Content uploaded by G. Roy Mayer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by G. Roy Mayer on Nov 21, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
JOURNAL
OF
APPLIED
BEHAVIOR
ANALYSIS
PREVENTING
ANTISOCIAL
BEHAVIOR
IN
THE
SCHOOLS
G.
RoY
MAYER
CALIFORNIA
STATE
UNIVERSITY,
LOS
ANGELES
Multiple
correlates
and
determinants
of
antisocial
behavior
within
the
home,
community,
and
school
are
reviewed.
Due
to
the
school's
pivotal
role
in
our
society,
an
emphasis
is
placed
on
how
our
schools
contribute
to
antisocial
behavior,
and
what
educators
can
do
to
prevent
anti-
social
behavior
and
related
attendance
problems.
A
variety
of
contextual
factors
and
setting
events
within
our
schools
appear
to
be
major
contributors
to
antisocial
behavior,
and
some
of
the
same
factors
identified
within
the
schools
also
have
been
identified
within
the
home.
These
setting
events,
rather
than
quick
restrictive
fixes,
must
be
given
more
attention
if
we
are
to
provide
safe
school
environments-environments
that
durably
prevent
antisocial
behavior
and
related
attendance
problems.
DESCRIPTORS:
school
environment,
violence
prevention,
setting
events,
antisocial
behav-
ior,
school
dropout
prevention
"More
than
25,000
Americans
are
murdered
each
year"
(American
Psychological
Association
Commission
on
Violence
and
Youth,
1993,
p.
13).
According
to
the
Los
Angeles
Police
De-
partment's
report
("Anatomy
of
a
Plague,"
1994)
on
violent
crimes
during
1993,
there
were
38,174
robberies,
1,058
murders,
1,808
rapes,
and
42,633
aggravated
assaults
just
with-
in
the
city
of
Los
Angeles.
It
is
no
surprise
then
that
our
prisons
and
jails
are
overcrowded.
"To-
day,
2.2%
of
all
Californians
over
18
are
in
jail
or
prison,
or
on
probation
or
parole"
(Beck-
lund,
1992,
p.
B12).
It
is
adolescents,
particu-
larly
boys,
who
commit
higher
rates
of
crime
than
any
other
age
group
(U.S.
Department
of
Justice,
Federal
Bureau
of
Investigation,
1989).
Even
more
disturbing
is
the
fact
that
young
children
are
increasingly
involved
in
deadlier
crimes.
There
has
been
a
significant
increase
in
juvenile
crime
in
the
most
serious
categories:
murder,
rape,
robbery,
and
aggravated
assault.
For
example,
in
the
past
a
majority
of
cases
in
New
York
City's
Family
Court
were
misde-
meanors;
today
more
than
90%
are
felonies
(Lacayo,
1994).
Homicide
by
youngsters
ages
10
to
14
rose
from
194
to
301
between
1988
and
1992
(Lacayo,
1994).
To
further
attest
to
Address
correspondence
and
reprint
requests
to
the
au-
thor
at
10600
Pinyon
Ave.,
Tujunga,
California
91042.
the
more
violent
nature
of
our
youths'
behavior,
Susan
R.
Winfield,
who
presides
over
the
Fam-
ily
Division
of
the
Washington,
D.C.,
Superior
Court,
states,
"Youngsters
used
to
shoot
each
other
in
the
body.
Then
in
the
head.
Now
they
shoot
each
other
in
the
face"
(Lacayo,
1994,
p.
61).
This
kind
of
antisocial
behavior
is
reported
to
be
most
acute
among
urban,
lower
class
mi-
nority
youth
(Elliott
&
Ageton,
1980).
Yet,
as
the
APA's
Commission
on
Violence
and
Youth
points
out,
"violence
is
most
prevalent
among
the
poor,
regardless
of
race"
(1993,
p.
23).
Antisocial
adults
commonly
develop
from
youths
who
drop
out
of
school
and
engage
in
antisocial
behavior
(Heller
&
Ehrlich,
1984;
Henggeler,
Melton,
&
Smith,
1992).
About
one
third
of
the
youth
in
our
country
drop
out
rath-
er
than
graduate
from
high
school
(National
Dropout
Prevention
Center,
1992).
Along
with
our
high
dropout
rate
and
recent
Los
Angeles
riots,
our
overcrowded
prisons
are,
for
the
most
part,
a
reflection
of
the
degree
to
which
our
society
has
failed
with
a
large
percentage
of
our
human
resources.
In
this
paper
I
address
what
can be
done
to
prevent
antisocial
behavior,
defined
here
as
"re-
current
violations
of
socially
prescribed
patterns
of
behavior"
(Simcha-Fagen,
Langner,
Gersten,
&
Eisenberg,
1975,
p.
7),
usually
involving
ag-
gression,
vandalism,
rule
infractions,
defiance
of
467
1995,
28.
467-478
NUMBER4
(WINTER
1995)
G.
ROYMAYER
adult
authority,
and
violation
of
the
social
norms
and
mores
of
society.
Students
who
ex-
hibit
chronic
patterns
of
antisocial
behavior
fre-
quently
are
characterized
by
clinicians
as
having
oppositional
disorders
or
conduct
disorders
(Horne
&
Sayger,
1990;
Kazdin,
1987).
I
also
review
possible
determinants
of
anti-
social
behavior
that
exist
within
the
home,
the
community,
and
especially
the
school.
As
the
APA's
Commission
on
Violence
and
Youth
(1993)
has
pointed
out,
the
school
must
play
a
critical
part
and
become
a
leading
force
in
any
comprehensive
plan
to
prevent
violence.
The
commission
recommended
that
school-based
interventions
be
developed
"to
help
schools
pro-
vide
a
safe
environment
and
effective
programs
to
prevent
violence"
(p.
7).
Reasons
for
this
rec-
ommendation
appear
to
be
that
youngsters
are
2.5
times
"more
likely
to
be
victims
of
violent
crimes
than
those
over
the
age
of
20
..
.;
much
of
this
violence
occurs
around
schools"
(p.
42);
and,
because
the
school
is
called
on
more
and
more
to
meet
the
various
needs
of
both
the
family
and
community,
its
function
is
increas-
ingly
central
to
our
society.
The
focus
of
this
paper,
then,
is
to
what
degree
do
our
schools
contribute
to
antisocial
behavior,
and
what
can
educators
do
to
help
prevent
antisocial
behav-
ior?
Research
findings
are
summarized
and
rec-
ommendations
are
presented.
CORRELATES
OF
ANTISOCIAL
BEHAVIOR
Investigators
generally
agree
that
there
are
multiple
determinants
of
antisocial
behavior
(e.g.,
Henggeler
et
al.,
1992;
Lipsey,
1992;
To-
lan,
Cromwell,
&
Brasswell,
1986).
Henggeler
(1989),
for
example,
argued
that
the
primary
reason
for
the
historically
poor
results
of
delin-
quency
treatment
studies,
and
for
delinquency's
stability
across
generations,
may
be
that
the
in-
terventions
used
in
these
studies
have
addressed
only
a
small
number
of
the
factors
that
con-
tribute
to
a
particular
youth's
antisocial
behav-
ior.
Certainly,
some
approaches
to
treating
an-
tisocial
behavior
appear
to
be
more
promising
than
others.
For
example,
Lipsey
(1992)
re-
ported
a
meta-analysis
in
which
he
reviewed
more
than
500
control
and
comparison
group
delinquency
treatment
studies.
He
found
that
the
least
successful
treatment
approaches
appear
to
be
traditional
counseling,
psychotherapy,
or
case
work
(individual,
family,
group,
vocational,
etc.),
and
that
some
deterrence
programs
(e.g.,
shock
incarceration)
produce
increased
delin-
quency.
