Prevention of youth violence-what is learned can be unlearned

Full text

9
© South African Professional Society on the Abuse of Children ISSN 1562-1383
Child Abuse Research A South African Journal 2010, 11(2) 9-20
Prevention of youth violence – what is learned can be unlearned
Marelize Schoeman
Department of Criminology and security Science, College of Law, University of South Africa.
E-mail: schoemi@unisa.ac.za
The majority of young people in South Africa are repeatedly exposed to violence in their homes, at school, in
the communities where they live, as well as in the media. The normalisation of violence has become embedded
in many societies. Subsequently young people are more than likely to get caught up in the cycle of violence, as
victims and often also perpetrators of violence. This article presents a theoretical and empirical analysis of the
role that youth programmes can play in the prevention of youth violence and crime. An integrated theoretical
approach was followed making use of Bandura’s social learning theory of aggression and his social cognitive
theory. A quantitative study, more specifically evaluation research, was used to assess the effectiveness of
Khulisa Crime Prevention Initiative’s Silence the Violence programme. Findings from the study established that
this programme facilitates behaviour modification, thereby creating the opportunity for participants to learn
alternative non-violent behaviour patterns. The article concludes with a discussion of operational challenges
which hinders the implementation of youth violence prevention programmes.
INTRODUCTION
Worldwide children are raised in societies
characterised by the breakdown of family
systems, unemployment, high levels of
substance abuse and widespread violence.
Hence, many children are deprived of positive
role models that a pro-social community could
offer. In many societies crime and violence has
permeated areas, such as schools, homes,
shopping malls and public places, which
traditionally were perceived as “safe zones”
(Burton 2007:2). Research indicated that young
people who are exposed to violence are
themselves more likely to get caught up in the
cycle of violence, as victims and/or perpetrators
(Holtmann and Badenhorst 2010). Hence,
sadly, our youth have become more than mere
victims, in many cases, they are the perpetrators
of crime and violence.
Pavlov, Watson and Skinner, are early
learning theorists who laid the foundation for
the belief that people learned by observing
others (Shaffer 2009:292). Bandura elaborated
on the work of these theorists and developed
the social learning theory of aggression. He
focused on the interaction between the
environment, cognitions and attitudes and
proposed that aggression is learned through a
process of behaviour modeling (Shaffer
2009:292). The Blueprint for Violence
Prevention, that was developed by the Centre
for the Study of Prevention and Violence
(Siegel and Welsh 2008:424), postulates that
effective programmes can not only prevent
violence but can also be used to break
behavioural patterns associated with violent
behaviour. It can therefore be argued that what
is learned can be unlearned and new ways of
behaving can be adopted.
Youth violence is an internationally
recognised problem and highlights the
importance of prevention initiatives aimed at
the development of constructive alternatives for
“at risk” children before they are drawn into a
delinquent lifestyle. In this regard The National
Crime Prevention Strategy (1996) and The
White Paper for Social Welfare (1997)
emphasizes pro-active crime prevention as the
ideal, instead of reactive crime control. This
could be accomplished, according to these two
documents, by means of social development
programmes (Schoeman 2003:2). Against the
background of the ever continuing “what
works” debate and the search for “good
practices”, a theoretical and empirical analysis
of the role that youth programmes can play in
the prevention of crime and violence will be
discussed. Findings from an empirical study
which evaluated the effectiveness of the Silence
the Violence programme will be presented an
example of a prevention initiative which has
been proven to be effective in the prevention of
youth violence.
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
A large number of South African youth are
victims of violence, or are exposed to violence
on a daily basis (Burton 2008:xi-xii). Pelser
(2008:8) postulates that in general South
Africa’s youth has normalised illegitimate
means, such as crime and violence, as a method
to acquire status or to establish control over

Schoeman
10
their environment. A study exploring the causes
of xenophobia is an example of an instance
where violent behaviour is normalised.
In this study, participants explained that the
xenophobic attacks against Somalie
shopkeepers happened because “the people are
hungry” (Cooper 2009). According to Cooper
(2009) the term “hunger” was used
metaphorically and described their desire to
have luxury items, such as a cellphone,
television and car which they perceive the
Somalia shopkeepers to have. In this instance,
the resentment and frustration experienced by
these youths became an acceptable motive for
the violent attacks. Burton (2007:2) concurs,
stating that in South Africa youth violence has
become entrenched in society.
Principles for violent behaviour are set in
communities, households and the media and
encourage violent solutions to disagreements or
interpersonal tension. As a result, young people
learn to use violence pre-emptively (Bell
2007:111; Ward 2007:64). In many instances
violence has become a method of emotional
protection for today’s youth. People who are
constantly exposed to violence may adopt
violent methods themselves. In a study
conducted amongst 9 to 15 year old youths, it
was found that 30 to 40 percent of the children
who reported being exposed to violence,
display significant violent behaviour
themselves. (Siegel 2010:305).
Each society has a culture that embodies its
values, norms and beliefs. In violent societies,
the social hierarchy often supports the
formation of groups, which sustain a culture of
violence in society, such as gangs. It was
further found, that pre-violence attitudes of
influential figures, such as community leaders,
parents and peers contributed to the culture of
violence thus reinforcing the established values,
norms and beliefs (Swart and Bredekamp
2009:419). Therefore, in order to change the
behaviour of an individual you also need to
change the culture (e.g. values, norms and
believes) of society in general.
Effective prevention strategies need to be
based on a sound understanding of the risk
factors and social dynamics of the phenomenon
and should be validated by scientific research.
