161-175.

,:,.~

"II"I

InstituteofMedicine (1994).Reducingrisksformentaldisorders; Frontiers for preventive interventionresearch. Washington, DC: National Academy.

Kazdin, A. E., & Weisz, j. R. (2003). Evidence-based

psychotherapies for children and adolescents.New York: Guilford.

Lemerise, E.A, &Arsenio, W. F.(2000). An integratedmodel of emotion process and cognition in socialinformation processing. Child Development, 71,107-118.

Lochman, j. E., & lenhart, l. (1995). Cognitivebehavioral therapy of aggressive children: Effectof schemas. In H. P.van Bilsen, P. C. Kendall, &

j. H. Siavenburg (Eds.),Behavioral approachesfor children and adolescents: Challengesfor thenext century (pp. 144-166). New York: Plenum.

Metropolitan Area Child Study Research Group.(2002). A cognitive-ecological approach topreventing aggression in urban settings: Initialoutcomes for high-risk children. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 179-194.

Morrison, G. M., Furlong, M. J., & Morrison, R.l. (1994). School violence to school safety:Reframing the issue for school psychologists.School Psychology Review,23,236-256.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care inschools: An alternative approach to education.New York:TeachersCollege.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What weknow and what we can do. Malden, MA:Blackwell Publishers.

Orobio de Castro, B., Veerman, J. W., Koops, W.,Bosch, J. D., & Monshouwer, H. J. (2002).Hostile attribution of intent and aggressivebehavior: A meta-analysis.Child Devevlopment,73, 916-934.

I d'I, I,,..r,'1,11.1, ,

';'1

",

'II:Ii.:'.'III

III''_'I:r,., ,

'JII,",I'"

Reid, j. S., Eddy,j. M., Fetrow, R.A, & Stool miller, M.(1999). Description and immediate impacts of apreventive intervention for conduct problems.American Journal of Community Psychology,27,483-517.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, l. (1968).Pygmalion inthe classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils'intellectual development. New York: Holt,Reinhart, & Winston.

Schwartz, D. (2000). Subtypes of victims andaggressorsin children's peer groups. JournalofAbnormal Child Psychology,28, 181-192.

Singer, M. I., Anglin, T. M., Song, l., & lunghofer, l.(1995). Adolescents' exposure to violence andassociated symptoms of psychological trauma.Journal of the American Medical Association,273, 477-483.

Stormshak, E. A, Bierman, K. l., Bruschi, c.,Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Conduct ProblemsPrevention Research Group. (1999). Therelation between behavior problems and peerpreference in different classroom contexts.Child Development, 70, 169-182.

Sussman, S., Rohrbach, l., & Mihalic, S. (2004).Blueprints for violence prevention, Book Twelve:Project Towards No Drug Abuse. Boulder,CO: Center for the Study and Prevention ofViolence.

Tolan, P.H., & Guerra, N. G. (1994). Prevention of

delinquency: Current status and issues.Appliedand Preventive Psychology,3,251-273.

Yung, B., & Hammond, R. (1995). PACT: PositiveAdolescents Choices Training: A model forviolence prevention groups with African-American youth. Champaign, IL: ResearchPress.

"