Similarly,
attempts
to
get
tough
on
criminals
have
failed
to
lower
the
crime
rate.
For
example,
Becklund
reported
that
In
California
alone,
more
than
1,000
laws
were
passed
between
1984
and
1991
that
changed
felony
and
misdemeanor
statutes,
most
of
them
in
the
name
of
cracking
down
on
criminals....
Such
laws
have
re-
quired
the
building
of
new
prisons
and
have
vastly
increased
penal
costs
but
have
failed
to
significantly
decrease
crime
rates.
...
Each
new
prison
guard
may
mean
one
less
teacher
and
every
new
jail
cell
one
less
gang
prevention
counselor.
(1992,
p.
B12)
Increased
rates
of
delinquency
and
crime
as
a
result
of
deterrence
programs
come
as
no
sur-
prise.
Research
has
taught
us
that
punishment,
or
aversive
environments,
predictably
set
the
stage
for
aggression,
violence,
vandalism,
and
escape
(Azrin,
Hake,
Holz,
&
Hutchinson,
1965;
Berkowitz,
1983;
Hutchinson,
1977).
In
schools,
escape
takes
the
form
of
tardiness,
tru-
ancy,
and
dropping
out.
As
Lipsey
(1992)
points
out,
the
approaches
that
have
shown
promise
in
preventing
and
treating
antisocial
behavior
are
"more
structured
and
specific,
e.g.,
behavioral
or
skill-training,"
(p.
12)
and
focus
on
multiple
correlates
and
determinants
that
exist
in
the
family,
peer
groups,
community,
and
school
(Elliott,
Hui-
zinga,
&
Ageton,
1985;
Fagan
&
Wexler,
1987;
Henggeler,
1989;
Henggeler
et
al.,
1992).
Thus,
correlates
in
the
family,
peer
groups,
and
com-
munity
are
reviewed
briefly,
followed
by
a
more
468
ANTISOCIAL
BEHAVIOR
extensive
review
of
possible
determinants
within
the
school.
Family
Contributions
to
Antisocial
Behavior
Specific
parenting
practices
are
highly
corre-
lated
with
antisocial
behavior
in
early
childhood
(Dishion,
1992;
Patterson,
DeBaryshe,
&
Ram-
sey,
1989)
and
are
prognostic
of
more
serious
forms
of
antisocial
behavior
in
adolescents.
For
example,
a
coercive
or
punitive
interactive
cycle
can
occur
in
the
home
as
the
child
makes
de-
mands
on
the
parent
who
lacks
certain
parent-
ing
skills.
As
D.
Shaw
and
Bell
(1992)
illustrate,
"when
faced
with
an
overly
assertive,
goal-di-
rected
child,
a
parent
who
lacks
firmness
and
adequate
discipline
techniques
might
vacillate
between
yielding
and
demanding
compliance,
then
occasionally,
out
of
desperation,
resort
to
harsh
discipline"
(p.
2).
Or,
stated
another
way,
"ineffective
parent
discipline
and
child
antiso-
cial
behavior
mutually
maintain
each
other"
(Vuchinich,
Bank,
&
Patterson,
1992,
p.
518).
The
result
is
that
these
parents
"inadvertently
shape
more
intense
forms
of
the
very
behaviors
they
wish
to
eliminate"
(DeBaryshe,
Patterson,
&
Capaldi,
1993).
Among
the
significant
char-
acteristics
that
parents
of
antisocial
youth
often
exhibit
are
the
following:
(a)
providing
infre-
quent
monitoring
of
the
child's
behavior
(Loe-
ber
&
Dishion,
1983);
(b)
relying
on
coercive
behavior
management
procedures
(Reid
&
Pat-
terson,
1989);
(c)
being
inconsistent
in
setting
rules
(Minuchin,
1974);
(d)
not
communicat-
ing
effectively
(Tolan
et
al.,
1986);
(e)
having
poor
problem-solving
skills
(Patterson,
Capaldi,
&
Bank,
1991);
(f)
exhibiting
low
levels
of
af-
fection
and
little
involvement
with
the
child
(Loeber,
Stouthamer-Loeber,
&
Green,
1987;
Tolan
et
al.,
1986);
(g)
administering
harsh,
in-
consistent
consequences
(Loeber
&
Dishion,
1983;
Loeber
et
al.,
1987);
and
(h)
exhibiting
personal
problems
that
often
interfere
with
their
ability
to
parent
effectively
(Henggeler,
1992;
Tolan
et
al.,
1986).
When
the
aversive
cycle
is
corrected,
corre-
sponding
decreases
in
antisocial
behavior
in
both
the
home
and
school
have
been
obtained
(Dishion,
1992).
Similarly,
when
increased
in-
volvement
and
attachment
are
achieved
in
the
home
and
the
family
becomes
more
involved
in
the
community
(e.g.,
in
the
school,
church,
and
community
organizations),
corresponding
de-
creases
in
antisocial
behavior
have
occurred
(Di-
shion,
1992;
Elliott,
1992).
However,
many
ex-
perts
agree
that
programs
that
identify
and
treat
children
by
the
time
they
reach
the
age
of
about
8
years
are
the
most
likely
to
be
successful
(Walker,
Colvin,
&
Ramsey,
1994);
if
antisocial
behavior
is
not
addressed
by
that
time,
it
be-
comes
more
durable
and
resistant
to
treatment.
One
reason
for
this
might
be
that
the
older
the
children
get,
the
more
involved
they
become
in
antisocial
networks.
Peer
and
Community
Contributions
to
Antisocial
Behavior
Although
certain
parenting
practices
appear
to
contribute
greatly
to
antisocial
behavior,
community
and
peer
variables
are
also
impor-
tant
influences
(Bursik
&
Webb,
1982;
Tolan
&
Guerra,
1992).
Youth
with
more
antisocial
networks
(e.g.,
family,
peers,
neighbors,
ac-
quaintances)
tend
to
be
more
antisocial
(Tolan
et
al.,
1990).
Further,
involvement
with
deviant
peers
appears
to
accelerate
the
growth
of
anti-
social
behaviors
(Dishion,
1992;
Elliott
et
al.,
1985;
Henggeler
et
al.,
1992).
Another
prob-
lem,
according
to
the
Carnegie
Corporation
(1992),
is
that
about
half
of
America's
adoles-
cents
have
too
little
to
do
after
school
and
are
in
danger
of
falling
victim
to
gangs,
drugs,
vi-
olence,
sex
or
other
activities
that
could
limit
their
potential
as
adults.
The
report
says
that
the
number
of
youth
in
these
circumstances
has
reached
"epidemic
proportions."
One
fourth
face
serious
risk,
and
another
25%
face
mod-
erate
risk
of
not
reaching
productive
adulthood.
Involvement
in
school-related
activities
as
well
as
involvement
in
church
or
community
youth
groups
needs
to
be
stressed,
and
association
with
deviant
peers
should
be
minimized.
469
G.
ROYMAYER
School
Contributions
to
Antisocial
Behavior
Motivational
variables:
Setting
events.'
Factors
within
the schools
that
contribute
to
antisocial
behavior
have
historically
been
difficult
to
iden-
tify
because,
as
Wahler
and
Fox
(1981)
have
pointed
out,
many
are
setting
events.
Setting
events
are
antecedents
that
may
occur
within
the
same
setting
and
closely
precede
the
anti-
social
behavior
(e.g.,
classroom
noise
when
giv-
en
an
assignment),
or
they
may
be
temporally
and
geographically
more
remote
(e.g.,
events
that
occur
during
the
previous
period,
on
the
school
grounds,
or
at
home).
Setting
events
change
the
probability
that
a
more
proximal
an-
tecedent
(e.g.,
instruction)
will
be
followed
by
a
particular
behavior
(e.g.,
compliance
vs.
ag-
gression)
(Munk
&
Repp,
1994).