The first phase in the development of any crime
prevention initiative should be problem
identification and planning. O’Mahony
(2009:99) proposes that the most influential
studies in youth crime prevention are
longitudinal investigations conducted from
early childhood and retrospective cross-
sectional investigations.
Program evaluation is another important
factor to which attention should be given. In
this regard Frank (2003:24) stated that
organisations, such as NGO’s are not
committed to evaluate crime prevention
initiatives and programmes, and this presents
great problems for the construction of a
knowledge base that can be used by others.
Evaluation studies with a high methodical
rigour should be integrated in programme
development and implementation. The ability to
learn from other “good practices” is currently a
weakness in amongst others, crime prevention
initiatives (Frank 2003:24).
Nearly one-third (31.4%) of South Africa’s
population is under the age of 15 years
(Statistics South Africa 2009). In these phases
of development young people are still in a
process of social, emotional and cognitive
development. Hence, the potential exists to
change existing anti-social behaviour into pro-
social behaviour patterns. Furthermore article
28(2) of South Africa’s Constitution stipulates
that “A child’s best interests are of paramount
importance in every matter concerning the
child”. Developmental and preventative
initiatives which target South Africa’s youth,
should therefore not only be a priority but is
also vital for effective crime and violence
prevention.
In the majority of cases in South Africa,
oganisations in civil society, such as Khulisa
Crime Prevention initiative, take responsibility
for youth prevention interventions. These
organisations are dependent on funding from
government as well as other non-governmental
sources. The result is that projects are often
hampered by a lack in funding (Merrifield
2010).
Henceforth, a theoretical explanation to
substantiate the role youth programmes can
play in the prevention of crime and violence
will be discussed.
THEORETICAL EXPLANATION
For the purpose of this article an integrated
theoretical approach will be followed.
Integrated theories combine two or more
traditionally separate models to form one
unified explanatory theory (Tibbets and
Hemmens 2010:648). In this article Albert
Bandura’s social learning theory of aggression

Prevention of youth violence– what is learned can be unlearned
11
and his social cognitive theory will be utelised
to explain the process associated with learning
and unlearning of violent attitudes and
behaviour.
Bandura proposed that aggressive behaviour
is learned by means of the observation
of models of violence (Pajares 2002). He
explains psychological functioning through a
process called reciprocal determinism. This
method involves a process of sustained,
reciprocal interaction between behaviour,
cognitive and environmental influences.
Therapy and counseling are facilitated by the
reciprocal nature of these determinants of
human functioning (Pajares 2002). Bandura
emphasises the role that cognitive processes
play in the acquisition of behaviour (Tibbets
and Hemmens 2010:445-446). For the purpose
of this article processes associated with the
development as well as maintenance and re-
inforcement of violent behaviour is of
importance.
According to Bandura’s social learning
theory, aggressive behaviour is acquired by
means of family and sub-cultural influences,
symbolic modeling and direct experiences
(Tibbets and Hemmens 2010:446). Nucleus
families play an important role in the learning
of aggressive responses. It was found that
young people who display aggressive behaviour
often come from families in which aggressive
modeling takes place or from families which
support aggressive behaviour as a method of
conflict resolution (Burton 2008:xi-xii).
Sub-cultural influences refer to the influence
that larger systems have on the learning of
aggressive behaviour. Bandura (Shaffer
2009:308) postulates that the cultural values
and norms a society adheres to may generate
aggressive people, if a great deal of value is
attached to aggressive models, for example in
gangs, or if aggressive actions are rewarded.
Aggression in sports is an example of a
scenario where sub-cultural influences can
promote the learning of aggressive behaviour
patterns (Kreager 2007:705-724).
In many societies sport play an important role
in the hierarchal structure associated with status
in peer friendship systems. A good athlete is
generally respected by peers and in the local
community. In a school where sport, and more
specifically performance in sport, is idolised
students, regardless of their athleticism, tend to
orientate their behaviours toward these
activities. Students also tend to define their own
identities in relation to the most popular athletes
and the “popular” group (Kreager 2007:705). In
this instance, if physical aggression is
associated with success and it increases a
student’s status it might result in off-the field
violence.
This violence is often directed toward perceived
outsiders and “weaker” students. Consequently,
aggression in sport be-comes socially
acceptable resulting in coaches, peers, parents,
and the media reinforcing such behaviour
(Kreager 2007:705).
Symbolic modeling refers to the influence
which visual and written media has on the
learning of aggressive behaviour. Research
conducted on crime trends and strategies in the
future predict that technology will be the most
significant factor which will have an influence
on the nature of crime (Bell 2007:112). The
media frequently provide children with criminal
role models. This contributes to the
development and maintenance of pro-violence
norms which was found to increase the risk for
youth violence (Ward 2007:64, 65).
According to Bandura (Pajares 2002) patterns
of behaviour can furthermore be shaped by
means of reward and punishment. Through
direct experiences successful actions is
reinforced and unsuccessful actions eliminated.
Bandura also focused on the cognitive
processes involved in the learning of aggressive
behavior (Tibbets and Hemmens 2010:445,
446). For example, during the cognitive process
where victims try to understand their
victimisation they might come to the conclusion
that “violence is a necessary evil in the world”.
Subsequently, the victim might then also resort
to violence due to an internalisation of this
cognitive belief (Siegel 2010:304). Perpetrators
of violence living in society with pro-violent
values and norms might use similar cognitive
processes to rationalise their behaviour.
Bandura’s social learning theory also deals
with the maintenance and rein-forcement of
aggressive behavior (Pajares 2002). Aggressive
behaviour can firstly be maintained and
reinforced by means of direct external
reinforcement. In this instance a tangible
reward, such as social status, will increase the
likelihood of aggressive behaviour re-occuring
(Pajares 2002). In some instances, aggressive
behaviour might be inhibited if the victim
display signs of pain or injury. In South Africa,
where crimes are frequently characterised by
motiveless violence, it is hypothesised that the

Schoeman
12
violent nature of the crime may be ascribed to
offenders not having empathy or compassion
for victims. Research exploring the criminal
subculture concluded that in delinquent groups
members often exhibited a lack of compassion
and empathy for their victims (Burn & Brown
2006:230). This lack of empathy and
compassion suggests an inability to distinguish
between good and bad (Centre for the Study of
Violence and Reconciliation 1998). In this
instance aggressive behaviour is reinforced and
maintained by the pro-criminal values and
norms prevalent in this group.
Bandura proposes that the observation of
aggressive behaviour by others has the same
effect as the direct experience thereof (Tibbets
and Hemmens 2010:445, 446). Direct external
reinforcement refers to the phenomenon where
an observer will internalise aggressive
behaviour he or she is exposed to. In this
instance the communal ratification of violent
behaviour by others stimulate the learning of
similar behaviour. Contradictory, the
disapproval of the same behaviour will result in
the learning process being inhibited. An
example of this method of behaviour
reinforcement was discussed earlier in the
explanation of violence in sport (compare
Kreager 2007:705-724).
The third method of reinforcement Bandura
discusses is self-reinforcement (Tibbets and
Hemmens 2010:445, 446). In this instance
Bandura proposes that people act in order to
gain a sense of self-satisfaction and self-worth
(Pajares 2002). Self-reward will therefore
reinforce violent behaviour while self-
punishment will inhibit it. Perpetrators of
violence often develop mechanisms to
neutralise feelings of self-condemnation, such
as justification and rationalisation of their
aggression and dehumanising and blaming the
victim. These methods of neutralisation may
result in gradual desensitisation consequently
inhibiting self-condemnation and self-
punishment behaviour in perpetrators of
violence.
In terms of this article, the reciprocal
interaction between the acquiring of violent
behaviour and the maintenance and re-
enforcement thereof is of importance. The
cognitive processes associated with the learning
of aggressive behaviour and the subsequent
methods which could result in the inhibition of
aggressive behaviour will furthermore be
explored.
In the 1970’s Bandura developed the concept
self-efficacy which lies at the center of his
social cognitive theory (Bandura 1994). Self-
efficacy explores the role self-beliefs play in the
learning of behaviour. It represents people's
perceptions and conviction pertaining to the
goals they can achieve. A strong sense of
efficacy enhances a person’s ability to approach
difficult tasks as achievable challenges, rather
than view these tasks as threats which should be
avoided. People's beliefs relating to their
efficacy can be developed by four main sources
of influence, namely, personal experiences,
social modeling, social persuasion and the
modification of negative emotional cognitions
(Bandura 1994).
Bandura identified four processes for the
activation of efficacy, namely cognitive,
motivational, affective and selection processes
(Bandura 1994). In terms of cognitive processes
Bandura proposed that all action are initially
organised in a person’s thoughts. People’s
perception of their efficacy will thus influence
the pre-empted cognitive scenarios they
construct and rehearse. Consequently a high
sense of efficacy will result in the visualisation
of success thereby supporting the potential for
success. In contrast, persons who doubt their
efficacy tend to anticipate failure (Bandura
1994).
Personal beliefs of efficacy play a
fundamental role in the self-regulation of
motivation insofar that motivation is regulated
by personal beliefs and expectation. A direct
correlation between goal setting and motivation
was identified (Bandura 1994). In this regard it
was found that challenging goals enhance and
sustain a person’s motivation. Goal setting can
therefore act as a motivational method which
can be used in violence prevention
programmes.
Affective processes refer to the emotional
reaction to life’s challenges, such as stress and
depression (Bandura 1994). People with a low
level of self-efficacy might find it difficult to
exercise control over stressors which play a
central role in anxiety arousal. In this regard,
anxiety arousal is effected not only by a
person’s perceived coping efficacy but also by
the person’s cognitive processes. Behaviour
modification can therefore be achieved if
therapeutic interventions equip participants’
with skills to deal with and control
negative emotional reactions. According to
Meichenbaum (1977:218) behaviour change

Prevention of youth violence– what is learned can be unlearned
13
occurs through the interaction of inner speech,
cognitive structures and behaviours and their
ensuing outcomes. Behaviour change is thus not
only a cognitive process, but requires the
learning and integration of “new” behaviours as
well as behaviour patterns. Violence prevention
programmes should therefore include didactic
as well as experiential learning elements.
According to Bandura (1994) personal
efficacy also influences the type of activities a
person choose to take part in as well as the
environment a person chooses to function in.
This includes the selection of the social group a
person chooses to belong to. In terms of youth
violence, group aggression is often influenced
by societal norms and values as well as
environmental factors. Heleta (2007:5) is
of the opinion that the de-individualisation
processes within social groups could lessen the
awareness of personal normative concerns
and moral responsibility. De-individualisation
is associated with the anonymity a person
experiences within a larger group and the
adoption of the group’s values. Youth at Risk
interventions therefore needs to focus on the
improving of efficacy which consequently will
impact positively on youths’ pro-social
selection processes.
Bandura’s social cognitive theory, especially
the knowledge dealing with self-efficacy, is
widely used in behaviour modification therapy
(Corey 2008:236). The processes involved in
the building of efficacy are of importance for
this article. The discussion of Bandura’s two
theories illustrates processes that could be
associated with the learning and un-learning of
youth violence. The learning theory of
aggression focus on processes which relates to
the acquiring of violent behavior, while the
social cognitive theory centers on the
development of skills to inhibit harmful
behaviour, such as violence.