In
other
words,
they
affect
subsequent
stimulus-re-
sponse
relations
(Bijou
&
Baer,
1961;
Wahler
&
Fox,
1981).
For
example,
Munk
and
Repp
(1994)
point
out
that
"several
instructions
fol-
lowed
by
several
errors
can
serve
as
a
setting
event
for
the
next
instruction
occasioning
prob-
lem
behavior
such
as
aggression"
(p.
391).
An
argument
in
the
home
can
serve
as
a
setting
event
for
a
request
by
the
teacher
occasioning
noncompliance.
Thus,
aversive
events
may
in-
'
Some
professionals
prefer
the
use
of
the
term
estab-
lishing
operations
rather
than
setting
events.
An
establishing
operation
is
defined
by
Michael
(1993)
as
"an
environ-
mental
event,
operation,
or
stimulus
condition
that
affects
an
organism
by
momentarily
altering
(a)
the
reinforcing
effectiveness
of
other
events
and
(b)
the
frequency
of
oc-
currence
of
the
part
of
the
organism's
repertoire
relevant
to
those
events
as
consequences"
(p.
192).
Considerable
overlap
appears
to
exist
in
the
meaning
of
these
two
terms.
For
example,
if
the
stimulus-response
relation
is
changed
by
a
setting
event,
then
the
reinforcing
effectiveness
of
the
typical
consequence
to
the
stimulus-response
relation
has
probably
also
been
affected.
Similarly,
when
an
establish-
ing
operation
alters
the
effectiveness
of
the
reinforcer,
the
stimulus-response
relation
is
affected.
Michael
(1993)
in-
fers
this
when
he
discusses
how
food
deprivation
can
in-
crease
"the
evocative
effectiveness
of
all
SDS
for
behavior
that
has
been
followed
by
food
reinforcement"
(p.
192),
and
how
establishing
operations
"that
warn
of
...
in-
creased
effort,
a
higher
response
ratio
requirement
..
.
and
so
forth
will
all
evoke
the
behavior
that
terminates
such
stimuli"
(p.
202).
crease
the
likelihood
of
subsequent
discrimina-
tive
stimuli
occasioning
antisocial
responses.
To
help
provide
descriptive
analyses
of
setting
events,
Wahler
and
Fox
(1981)
advocated
the
use
of
correlational
analyses.
Correlational
re-
search
has
begun
to
identify
some
of
the
factors
that
correspond
with
antisocial
behavior.
One
factor
appears
to
be
low
school
involvement
or
integration
as
indicated
by
poor
class
atten-
dance
and
participation,
and
a
lack
of
home-
work
completion
and
involvement
in
after-
school
activities
(Fagan
&
Wexler,
1987).
Other
factors
revealed
by
Mayer,
Nafpaktitis,
Butter-
worth,
and
Hollingsworth
(1987)
include
(a)
a
lack
of
clarity
of
both
rules
and
policies;
(b)
weak
or
inconsistent
staff
support
and
admin-
istrative
follow-through;
and
(c)
few
or
no
al-
lowances
made
for
individual
differences.
These
three
combined
contextual
factors
have
been
found
to
correlate
significantly
with
both
van-
dalism
frequency
and
financial
cost
(Mayer
et
al.,
1987).
In
addition,
research
evidence
sug-
gests
that
when
these
contextual
factors
are
ma-
nipulated
as
treatment
variables,
antisocial
be-
haviors
(including
vandalism)
are
affected,
and
so
are
attendance
problems
(Mayer
&
Butter-
worth,
1979,
1981;
Mayer,
Butterworth,
Naf-
paktitis,
&
Sulzer-Azaroff,
1983;
Mayer
&
Sulz-
er-Azaroff,
1991;
Mayer
et
al.,
1993).
Thus,
each
of
these
contextual
factors
will
be
dis-
cussed,
with
the
issue
of
low
school
involve-
ment
being
considered
under
individual
differ-
ences.
Clarity.
One
factor
that
correlates
with
anti-
social
behavior
appears
to
be
a
lack
of
clarity
of
both
rules
and
policies.
Rule
following
cannot
be
developed
unless
discipline
policies
and
rules
are
clearly
communicated
(Sulzer-Azaroff
&
Mayer,
1991).
Further,
a
lack
of
rule
following
tends
to
result
in
punitive
actions,
often
includ-
ing
disapproving
comments
by
the
teacher
(a
probable
setting
event
for
antisocial
behavior).
In
other
words,
unclear
discipline
policies
or
rules
are
likely
to
result
in
a
lack
of
rule
follow-
ing,
which
often
results
in
the
use
of
punitive
470
ANTISOCIAL
BEHAVIOR
consequences
in
the
class
and
school,
which
in
turn
can
promote
antisocial
behavior.
Support.
The
second
factor
involves
weak
or
inconsistent
administrative
support
for
staff
in
carrying
out
student
discipline
(consistent
fol-
low-through),
little
staff
support
of
one
another,
and
a
lack
of
staff
agreement
with
policies.
Lack
of
support
has
been
shown
to
be
related
to
staff
absenteeism
(Manlove
&
Elliott,
1979;
Spuck,
1974)
and
tends
to
foster
a
greater
reliance
on
punitive
methods
of
control
in
managing
stu-
dent
behavior
(Mayer,
Butterworth,
Komoto,
&
Benoit,
1983;
Mayer
&
Sulzer-Azaroff,
1991).
Also,
absent
or
inconsistent
support
for
the
school
discipline
policy
appears
to
result
in
in-
consistent
follow-through
by
staff,
often
result-
ing
in
more
behavior
problems
by
students.
Individual
student
differences.
The
third
factor
involves
few
or
no
allowances
being
made
for
individual
differences
with
respect
to
students'
academic
and
social
skills,
and
with
respect
to
the
selection
of
reinforcers,
punishers,
or
treat-
ment
strategies.
Looking
first
at
the
academic
area,
Greenberg
(1974)
has
shown
a
strong
cor-
relation
between
delinquency
and
reading
skills,
and
Center,
Deitz,
and
Kaufman
(1982)
re-
ported
that
"failure
level
academic
tasks
resulted
in
significant
increases
in
inappropriate
behav-
ior
from
some
students"
(p.
355).
Similarly,
Gold
and
Mann
(1982)
concluded
that
"poor
scholastic
experiences
are
significant
causes
of
delinquent
and
disruptive
behavior"
(p.
313).
APAs
Commission
on
Violence
and
Youth
(1993)
also
concluded
that
antisocial
aggressive
youth
are
those
who
do
poorly
in
school,
who
have
a
history
of
poor
school
attendance
and
numerous
suspensions,
and
who
tend
to
be
re-
jected
by
their
peers.
Likewise,
DeBaryshe
et
al.
(1993)
point
out
that
low
levels
of
academic
engagement
are
typically
exhibited
by
antisocial
children.
Low
academic
engagement
is
charac-
terized
by
low
levels
of
attendance,
compliance,
participation,
and
homework
completion.
Aca-
demic
engagement,
in
turn,
has
been
found
to
be
associated
with
academic
achievement
(DeBaryshe
et
al.,
1993;
Greenwood,
Hart,
Walker,
&
Risley,
1994).
Poor
school
achieve-
ment
also
is
correlated
with
outcomes
after
schooling.
For
example,
low
parental
academic
achievement
has
been
found
to
be
related
to
ineffective
discipline
practices
and
child
anti-
social
behavior
(DeBaryshe
et
al.,
1993).
In
ad-
dition,
Berlin
and
Sum
(1988)
report
that
poor
basic
skills
are
evident
in
69%
of
all
those
ar-
rested,
79%
of
welfare
dependents,
85%
of
un-
wed
mothers,
85%
of
dropouts,
and
72%
of
the
unemployed.