The social cognitive theory furthermore
proposes techniques for the development of
generic life skills to deal with life’s challenges
(Bandura 1994). Frustration is an example of a
frequently experienced emotion which could
result in aggressive behaviour. According to
Berkowitz (in Williams and Clippinger
2002:498) aggression and violence can be the
product of frustration due to unmet goals. In
this instance aggression is the response to
learned behaviour grounded in cognitive,
affective, and behavioural exchanges.
Aggressive behaviour patterns are reinforced
and sustained by values and norms supporting
the notion that aggression pays off and that
disputes can be settled, and gaols achieved, by
acting aggressively (Heleta 2007:8). Thus, if
therapeutic interventions teach participants how
to respond to frustration and substituted it with
a pro-social alternative, the aggressive response
cycle can be broken. It can therefore be
proposed that effective programmes targeting
youth violence has the potential not only to
prevent violence, but also to break behavioural
patterns associated with violent behaviour.
METHOD
As stated previously, the purpose of the article
is to do a theoretical and empirical analysis of
the role that youth programmes can play in the
prevention of youth violence and crime. A
study which was undertaken to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Silence the Violence
programme will be used to demonstrate how a
youth prevention programme can contributing
to a change in violent attitudes and associated
behaviour patterns.
For the purpose of this article it is
hypothesised that prevention of violence could
effectively prevent and change violent
behaviour amongst Youth at Risk, if the
participants’ cognitive processes in relation to
the causes and impact of violent behaviour are
changed. It is proposed that this will result in a
change in attitude and subsequent change in
behaviour patterns associated with violent
behaviour.
Evaluation research was used to assess the
effectiveness of the Silence the Violence
programmes in terms of the prevention of youth
violence. Programme evaluation has a
retrospective focus, and establishes the
outcomes, effect or impact of the programme by
observation or measurement (Terre Blanche,
Durrheim and Painter 2006:412). According to
Thomas (2009:123) evaluation studies should
ideally happen before, during and after the
programme. Thus, for the purpose of this
evaluation a quantitative approach with a pre-
test multiple post-test design was followed. The
design is similar to the one-group pre-test –
post-test design with the exception that more
than one post-test was conducted. The pre-test
was conducted before the programme
commenced, followed by a post-test after each
of the ten programme sessions. Findings from
the summative evaluation which examined
evidence based on indicators of programme

Schoeman
14
effectiveness are presented (Terre Blanche et al.
2006:412). The indicators of effectiveness
related to pro-social modification of
participants cognitive comprehension, attitude
and behaviours concerning violence.
Data collection took place by means of a
questionnaire. The sample consisted of
278 secondary school children between the ages
of 13 and 20 years from seven schools in the
Johannesburg and surrounding areas. These
schools were identified by The City of
Johannesburg in areas where problems are
experienced with youth violence and
delinquency. Fifty five percent (55%) of the
respondents were female and 45% male.
PROGRAMME SUMMARY
The Silence the Violence programme was
developed by Khulisa Crime Prevention
Initiative. The programme takes participants on
a journey of self-discovery in which
participants become aware of the extent and
origins of their own violence. Participants’
knowledge is developed in relation to the risk
and causative factors, as well as the social
dynamics of aggression and violent behaviour.
Participants are introduced to alternative and
more effective non-violent alternative
behaviours as well as assisted to develop
relevant life skills. The programme illustrates
how violence (physical, emotional and verbal)
is ingrained in culture and belief systems and
how it emerges in daily interactions.
Participants learn practical ways to minimise
violent behaviour. The programme furthermore
aims to empower participants to restore
themselves and develop the skills to restore
other relationships. As part of this programme,
participants confront their violent self and
discover their original or true self through a
series of facilitated therapeutic techniques.
Emphasis is placed on relapse prevention thus
equipping participants with skills to maintain
their newly acquired pro-social behaviours
(Minnaar 2010).
The programme has been presented in South
African schools to 2090 youths during the
2009/2010 financial year. It was also presented
in the United Kingdom to amongst others
25 youths in youth offender facilities
(Merrifield 2010).
Discussion and findings
As stated previously, the research consisted of a
pre-test, which was completed before the group
commenced followed by a post-test after each
of the ten session. The pre-test acted as the
baseline against which findings from the post-
tests were compared. The following concepts
were measured:
Social value perspectives towards violence
and violent behaviour.
Personal attitudes towards violence and
violent behaviour.
Attitude towards life and future perspective.
Social value perspectives towards
violence and violent behaviour
Social value perspectives are value judgements
based on attitudes and behaviour which is
deemed to be acceptable or unacceptable in a
society. These perceptions are often rooted in
cultural-, gender- and/or community-based
norms and beliefs.
Statement 1
It is ok for the poor to steal from the rich Pre-test Post-test
Session 1
Never 70.8 71.6
Sometimes 20.1 20.2
Half of the time 4.5 4.6
Often 1.3 1.8
Always 3.2 1.8
The majority of the respondents 70.8% (pre-
test) and 71.6% (session 1 post-test) indicated
that it is “never” acceptable for the poor to steal
from the rich. In contrast, more than a quarter
of the respondents (pre- and post-test) indicated
that it is “sometimes” to “always” acceptable
for the poor to steal from the rich. This pro-
criminal belief is an example of a value system
which could have developed from family and
sub-cultural influences as well as symbolic
modeling (compare Siegel and Welsh
2009:131). Tshivula (1998:18) associates this
type of attitude with perceived entitlement
which, according to her, is a risk factor
associated with crime and delinquency in South
Africa
Statement 2
It is OK for a man to hit his girlfriend or
wife if she does not listen to him Pre-test Post-test
Session 1
Never 74.8 75.0
Some imes 17.0 17.0
Half of the time 3.1 3.6
Often 4.4 4.5
Always .6 0
Nearly a quarter (pre- and post-test) of the
respondents indicated that it is “sometimes” to
“always” acceptable for a man to hit his
girlfriend or wife if she does not listen to him.
This perception most probably emanates from
an archaic male dominated belief system which
found it acceptable for a man to physically
punish his wife. Even though in the minority,

Prevention of youth violence– what is learned can be unlearned
15
such beliefs are alarming set against the
background of South Africa’s high rate of
gender-based and domestic violence. Similar to
the previous questions, a slight positive change
in attitude can be observed after the first
session.
Statement 3
It is OK to use force or violence to get
what you want Pre-test Post test
Session 1
Never 72.0 75.9
Sometimes 18.6 18.8
Half of the time 3.1 3.6
Often 3.7 1.8
Always 2.5 0.0
The majority of respondents (72% pre-test and
75.9% session 1 post-test) indicated that it is
“never” acceptable to use force or violence to
get what you want. A significant change in
attitude can be noted between the pre-test
assessment and the evaluation (post-test) done
after session 1. Notwithstanding this, it is still
concerning to note that nearly 25% (session 1
post-test) of the respondents are of the opinion
that it is “sometimes” to “always” acceptable to
use violence to get what you want.
Findings from the statements above reflect a
general attitude of self entitlement and
disrespect for other people’s rights. Similar
findings from various youth studies (Philp
2009) concluded that the prevailing anti-social
value system are created by bad parenting,
poverty, poor role models and materialism
which subsequently increasing the risk of youth
delinquency. According to Ward (Philp 2009)
these youths develop a materialistic driven self-
identity where materialistic possessions play a
fundamental role in their acceptance and status
within a peer group. In this regard self-
entitlement is a cognitive distortion which
might result in offenders perceiving their
desires and beliefs as paramount while victims’
rights are perceived as secondary. Feelings of
self-entitlement are furthermore linked with a
lack in the ability to display empathy (Burn &
Brown 2006:230). Pelser (2008:13) is of the
opinion that crime prevention initiatives which
target youth at risk is only effective, if elements
which focus on the development of an empathy
is included.
Findings from session 1 to 3 point to a slight
positive change in attitude which can be
associated with the development of knowledge
and change in cognitions relating to violence
and violent behavior. Even though this change
is minor it is positive to note that the
change occurred after only the first session of
the programme.
Statement 4
It is OK to play music loudly late at night Pre-test Post test
Session 1
Never 47.5 52.7
Some imes 35.4 32.7
Half of the time 8.2 5.5
Often 1.9 3.6
Always 7.0 5.5
Even though the majority of respondents, in
both the pre- and post-test, were of the opinion
that it is never acceptable to play music loudly
late at night, it is interesting to note the
statistical difference between the pre-test
(47.5%) and the post-test (52.7%). This could
be ascribed to the development of knowledge
and insight into the conceptual ideas which
underpin violence and aggression. In general,
participants perceive violence as limited to
physical and verbal aggression. The programme
succeeded in changing participants cognitions
in relation to how violence (physical, emotional
and verbal) is ingrained in culture and belief
systems and how it emerges in daily
interactions.
Statement 5
People who do not fight back if
someone threatens or hurts them are
sissies and weak
Pre-test Post test
session 1
Never 54.7 63.1
Sometimes 25.2 26.1
Half of the time 8.8 6.3
Often 6.3 3.6
Always 5.0 .9
Findings from this question are evenly
distributed. During the pre-test, a slight
majority of respondents (54.7%) indicated that
if people do not retaliate after a threat or
violence this is not an indication that they are
“sissies” or weak. In contrast, 44.3% were of
the opinion that not retaliating if you are
threatened or victimized is a sign of weakness.
Research conducted on peer victimisation in
schools, found that the reasons for school
violence were predominantly of an egocentric
nature, namely the aggressor’s desire to show
their dominance, for the fun of it and as
retaliatory behaviour (Prinsloo and Neser,
2007:51). This is an example of a stereotype
belief that could contribute to violence. In this
regard peer relationships were found to play
central roles in the learning of aggressive
behaviour patterns, particularly during
adolescent years (Kreager 2007). In some
instances nonaggressive individuals, when
under pressure from a group, could act
aggressively and violently, especially in the
case of young people who do not want to be

Schoeman
16
seen as weak in the eyes of their friends (Heleta
2007:6).
Similar to the previous statement, a change in
respondents’ perceptions (from 54.7% pre-test
to 63.1 % post-test) can be noted, indicating the
development of knowledge and understanding
of the interactional processes associated with
violent cognitions. In accordance with
Bandura’s social learning theory of aggression,
this is an example where behaviour
modification occurred through the interaction of
inner speech, cognitive structures and
behaviours (Bandura 1994). This consequently
resulted in a change in attitude and behavioural
outcomes.
As stated previously, violent behaviour
frequently emanates from cultural values and
norms where aggressive behaviour is accepted
and often rewarded (Burton 2008:xi-xii). In
South Africa, which is a predominant male
dominated society, cultural values dictate male
stereotype role expectations. Males are viewed
as dominant members in society and power
relations are frequently upheld by violence.
Beliefs associated with cultural norms and
values can result in the development of
cognitive distortions which can be linked to
youth violence (Stuijt 2009). In this regard
Lambert, Hogan, Barton and Stevenson
(2007:3) found that violence prevention
initiatives which target Youth at Risk are
effective if it focuses on cognitive distortions
and perpetrator’s lack in empathy.