It
appears
that
academic
failure
serves
as
a
setting
event
for
antisocial
behavior.
Thus,
as-
signments
need
to
be
appropriate
for
each
stu-
dent's
functional
level
to
minimize
failure.
It
also
would
be
beneficial
to
program
frequent
success
into
the
academic
experiences
by
inter-
spersing
tasks
that
have
a
high
probability
of
resulting
in
success
for
the
student
(Munk
&
Repp,
1994;
Sulzer-Azaroff
&
Mayer,
1994b).
Distinctive
learning
histories
also
can
cause
particular
consequences
to
be
more
or
less
ef-
fective
for
individual
students.
Thus,
conse-
quences
unsuitable
to
the
function
of
an
indi-
vidual's
behavior
can
result
in
an
increase,
rather
than
a
decrease,
in
antisocial
behavior
(Mayer
&
Butterworth,
1979)
(e.g.,
when
a
teacher
routinely
attempts
to
use
time-out
as
a
conse-
quence
for
antisocial
behavior
even
when
the
behavior
functions
to
provide
a
student
with
escape
from
a
difficult
assignment).
The
resul-
tant
increase
in
the
antisocial
behavior
often
re-
sults
in
the
administration
of
more
aversive
con-
sequences.
Many
students,
particularly
those
from
poor
homes,
also
lack
the
social
skills
necessary
to
relate
positively
to
peers
and
to
do
well
academ-
ically
(Goldstein,
Spraflin,
Gershaw,
&
Klein,
1980;
McGinnis
&
Goldstein,
1984;
Sulzer-
Azaroff
&
Mayer,
1994a).
For
example,
they
might
not
have
learned
to
persist
on
a
task,
comply
with
requests,
pay
attention,
negotiate
differences,
handle
criticism
and
teasing,
or
make
appropriate
decisions.
Educational
pro-
grams
must
address
individual
differences
in
so-
471
G.
ROYMAYER
cial
skills
rather
than
responding
with
punish-
ment
when
a
student
lacks
these
critical
skills.
Relevance
of
Identified
Factors
A
question
that
might
be
raised
is
whether
the
proportion
of
students
being
affected
by
a
punitive
school
environment
is
substantial.
Re-
search
indicates
that
schools
too
often
empha-
size
punitive
measures
to
manage
student
be-
havior.
This
overemphasis
occurs
disproportion-
ately
with
males,
minority
students,
and
stu-
dents
from
low-income
homes
(Brantlinger,
1991;
McFadden,
Marsh,
Price,
&
Hwang,
1992;
Moore
&
Cooper,
1984;
S.
Shaw
&
Braden,
1990).
Not
only
are
certain
groups
sin-
gled
out
for
more
punishment,
but
the
total
school
environment
often
is
too
punitive
for
all
students.
For
example,
disapproval
is
used
more
frequently
than
approval
as
a
consequence
of
student
behavior
by
many
teachers
(Heller
&
White,
1975;
Thomas,
Presland,
Grant,
&
Glynn,
1978;
White,
1975),
although
certainly
not
all
(Nafpaktitis,
Mayer,
&
Butterworth,
1985;
Wyatt
&
Hawkins,
1987).
Similarly,
re-
sults
from
a
survey
by
the
American
Association
of
School
Administrators
(Brodinsky,
1980)
in-
dicated
that
school
personnel
reported
spending
more
time
and
energy
in
implementing
puni-
tive
measures
than
positive
or
preventive
mea-
sures.
And,
Greenberg
(1974)
has
pointed
out
that
reliance
on
heavy
security
arrangements
and
punitive
discipline
strategies
appears
to
ag-
gravate
rather
than
reduce
vandalism
as
well
as
aggression
towards
others.
It
appears,
then,
that
schools
are
indeed
pu-
nitive
for
many
students,
and
that
the
identified
contextual
factors
need
to
be
addressed
to
help
reduce
the
emphasis
on
punitive
discipline
mea-
sures.
Their
importance
is
further
highlighted
by
the
fact
that
these
factors
are
similar
to
some
of
those
that
promote
antisocial
behavior
in
the
home
(e.g.,
reliance
on
coercive
or
punitive
dis-
cipline,
inconsistent
rule
setting
and
delivery
of
consequences).
As
will
be
further
illustrated
be-
low,
when
the
aversiveness
of
the
school
envi-
ronment
is
corrected,
there
is
a
decrease
in
an-
tisocial
behavior.
TREATMENT
OF
ANTISOCIAL
BEHAVIOR
IN
THE
SCHOOLS:
PREVENTION
THROUGH
CONSTRUCTIVE
DISCIPLINE
To
address
these
contextual
factors
and
their
integral
setting
events
we
developed
the
con-
structive
discipline
approach.
A
brief
overview
of
the
approach
is
presented
here
to
illustrate
how
such
contextual
factors
and
setting
events
might
be
addressed
and
some
of
the
outcomes
that
have
been
achieved.
Constructive
discipline
is
based
on
what
Gol-
diamond
(1974;
Schwartz
&
Goldiamond,
1975)
refers
to
as
a
constructional
approach.
The
emphasis
is
on
teaching
or
building
desir-
able
behavior
rather
than
punishing,
reducing,
or
eliminating
undesirable
behavior,
and
in-
volves
(a)
selecting
behaviors
to
be
established
or
strengthened,
rather
than
those
to
be
reduced
or
eliminated;
(b)
identifying
individuals'
exist-
ing
academic
and
social
repertoires
upon
which
to
build;
(c)
matching
procedures
of
change
to
those
individual
repertoires;
and
(d)
selecting
individual
reinforcing
contingencies
to
increase
and
maintain
the
goal
behaviors.
The
use
of
reinforcers
natural
to
the
environment
is
em-
phasized,
such
as
those
that
previously
rein-
forced
the
problem
behavior
(Hawkins,
1986).
Constructive
discipline
expands
on
Goldia-
mond's
constructional
approach,
stressing
clar-
ity,
support,
and
individual
differences.
To
ad-
dress
clarity,
classroom
and
schoolwide
rules
are
jointly
established
by
the
teacher
and
students,
posted
in
the
class
where
all
can
view
them
eas-
ily,
and
reviewed
by
the
teacher
with
the
class
periodically.
Students
receive
reinforcement
for
adhering
to
the
rules,
because
rules
will
be
fol-
lowed
only
when
differential
consequences
are
applied
for
compliance
and
noncompliance
(Mayer
&
Sulzer-Azaroff,
1991).
Rules
are
stat-
ed
positively
to
stress
how
to
behave
rather
than
how
not
to
behave
(e.g.,
"Be
in
your
seat
by
472
ANTISOCIAL
BEHAVIOR
the
time
the
tardy
bell
rings,"
rather
than
"Don't
be
tardy"),
and
the
list
is
kept
short,
usually
to
not
more
than
five
to
seven
rules.
To
develop
support
for
staff,
constructive
dis-
cipline
uses
programs
designed
to
improve
staff
morale,
communication
and
cohesiveness.
Many
of
these
programs-such
as
"secret
pals"
for
staff
members,
"extra
thanks
board,"
and
"hot
messages"
to
teachers-have
been
illus-
trated
elsewhere
(Mayer,
Butterworth,
Spauld-
ing,
et
al.,
1983;
Sulzer-Azaroff&
Mayer,
1991,
1994c).
Briefly,
their
purpose
is
to
decrease
av-
ersiveness
and
increase
positive
reinforcement
for
teachers
and
administrators.
For
example,
administrators
and
other
support
staff
are
asked
to
comment
positively
on
the
constructive
pro-
grams
that
their
teachers
implement
in
their
classes.