Notwithstanding this, it is positive to note that
the change in respondents’ cognitions and
attitude already took place after only one
session. Changing ingrained cognitive
perceptions, especially those linked to cultural
norms and values in a society, is not an
effortless process (Siegel and Welsh 2009:
132-133). In order to achieve change in an
individual, you also need to change the culture
(e.g. values, norms and believes) of society in
general. Programmes targeting the youth are a
good starting point to set this change process in
motion, because as stated previously, South
Africa’s youth constitute a substantial
proportion of the general population (Statistics
South Africa 2009).
Personal attitudes towards violence and
violent behaviour
In accordance with Bandura (Pajares 2002)
aggressive behaviour is learned by means of the
observation of, and interaction with models of
violence. Individuals, especially young people
who are exposed to these models of violence,
tend to integrate the values and norms which
then manifest in their behaviour patterns. The
following statements focus on this part of the
learning process and explore respondents’
personal attitudes to violence and violent
behaviour.
Statement 6
I act in a violent manner (e.g. cursing,
hitting, shouting and breaking things) Pre-test Post test
Session 1
Never 58.9 55.5
Sometimes 29.1 33.6
Half of the time 3.8 4.5
Often 6.3 6.4
Always 1.9 0
In the pre-test 41.1 % of the respondents and
44.5% in the post-test acknowledged that they
“sometimes” to “often” act in a violent manner.
Statement 7 Pre-test
I hit/bullied
someone before
Session 10
I am still violent/
abusive towards other
people
Never 48.1 42.9
Sometimes 31.3 37.1
Half of the time 7.5 1.4
Often 7.5 14.3
Always 5.6 4.3
In contrast to statement 6, more respondents in
statement 7 indicated that they act in a violent
manner (pre-test 51.9% and the session 10 post-
test 57.1%). The statistical higher number in
statement 7 could be ascribed to the fact that
learning took place and that respondents
understand which actions amount to violent
behaviour. This concurs with findings in
statements 4 and 5. Accountability for personal
behaviour, as stated previously, is strongly
emphasised in the Silence the Violence
programme. The fact that respondents are
willing to acknowledge their own violent
behavior, furthermore indicates that they
developed the skills to show empathy and
understand the impact their behaviour has on
others.
Statement 9
I have a violent side Pre-test Post-test
Session 1
Never 49.4 40.5
Some imes 26.9 36.0
Half of the time 11.9 13.5
Often 6.3 5.4
Always 5.6 4.5
The term “violent side” was explained to the
respondents as representing attitudes and
behaviour which might result in physical,
emotional and/or verbal violence. In retrospect,
59.5% indicated that they have a violent side as
compared to the pre-test where only 50.1%
acknowledged that they are “sometimes” to
“always” violent. Similarly to previous

Prevention of youth violence– what is learned can be unlearned
17
statements, findings indicated that the
respondents developed an understanding of
their personal attitudes and behaviour.
Statement 10
My life is similar to what happens in the cycle of
violence
Post-test
session 2
Never 22.8
Sometimes 42.1
Half of the time 19.3
Often 7.0
Always 8.8
The theory of violence, which includes the
cycle of violence, was discussed during
session 2. Seventy-seven percent (77.2%) of
respondents are of the opinion that their lives
are “sometimes” to “always” similar to the
cycle of violence. During this session, the
respondents became aware of the interactional
relationship between being a victim and the
perpetrators of violence and the influence
aggressive modeling can have on their own
behaviour and attitudes (compare Siegel
2010:305, Bandure 1994 & Kreager 2007:705).
Findings from the statements in this section
can be explained from the context of Bandura’s
reciprocal determinism. The process of
sustained, reciprocal interaction between
behaviour, cognitive and environmental
influences reinforce behaviour that were
perceived as socially acceptable. The
introduction of respondents to an alternative
pro-social set of beliefs, such as being done in
the Silence the Violence programme, alter their
pre-empted cognitive scenarios consequently
impacting on personal attitudes and behaviours.
This draws attention to the importance of
concentrating on cognitive distortions in
programmes which focus on youth violence
(Pelser 2008:13).
Attitude towards life and future
perspective
Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory
emphasises the role self-efficacy can play in the
learning of behaviour. As stated previously,
self-efficacy relates to people's perceptions of
the goals they can achieve and their ability to
deal with difficult tasks (Burger 2008:380).
Perceived efficacy is of importance because it
has an influence on a person’s attitude towards
their own life and future perspective. A positive
future perspective is of importance for the
development of a person’s self-concept. It is
furthermore an important attribute for personal
development. In contrast, people with a
pessimistic future perspective often find it
difficult to cope with negative elements in their
circumstances. They tend to feel helpless and
not in control of their lives and circumstances
(Faul & Hanekom 2002).
Statement 11
What I want in life is outside of my reach Pre-test Post test
Session 1
Never 33.8 44.7
Sometimes 30.4 25.2
Half of the time 12.8 7.8
Often 10.8 9.7
Always 12.2 12.6
The majority of respondents (66.2% pre-test
and 55.3% post-test) are of the opinion that
what they want in life is “sometimes” to
“always” out of their reach. Similar to this,
findings from statement 12 also reflect low
levels of efficacy.
Statement 12
It is easy for other people to get what
they want Pre-test Post-test
Session 1
Never 13.8 11.2
Sometimes 46.1 60.7
Half of the time 16.4 12.1
Often 11.2 8.4
Always 12.5 7.5
The majority of respondents (86.2% pre-test
and 88.8% post-test) were of the opinion that it
is “half of the time” to “always” easier for other
people to get what they want. Findings from
both these statements reflect a low level of
efficacy which can be associated with a more
pessimistic future perspective.