Similarly,
other
teachers
and
parents
are
encouraged
to
make
positive
comments
and
demonstrate
their
appreciation
for
what
others
in
the
school
do
to
assist
students
and
one
an-
other.
For
example,
staff
members
write
one
an-
other
positive
notes
on
a
"Fuzzy
Gram"
or
"Thank-U-Board"
located
in
the
faculty
lounge.
Individual
staff
members
might
also
be
assigned
"secret
pals"
to
whom
they
are
responsible
for
writing
positive
notes.
A
principal
may
send
"hot
messages"
to
teachers
congratulating
them
for
the
successful
programs
implemented
in
their
classroom.
Part
of
the
rationale
for
imple-
menting
such
activities
is
to
help
the
school
en-
vironment
become
a
discriminative
stimulus
for
implementing
constructive
discipline
programs.
Individual
differences
are
addressed
by
matching
students'
existing
performance
levels
with
appropriate
academic
materials
and
in-
structional
methodology
and
by
teaching
staff
how
to
select
and
apply
various
behavioral
strat-
egies
(Mayer,
Butterworth,
Komoto,
&
Benoit,
1983;
Mayer,
Butterworth,
Nafpaktitis,
&
Sulz-
er-Azaroff,
1983),
such
as
(a)
increasing
rates
of
teacher-delivered
praise
and
other
forms
of
pos-
itive
recognition
for
constructive
classroom
be-
havior;
(b)
identifying
and
maximizing
rein-
forcers;
(c)
emphasizing
differential
reinforce-
ment
strategies,
modeling,
and
social
skills
training
over
the
use
of
aversives;
and
(d)
using
various
group
contingencies.
Individual
differences
also
are
addressed
by
using
functional
assessments
to
help
teachers
re-
duce
the
misuse
of
behavior
management
pro-
cedures,
such
as
helping
teachers
to
avoid
using
time-out
with
a
student
who
is
misbehaving
to
escape
from
an
assignment.
Functional
assess-
ments
are
defined
as
"an
attempt
to
identify
the
environmental
determinants
of
specific
re-
sponses
that
currently
exist
in
an
individual's
repertoire"
(Neef
&
Iwata,
1994,
p.
211).
Ac-
cording
to
Horner
(1994),
the
purpose
of
a
functional
assessment
is
to
provide
information
that
will
improve
the
effectiveness
and
efficien-
cy
of
treatment,
and
it
includes
the
following
four
basic
requirements:
(a)
Problem
behaviors
are
operationally
de-
fined,
(b)
antecedent
events
that
predict
the
occurrence
and
nonoccurrence
of
the
problem
behaviors
are
identified,
(c)
hy-
potheses
are
developed
concerning
the
consequent
variables
that
maintain
prob-
lem
behaviors,
and
(d)
direct
observation
data
are
collected
to
provide
at
least
cor-
relational
confirmation
of
hypotheses
as-
sociated
with
antecedent
and
consequent
events.
(p.
402)
In
addition,
we
have
found
it
useful,
in
deter-
mining
function
and
selecting
relevant
interven-
tions,
to
collect
the
same
information
on
the
replacement
behavior
(if
it
has
occurred).
Treat-
ment
approaches
based
on
such
behavioral
function
can
result
in
major
reductions
in
the
misuse
of
behavioral
procedures
and
the
use
of
punishment
by
educators,
which
in
turn
can
provide
a
more
reinforcing
environment
that
is
conducive
to
learning.
A
manual
for
conducting
functional
assess-
ments
is
available
(O'Neill,
Horner,
Albin,
Sto-
rey,
&
Sprague,
1990).
In
addition,
many
of
the
strategies
mentioned
above
are
described
in
de-
tail
by
Mayer
(in
press)
and
Sulzer-Azaroff
and
Mayer
(1991,
1994a,
1994b,
1994c).
These
have
been
presented
to
school
personnel
473
G.
ROYMAYER
through
a
series
of
workshops
with
follow-up
consultation
and
support
by
both
project
and
school
personnel
for
program
implementation
(Mayer,
Butterworth,
Nafpaktitis,
&
Sulzer-
Azaroff,
1983;
Mayer,
Butterworth,
Spaulding,
et
al.,
1983).
Attempts
to
clarify
discipline
policy,
provide
greater
staff
support,
and
allow
for
individual
differences
by
assigning
reading
materials
ap-
propriately
matched
to
student
performance
levels
have
resulted
in
decreases
in
both
anti-
social
behavior
and
attendance
problems.
For
example,
in
a
constructive
discipline
study
with
10
experimental
and
9
control
elementary
schools
(Mayer
&
Butterworth,
1979),
vandal-
ism
costs
were
reduced
an
average
of
57%
in
the
experimental
schools.
Similarly,
in
a
repli-
cation
study
with
18
elementary
and
junior
high
schools
(Mayer,
Butterworth,
Nafpaktitis,
&
Sulzer-Azaroff,
1983),
vandalism
costs
were
reduced
an
average
of
78.5%,
while
control
schools
throughout
the
area
were
experiencing
annual
average
increases
of
35%
to
56%.
Based
on
these
results,
Mayer,
Butterworth,
Nafpak-
titis,
and
Sulzer-Azaroff
(1983)
concluded
that
"A
junior
high
school
containing
1,500
students
with
an
average
monthly
vandalism
cost
of
$121.35
per
100
students
could
potentially
save
from
$10,861
to
$24,197
over
a
9-month
pe-
riod"
(p.
367).
In
addition,
in
these
studies
rates
of
praise
delivered
by
teachers
increased
significantly,
stu-
dent
disruptions
decreased
significantly,
and
fewer
discipline
problems,
greater
cooperation,
and
more
positive
feelings
among
students
and
staff
were
reported
(Mayer,
Butterworth,
Naf-
paktitis,
&
Sulzer-Azaroff,
1983).
These
find-
ings
are
similar
to
those
of
Gold
and
Mann
(1982),
who
found
that
when
curriculum
was
more
individualized
and
the
environment
made
more
reinforcing,
students'
behavior
and
scho-
lastic
performance
improved.
When
these
strategies
were
used
in
a
high
school
setting
to
help
reduce
dropout
rates
(Mayer
et
al.,
1993),
the
percentage
of
students
working
on
their
assigned
activities
increased
from
a
range
of
8%
to
35%
to
a
range
of
70%
to
100%;
dropout
rates
for
at-risk
students
(i.e.,
those
who
are
poor,
urban,
minority,
frequently
absent,
and
working
well
below
grade
level)
de-
creased
from
the
typical
50%
to
80%
for
similar
at-risk
students
(Los
Angeles
County
Office
of
Education,
1990)
to
slightly
below
the
district's
average
dropout
rate
of
33%,
and
suspensions
decreased
by
35.5%.
Increased
rates
of
approv-
ing
comments
and
decreases
in
disapproving
comments
by
teachers
also
were
obtained.
Thus,
the
classroom
environment
became
less
punitive
and
more
positive,
probably
a
major
reason
for
the
increased
percentage
of
students
engaged
in
their
assigned
activities.
SUMMARY
AND
DISCUSSION
There
are
multiple
determinants
of
antisocial
behavior.
However,
the
school
appears
to
be
a
major
contributor,
and
factors
similar
to
those
identified
in
the
school
have
been
identified
in
the
home:
a
coercive
and
punitive
environment
and
inconsistencies
in
rule
setting
and
applying
consequences.
Other
factors
include
low
in-
volvement
and
integration
in
school
and
a
lack
of
appropriate
parenting
skills,
antisocial
net-
works,
and
too
little
for
youngsters
to
do.