In contrast, the following statement shows
that the Silence the Violence programme
assisted respondents to developed higher levels
of efficacy.
Statement 13
I can break my own cycle of violence Session 10
Never 16.9
Sometimes 33.8
Half of the time 5.6
Often 9.9
Always 33.8
Nearly 50% of respondents are of the opinion
that they are “half of the time” to “always” able
to break their own cycle of violence, while
33.8% indicated that they are “sometimes” able
to break their own cycle of violence.
Statement 14
I can change the bad things in my life into good
things Session 10
Never 2.7
Sometimes 30.1
Half of the time 4.1
Often 15.1
Always 47.9
It is positive to note that the majority of
respondents (97.3%) indicated that they can
change the bad things in their lives into good
things. Findings from these two statements
reflect a more positive future perspective. It can
therefore be concluded that the programme

Schoeman
18
content assisted respondents to develop a higher
levels of self-efficacy. This is of importance
because a strong sense of efficacy enhances a
person’s perception and ability to approach
difficult tasks as achievable challenges which is
essential for personal development (Bandura
1994).
Statement 15
People tell me I have changed since I started the
programme Session 6
Never 9 8
Sometimes 34.8
Half of the time 13.0
Often 18.5
Always 23.9
Ninety percent (90.2%) of the respondents
indicated that other people told them they have
changed since they started the programme.
Positive feedback act to reinforce behavior,
which in this instance will enforce the pro-
social attitudes and behaviour learned during
the programme.
DISCUSSION
Findings from the programme evaluation found
that the Silence the Violence programme can be
effectively used as an early prevention
programme to address violence and violent
behaviour amongst youths. The programme is
effective, because it facilitates cognitive
development and creates opportunities for the
participants to be exposed to alternative pro-
social learning experiences. Didactic and
experiential learning elements are used to
replace violent cognitions and attitudes with
pro-social alternatives, thus empowering the
respondent with the knowledge on how to make
non-violent decisions.
Even though the Silence the Violence
programme is an example of only one
programme that is successfully used as an early
violence prevention initiative, valuable lessons
can be learned from it. In the first instance this
programme acts as an example of a good
practice based on its theoretical foundation. Its
effectiveness has furthermore been established
through national and international programme
evaluations (Minnaar 2010). Both these factors
are central in assuring the efficiency of
prevention programmes as well as the
replication of services. Regrettably, few service
providers to youth at risk are committed to the
scientific development and/or evaluation of
prevention initiatives (Frank 2003:24).
The Silence the Violence programme is
furthermore an example of a violence
prevention programme which make use of
behaviour modification techniques to respond
to aggressive attitudes and behaviour which has
been acquired through a process of social
learning. Findings from this study concur with
Bandura’s social learning theory of aggression
behaviour which proposes that behavior
modification can be achieved though reciprocal
determinism by making use of the interaction
processes between behaviour, cognitive and
environmental influences (Pajares 2002).
Didactic and experiential learning can be used
to inhibit pro-violent behaviours and attitudes
as well as to reinforce pro-social conduct and
mind-sets.
The social cognitive theory proposes making
use of techniques for the development of
generic life skills in order to heighten efficacy
(Corey 2008:236). In this instance the Silence
the Violence programme introduces participants
to alternative non-violent behaviours to deal
with daily challenges, such as frustrations and
the achievement of goals. The programme also
includes relationship building skills, thus
equipping participants with skills to develop
and restore relationships.
CONCLUSION
Youth violence is an internationally recognised
problem and highlights the importance of early
prevention initiatives. Even though The
National Crime Prevention Strategy (1996) and
The White Paper for Social Welfare (1997)
emphasise the importance of pro-active crime
prevention the implementation of such
initiatives are the exception rather than the rule.
The responsibility for youth prevention
initiatives in South Africa is mostly taken on by
organisations in civil society. These initiatives
are frequently hampered by a lack in funding.
Furthermore, various studies have been done to
explore the causes and effects of youth violence
as well as to propose possible solutions, but
very few studies in which current practices are
evaluated (compare Burton 2008; Pelser 2008;
Burton 2007; Hu & Salie-Kagee 2007;
Leoschut 2006). This consequently limits the
possibility to replicate “good practices”. It is
such factors that have become stumbling blocks
in the implementation of youth violence and
crime preventions initiatives.
Article 28(2) of South Africa’s Constitution
stipulates that “A child’s best interests are of
paramount importance in every matter
concerning the child”. Even though research,

Prevention of youth violence– what is learned can be unlearned
19
such as presented in this article, gives evidence
of the benefits of programmes which focus on
violence prevention can hold for South Africa’s
youth, organisational realities and practices
often deprive them of these opportunities.
Leonard Eron (Heleta 2007:11) however
states that “what is learned can be unlearned
and new ways of behaving can be adopted”.
The potential and means to pro-actively address
youth violence in South Africa exists. In
practice, the challenge lies in overcoming the
stumbling blocks on operational level. In this
regard it is practitioners’ and youth workers’
responsibility to translate South Africa’s
Constitution into actions and thereby ensure
that the best interest of each child remains a
priority.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. 1994. Self-efficacy. Available at: http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/BanEncy.html
(accessed 6 July 2010).
Bell, K. 2007. Youth crime and violence. Commonwealth Youth and Development 5(1).
Burn, MF & Brown, S. 2006. A review of the cognitive distortions in child sex offenders: An
explanation of the motivations and mechanisms that underlie the justification for abuse. Aggression
and Violent Behaviour, May-June 11(3):225-236.