Three
major
factors
within
schools
were
identified
that
appear
to
promote
a
context
in
which
punish-
ment
and
extinction
conditions
are
likely
to
oc-
cur:
a
lack
of
clarity
of
both
rules
and
policies;
weak
or
inconsistent
staff
support
and
admin-
istrative
follow-through;
and
few
or
no
allow-
ances
made
for
individual
differences.
The
resultant
specific
occurrences
of
punishment
and
extinction
(e.g.,
disapproving
comments,
academic
task
errors,
and
a
lack
of
recognition
for
either
student
or
staff
effort)
appear
to
serve
as
setting
events
that
evoke
aggression,
atten-
dance
problems
(escape),
and
other
antisocial
behaviors.
It
appears,
then,
that
a
punitive
school
discipline
environment
is
a
major
factor
contributing
to
antisocial
behavior
problems.
The
correlational
evidence
combined
with
the
474
ANTISOCIAL
BEHAVIOR
experimental
evidence
cited
here
support
such
a
conclusion.
Setting
events
have
not
been
given
sufficient
emphasis
in
research
or
practice.
Because
of
their
remoteness
in
time
to
antisocial
acts,
set-
ting
events
can
be
hard
to
identify
or
associate
with
antisocial
behavior.
Many
decision
makers
therefore
find
themselves
unable
to
support
a
given
program
of
prevention
because
it
does
not
make
sense
to
them.
Thus,
care
should
be
taken
to
educate
school
staff
and
parents
as
to
the
relevance
of
setting
events
and
how
to
change
them.
As
Sulzer-Azaroff
and
Mayer
(1994a)
have
noted,
"because
setting
events
can
func-
tion
powerfully,
they
all
must
be
identified
and
dealt
with
effectively
if
we
are
ever
durably
to
prevent,
rather
than
just
temporarily
suppress,
violence
and
vandalism
in
our
schools"
(p.
342).
I
am
suggesting
that
a
major
strategy
for
cre-
ating
safe,
constructive
school
environments
should
focus
on
the
contextual
factors
within
our
schools
that
promote
setting
events
for
an-
tisocial
behavior.2
To
start,
we
must
identify
and
address
the
contextual
factors
and
setting
events
early
(i.e.,
in
preschool
and
the
primary
grades),
given
the
findings
that
antisocial
behavior
be-
comes
more
durable
and
resistant
to
treatment
after
the
age
of
about
8
years.
This
approach
also
implies
that
our
efforts
should
no
longer
emphasize
"treating"
youngsters
as
though
they
are
the
source
of
the
problem.
Rather,
our
focus
must
be
on
identifying
and
correcting
the
fac-
tors
that
exist
within
their
environments
that
promote
antisocial
behavior.
To
help
prevent
or
remedy
punitive
school
climates,
an
emphasis
must
be
placed
on
func-
tional
assessments
and
positive,
preventive
be-
havioral
interventions.
School
and
classroom
rules
and
policies
need
to
be
clear,
with
a
pos-
itive
focus.
Support
must
be
provided
for
staff,
and
allowances
must
be
made
for
individual
student
differences
in
terms
of
provided
con-
2
This
does
not
negate
the
importance
of
the
role
played
by
the
family,
community,
or
various
agencies.
It
does,
however,
place
the
focus
on
what
schools
can
do
to
reduce
various
antisocial
and
attendance
problems.
sequences,
social
skills
training,
and
the
selec-
tion
of
academic
materials
and
instructional
methodology.
Academic
programs
that
show
the
most
promise
for
preventing
antisocial
behaviors
are
those
that
adjust
to
the
student's
functional
lev-
el,
program
frequent
success,
and
assume
the
responsibility
for
teaching
without
relying
on
out-of-school
resources.
Such
an
approach
max-
imizes
success
and
recognizes
that
the
home
en-
vironment
for
antisocial
youth
tends
not
to
be
very
supportive
(i.e.,
these
students
are
not
like-
ly
to
receive
home
tutoring
or
assistance
or
en-
couragement
with
homework).
Some
programs,
such
as
the
Morningside
model
(Johnson
&
Layng,
1992,
1994),
not
only
use
well-designed
and
sequenced
instructional
materials
matched
to
students'
current
performance
levels
but
also
build
skills
to
fluency
by
using
peer
coaching
and
testing
to
provide
multiple
opportunities
for
fluency
practice,
recognition
of
progress,
and
correction
of
errors
within
the
school.
For
dealing
with
low
school
involvement
and
integration,
a
concerted
effort
must
be
made
to
provide
and
involve
youngsters
in
afterschool
activities.
In
addition,
peer
tutoring
has
been
shown
to
be
helpful
for
promoting
both
in-
volvement
and
integration
(Carta,
Greenwood,
Dinwiddie,
Kohler,
&
Delquadri,
1987;
Ma-
heady
&
Sainato,
1985;
Polirstok
&
Greer,
1986).
Youngsters
also
need
to
become
more
skilled
in
self-management
and
aware
of
the
individual
factors
that
contribute
to
antisocial
behavior.
They
can
be
taught
to
monitor
their
behavior
and
to
recognize
the
communicative
purpose
of
the
behavior
and
the
possible
chain
of
events
that
leads
to
the
escalation
of
their
behavior
(Watson
&
Tharp,
1993).
They
can
also
be
taught
more
adaptive
ways
of
achieving
the
function
served
by
the
antisocial
behavior,
to
select
alternate
modes
of
responding,
and
to
avoid
or
minimize
association
with
antisocial
peers.
Schools
and
community
organizations
need
to
take
a
preventive
stance
by
providing
support
475
476
G.
ROYMAYER
for
the
parents
in
the
form
of
child
care
and
training
in
parenting
(Hawkins,
1972,
1974)
and
by
providing
adult
education
classes
in
reading
and
other
areas
Johnson
&
Layng,
1994).
If
security
arrangements
and
punitive
mea-
sures
are
necessary
within
the
school,
they
must
be
viewed
as
temporary
expedients
to
help
gain
control
in
the
situation
while
setting
events
are
addressed.
They
are
not
the
solution.
Not
until
the
identified
setting
events
are
dealt
with
will
we
be
able
to
consistently
prevent
violence
and
other
antisocial
behavior.
We
must
funnel
more
energy
and
resources
into
remedying
the
setting
events
for
antisocial
behavior
and
dropping
out
of
school
rather
than
continue
our
emphasis
on
security
arrangements,
incarceration,
and
pun-
ishment.
REFERENCES
American
Psychological
Association
Commission
on
Vio-
lence
and
Youth.
(1993).
Violence
and
youth:
Psy-
chology's
response.
Washington,
DC:
Author.
Anatomy
of
a
plague.
(1994,
May
1).
Los
Angeles
Times,
p.
B1.
Azrin,
N.
H.,
Hake,
D.
G.,
Holz,
W.
C.,
&
Hutchinson,
R.
R.
(1965).
Motivational
aspects
of
escape
from
punishment.
Journal
of
the
ExperimentalAnalysis
of
Be-
havior,
8,
31-34.
Becklund,
L.
(1992,
December
11).
The
city
as
orphan.
Los
Angeles
Times,
pp.
B1,
B12.
Berkowitz,
L.
(1983).
Aversively
stimulated
aggression:
Some
parallels
and
difference
in research
with
animals
and
humans.
American
Psychologist,
38,
1135-1144.
Berlin,
J.
A.,
&
Sum,
A.
(1988).
Toward
more
perfect
union:
Basic
skills,
poor
families,
and
our
economic
fu-
ture.
New
York:
The
Ford
Foundation.
Bijou,
S.
W,
&
Baer,
D.
M.
(1961).
Child
development
I:
A
systematic
and
empirical
theory.
Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ:
Prentice
Hall.
Brantlinger,
E.
(1991).
Social
class
distinctions
in
adoles-
cents'
reports
of
problems
and
punishment
in
school.
Behavioral
Disorders,
17,
36-46.
Brodinsky,
B.
(1980).
AASA
critical
issues
report:
Student
discipline,
problems,
and
solutions
(Report
No.
021
00334).
Arlington,
VA:
American
Association
of
School
Administrators.
Bursik,
R.
J.,
&
Webb,
J.
(1982).
Community
change
and
patterns
of
delinquency.
American
Journal
of
So-
ciology,
88,
24-42.
Carnegie
Corporation.
(1992).
A
matter
of
time:
Risk
and
opportunity
in
non-school
hours.
New
York:
Author.
Carta,
J.
J.,
Greenwood,
C.
R.,
Dinwiddie,
G.,
Kohler,
F.,
&
Delquadri,
J.
(1987).
The
Juniper
Gardens
class-
wide
peer
tutoring
programs
for
spelling,
reading,
and
math:
Teacher's
manual.
The
Juniper
Gardens
Chil-
dren's
Project,
Bureau
of
Child
Research,
University
of
Kansas.
Center,
D.
B.,
Deitz,
S.
M.,
&
Kaufman,
M.
E.
(1982).
Student
ability,
task
difficulty,
and
inappropriate
class-
room
behavior:
A
study
of
children
with
behavior
dis-
orders.
Behavior
Modification,
6,
355-374.
DeBaryshe,
B.
D.,
Patterson,
G.
R.,
&
Capaldi,
D.
M.
(1993).
A
performance
model
for
academic
achieve-
ment
in
early
adolescent
boys.
Developmental
Psychol-
ogy,
29,
795-804.
Dishion,
T.
J.
(1992,
November).
An
applied
model
of
antisocial
behavior.
Paper
presented
at
a
workshop
for
potential
applicants
for
NIMH
research
grants
to
pre-
vent
youth
violence,
Bethesda,
MD.
Elliott,
D.
S.
(1992,
October).
Correlates
ofyouth
violence,
and
designing
evaluations
of
interventions.
Paper
pre-
sented
at
a
workshop
for
potential
applicants
for
NIMH
research
grants
to
prevent
youth
violence,
Be-
thesda,
MD.
Elliott,
D.
S.,
&
Ageton,
S.
A.
(1980).
Reconciling
race
and
class
differences
in
self-reported
and
official
esti-
mates
of
delinquency.
American
Sociological
Review,
45,
95-1
10.
Elliott,
D.
S.,
Huizinga,
D.,
&
Ageton,
S.
S.
(1985).
Ex-
plaining
delinquency
and
drug
use.
Beverly
Hills,
CA:
Sage.
Fagan,
J.,
&
Wexler,
S.
(1987).
Family
origins
of
violent
delinquents.
Criminology,
25,
643-669.
Gold,
M.,
&
Mann,
D.
W
(1982).
Alternative
schools
for
troublesome
secondary
students.
Urban
Review,
14,
305-316.
Goldiamond,
I.
(1974).
Toward
a
constructional
ap-
proach
to
social
problems:
Ethical
and
constitutional
issues
raised
by
applied
behavior
analysis.
Behaviorism,
2,
1-85.
Goldstein,
A.
P.,
Spraflcin,
R.
P.,
Gershaw,
N.
J.,
&
Klein,
P.
(1980).
Skillstreaming
the
adolescent:
A
structured
learning
approach
to
teaching
prosocial
skills.
Cham-
paign,
IL:
Research
Press.
Greenberg,
B.
(1974).
School
vandalism:
Its
effects
and
paradoxical
solutions.
Crime
Prevention
Review,
1,
105.
Greenwood,
C.
R.,
Hart,
B.,
Walker,
D.,
&
Risley,
T.
(1994).
The
opportunity
to
respond
and
academic
performance
revisited:
A
behavioral
theory
of
devel-
opmental
retardation
and
its
prevention.
In
R.
Gard-
ner,
D.
M.
Sainato,
J.
O.
Cooper,
T.
E.
Heron,
W
L.
Heward,
J.
W.
Eshleman,
&
T.
A.
Grossi
(Eds.),
Behavior
analysis
in
education:
Focus
on
measurably
su-
perior
instruction
(pp.
213-223).
Pacific
Grove,
CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Hawkins,
R.
P.
(1972).
It's
time
we
taught
the
young
how
to
be
good
parents,
and
don't
you
wish
we'd
started
a
long
time
ago?
Psychology
Today,
11,
28-38.
Hawkins,
R.
P.
(1974).
Universal
parenthood
training:
A
ANTISOCIAL
BEHA
VIOR
477
proposal
for
preventive
mental
health.
In
R.
Ulrich,
T.
Stachnik,
&
J.
Mabrey
(Eds.),
Control
of
human
behavior:
Vol.
3.
Behavior
modification
in
education
(pp.
187-192).
Glenview,
IL:
Scott,
Foresman.
Hawkins,
R.
P.
(1986).
Selection
of
target
behaviors.
In
R.
0.
Nelson
&
S.
C.
Hayes
(Eds.),
Conceptualfoun-
dations
of
behavioral
assessment
(pp.
329-385).
New
York:
Guilford.
Heller,
M.
S.,
&
Ehrlich,
S.
M.
(1984).
Actuarial
vari-
ables
in
9,600
violent
and
non-violent
offenders
re-
ferred
to
a
court
psychiatric
clinic.
The
American
Jour-
nal
of
Social
Psychiatry,
4(3),
30-36.
Heller,
M.
S.,
&
White,
M.
A.
(1975).
Teacher
approval
and
disapproval
on
ability
grouping.
Journal
of
Edu-
cational
Psychology
67,
796-800.
Henggeler,
S.
W
(1989).
Delinquency
in
adolescence.
Newbury
Park,
CA:
Sage.
Henggeler,
S.
W.
(1992,
November).
A
family-oriented
plus
intervention
for
adolescents
who
present
serious
con-
duct
problems.
Paper
presented
at
a
workshop
for
po-
tential
applicants
for
NIMH
research
grants
to
pre-
vent
youth
violence,
Bethesda,
MD.
Henggeler,
S.
W.,
Melton,
G.
B.,
&
Smith,
L.
A.
(1992).
Family
preservation
using
multisystemic
therapy:
An
effective
alternative
to
incarcerating
serious
juvenile
offenders.
Journal
of
Consulting
and
Clinical
Psychol-
ogy,
60,
1-9.
Horne,
A.
M.,
&
Sayger,
T.
V.
(1990).
Treating
conduct
and
oppositional
defiant
disorders
in
children.
New
York:
Pergamon.
Horner,
R.
H.
(1994).
Functional
assessment:
Contri-
butions
and
future
directions.
Journal
of
Applied
Be-
havior
Analysis,
27,
401-404.
Hutchinson,
R.
R.
(1977).
By-products
of
aversive
con-
trol.
In
W.
K.
Honig
&
J.
E.
R.
Staddon
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
operant
behavior
(pp.
415-431).
Engle-
wood
Cliffs,
NJ:
Prentice
Hall.
Johnson,
K.
R.,
&
Layng,
T.
V.
J.
(1992).
Breaking
the
structuralist
barrier:
Literacy
and
numeracy
with
flu-
ency.
American
Psychologist,
47,
1475-1490.
Johnson,
K.
R.,
&
Layng,
T.
V.
J.
(1994).
The
Morn-
ingside
model
of
generative
instruction:
A
history
and
an
elucidation.
In R.
Gardner,
III,
D.
Sainato,
J.
Coo-
per,
T.
Heron,
W.
Heward,
&
J.
Eshleman
(Eds.),
Behavior
analysis
in
education:
Focus
on
measurably
su-
perior
instruction
(pp.
173-197).
Pacific
Grove,
CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Kazdin,
A.
E.
(1987).
Conduct
disorders
in
childhood
and
adolescence.