Burton, P. 2007. Someone stole my smile. An Exploration into the Causes of Youth Violence in South
Africa. CSVR Publication.
Burton, P. 2008. Merchants, Skollies and Stones. Expereinces of School Vioence in South Africa.
Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention. Monograph series No 4.
Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation. 1998. Into the Heart of Darkness: Journeys of
the Amagents in crime, violence and death. CSIR. Available at:
http://www.csvr.org.za/wits/paper/papcsir.htm (accessed 2 July 2010).
Cooper, A. 2009. “Let us eat airtime”: youth identity and xenophobic violence in a low-income
neighbourhood in Cape Town. Centre for Social Science Research. Available at:
http://www.cssr.uct.ac.za/publications/working-paper/2009/565 (accessed on 1 July 2010).
Corey, G. 2009. Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psycho-Therapy. Thomson.
Department of Correctional Services. Statistics. Available at: http://www.dcs.gov.za/WebStatistics/
(accessed 1 July 2010).
Faul, AC & Hanekom, AJ. 2002 Assessment – An introduction to ecometric scales. Potchefstroom:
Perspektief Training College.
Frank, C. 2003. What have we learned? Social crime prevention in SA: A critical overview. SA Crime
Quarterly 621-26.
Heleta, S. 2007. Human Aggression: Pre-disposed or Learned? Available at:
http://www.savoheleta.com/Human_Aggression_Pre-isposed_or_Learned_by_Savo_Heleta.pdf
(accessed 30 June 2010).
Holtmann, B, Badenhorst, C. 2010. Policing and Community in South Africa, Policy Brief Series, 7,
April, Global Consortium on Security Transformation. Available at:
http://www. securitytransformation.org/gc_publications.php (accessed 30 June 2010).
Hu, L & Salie-Kagee, M. 2007. Working with Boys on Crime Prevention: Evidence-based Research.
Available at: http://www.rapcan.org.za/File_uploads/Resources/ Working_with_boys_on_crime_
prevention1.pdf (accessed 21 July 2010)
Kreager, DA. 2007. Unnecessary Roughness? School Sports, Peer Networks, and Male Adolescent
Violence. American Sociological Review, October 72(5):705-724.
Lambert, EG, Hogan, NL, Barton, S & Stevenson, MT. 2007. An evaluation of CHANGE, a pilot
prison cognitive treatment program. Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis, 5(1):1-17.
Leoschut, L. 2006. Double trouble. Youth from violent families: easy victims of crime? SA Crime
Quarterly, June 16:7-11.
Meichenbaum, D. 1977. Cognitive Behaviour Modification. An integrative approach. Plenum Press.
Merrifield, M. 2010. Khulisa Crime Prevention Initiative. Personal Interview. 20 July.

Schoeman
20
Minnaar, N. 2010. Khulisa Crime Prevention Initiative. Personal Interview. 20 July.
O’Mahony, P. 2009. The Risk Factor Prevention Paradigm and Causes of Youth Crime: A
Deceptively Useful Analysis. Youth Justice 9(2):99-114.
Pajares, F. 2000. Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Available at:
http://www.emory. edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html (accessed 3 July 2010).
Pelser, E. 2008. Learning to be Lost: Youth Crime in South Africa. Discussion Paper for the HSCR
Youth Policy Initiative, Reserve Bank, Pretoria. 13 May.
Philp, R. 2009. Children with no values a ‘ticking time bomb’ Child violence experts point to bad
parenting, drug and alcohol abuse, ‘rampant materialism’. Available at:
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article82150.ece/Children-with-no-values-a-ticking-time-
bomb (accessed 11 July 2010).
Prinsloo, J & Neser, J. 2007. Operational assessment areas of verbal, physical and relational peer
victimisation in relation to the prevention of School violence in public schools in Tshwane South.
Acta Criminologica 20(3):46-60.
Rauch, J. 1996. The 1996 National Crime Prevention Strategy. Centre for the Studies of Violence and
Reconciliation. Available at: http://www.csvr.org.za/docs/urbansafety/1996nationalcrime.pdf
(accessed 3 July 2010).
Schaffer, DR. 2009. Social and Personality Development. Wadsworth.
Schoeman, MI. 2003. A classification system and an inter-disciplinary action plan for the prevention
and management of recidivism. Unpublished dissertation: University of Pretoria.
Siegel, LJ. 2010. Criminology: The Core. Wadsworth.
Siegel, LJ & Welsh, BC. 2009. Juvenile Delinquency. Theory, Practice and Law. Wadsworth.
Statistics South Africa. 2009. Mid-year populationestimates. Available at:
http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0302/P03022009.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2010).
Stuijt, A. 2009. Gang rape: A youth cult in South African townships. Digital Journal. Available at:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/264956. (accessed on 5 July 2010).
Swart, E & Bredekamp, J. 2009. Non-physical bullying: exploring the perspective of Grade 5 girls.
South African Journal of Education, August 29(3):405-425.
Terre Blanche, M, Durrheim, K & Painter, D. (Ed) 2006. Research in Practice. Applied methods for
the social sciences. University of Cape Town Press.
Thomas, G. 2009. How to do your research project. SAGE Publications.
Tibbets, SG. & Hemmens, C. 2010. Criminological Theory. A Text/Reader. SAGE Publications.
Tshiwula, L. 1998. Crime and Delinquency. Pretoria: Kagiso.
Ward, CL. 2007. ‘It feels like the end of the world’: Cape Town’s youth talk about violence and gang
and community violence. Institute for Security Studies Monographs, July 136.
Williams, RB & Clippinger, CA. 2002. Aggression, competition and computer games: computer and
human opponents. Computers in Human Behavior, September 18(5):495-506.