Newbury
Park,
CA:
Sage.
Lacayo,
R.
(1994,
September).
When
kids
go
bad.
Time,
144
(No.
12),
60-63.
Lipsey,
M.
W.
(1992,
October).
The
effects
of
treatment
on
juvenile
delinquents:
Results
from
meta-analysis.
Pa-
per
presented
at
the
NIMH
meeting
for
potential
ap-
plicants
for
research
to
prevent
youth
violence,
Be-
thesda,
MD.
Loeber,
R.,
&
Dishion,
T.
J.
(1983).
Early
predictors
of
male
delinquency:
A
review.
Psychological
Bulletin,
94,
68-99.
Loeber,
R.,
Stouthamer-Loeber,
M.,
&
Green,
F.
(1987).
Prediction.
In
H.
C.
Quay
(Ed.),
Handbook
ofjuvenile
delinquency
(pp.
325-382).
New
York:
Wiley.
Los
Angeles
County
Office
of
Education.
(1990).
De-
mographic
and
educational
conditions
ofpublic
schools.
Los
Angeles:
Author.
Maheady,
L.,
&
Sainato,
D.
(1985).
The
effects
of
peer
tutoring
upon
the
social
status
and
social
interaction
patterns
of
high
and
low
status
elementary
students.
Education
and
Treatment
of
Children,
8,
51-65.
Manlove,
D.
C.,
&
Elliott,
P.
(1979).
Absent
teachers.
Another
handicap
for
students?
The
Practitioner,
5,
2-
3.
Mayer,
G.
R.
(in
press).
Why
must
behavior
intervention
plans
be
based
on
functional
assessments?
California
School
Psychologist,
1.
Mayer,
G.
R.,
&
Butterworth,
T.
(1979).
A
preventive
approach
to
school
violence
and
vandalism:
An
ex-
perimental
study.
Personnel
and
Guidance
Journal,
57,
436-441.
Mayer,
G.
R,
&
Butterworth,
T.
(1981).
Evaluating
a
preventive
approach
to
reducing
school
vandalism.
Phi
Delta
Kappan,
62,
498-499.
Mayer,
G.
R.,
Butterworth,
T.,
Komoto,
T.,
&
Benoit,
R.
(1983).
The
influence
of
the
school
principal
on
the
consultant's
effectiveness.
Elementary
School
Guidance
&-
Counseling,
17,
274-279.
Mayer,
G.
R.,
Butterworth,
T.,
Nafpaktitis,
M.,
&
Sulzer-
Azaroff,
B.
(1983).
Preventing
school
vandalism
and
improving
discipline:
A
three-year
study.
Journal
of
Applied
Behavior
Analysis,
16,
355-369.
Mayer,
G.
R.,
Butterworth,
T.,
Spaulding,
H.
L.,
Hol-
lingsworth,
P.,
Amorim,
M.,
Caldwell-McElroy,
C.,
Nafpaktitis,
M.,
&
Perez-Osorio,
X.
(1983).
Con-
structive
discipline:
Building
a
climate
for
learning.
A
resource
manual
of
programs
and
strategies.
Downey,
CA:
Office
of
the
Los
Angeles
County
Superintendent
of
Schools.
Mayer,
G.
R.,
Mitchell,
L.,
Clementi,
T.,
Clement-Rob-
ertson,
E.,
Myatt,
R.,
&
Bullara,
D.
T.
(1993).
A
dropout
prevention
program
for
at-risk
high
school
students:
Emphasizing
consulting
to
promote
positive
classroom
climates.
Education
and
Treatment
of
Chil-
dren,
16,
135-146.
Mayer,
G.
R.,
Nafpaktitis,
M.,
Butterworth,
T.,
&
Hol-
lingsworth,
P.
(1987).
A
search
for
the
elusive
setting
events
of
school
vandalism:
A
correlational
study.
Ed-
ucation
and
Treatment
of
Children,
10,
259-270.
Mayer,
G.
R.,
&
Sulzer-Azaroff,
B.
(1991).
Interventions
for
vandalism.
In
G.
Stoner,
M.
K.
Shinn,
&
H.
M.
Walker
(Eds.),
Interventions
for
achievement
and
be-
haviorproblems
(pp.
559-580).
Washington,
DC:
Na-
tional
Association
of
School
Psychologists
Mono-
graph.
McFadden,
A.
C.,
Marsh,
G.
E.,
Price,
B.
J.,
&
Hwang,
Y.
(1992).
A
study
of
race
and
gender
bias
in
the
punishment
of
school
children.
Education
and
Treat-
ment
of
Children,
15,
140-146.
McGinnis,
E.,
&
Goldstein,
A.
P.
(1984).
Skillstreaming
478
G.
ROYMAYER
the
elementary
school
child:
A
guide
for
teaching
proso-
cial
skills.
Champaign,
IL:
Research
Press.
Michael,
J.
(1993).
Establishing
operations.
The
Behavior
Analyst,
16,
191-206.
Minuchin,
S.
(1974).
Families
and
family
therapy.
Cam-
bridge,
MA:
Harvard
University
Press.
Moore,
W.
L.,
&
Cooper,
H.
(1984).
Correlations
be-
tween
teacher
and
student
backgrounds
and
teacher
perceptions
of
discipline
problems
and
disciplinary
techniques.
Discipline,
5,
1-7.
Munk,
D.
D.,
&
Repp,
A.
C.
(1994).
The
relationship
between
instructional
variables
and
problem
behavior:
A
review.
Exceptional
Children,
60,
390-401.
Nafpaktitis,
M.,
Mayer,
G.
R.,
&
Butterworth,
T.
(1985).
Natural
rates
of
teacher
approval
and
disapproval
and
their
relation
to
student
behavior
in
intermediate
school
classrooms.
Journal
of
Educational
Psychology,
77,
362-367.
National
Dropout
Prevention
Center.
(1992).
Statistics
from
the
secretary's
wall
chart.
Clemson,
SC:
Author.
Neef,
N.
A.,
&
Iwata,
B.
A.
(1994).
Current
research
on
functional
analysis
methodologies:
An
introduction.
Journal
of
Applied
Behavior
Analysis,
27,
211-214.
O'Neill,
R.
E.,
Horner,
R.
H.,
Albin,
R.
W.,
Storey,
K.,
&
Sprague,
J.
R.
(1990).
Functional
analysis
ofprob-
lem
behavior:
A
practical
assessment
guide.
Sycamore,
IL:
Sycamore.
Patterson,
G.
R.,
Capaldi,
D.,
&
Bank,
L.
(1991).
An
early
starter
model
for
predicting
delinquency.
In
D.
J.
Pepler
&
K.H.
Rubin
(Eds.),
The
development
and
treatment
of
childhood
aggression
(pp.
139-168).
Hills-
dale,
NJ:
Erlbaum.
Patterson,
G.
R.,
DeBaryshe,
B.
D.,
&
Ramsey,
E.
(1989).
A
developmental
perspective
on
antisocial
behavior.
American
Psychologist,
44,
329-335.
Polirstok,
S.
R.,
&
Greer,
R.
D.
(1986).
A
replication
of
collateral
effects
and
a
component
analysis
of
a
suc-
cessful
tutoring
package
for
inner-city
adolescents.
Ed-
ucation
and
Treatment
of
Children,
9,
101-121.
Reid,
J.
B.,
&
Patterson,
G.
R.
(1989).
The
development
of
antisocial
behavior
patterns
in
childhood
and
ad-
olescence.
European
Journal
of
Personality,
3,
107-119.
Schwartz,
A.,
&
Goldiamond,
I.
(1975).
Social
casework:
A
behavioral
approach.
New
York:
Columbia
Univer-
sity
Press.
Shaw,
D.
S.,
&
Bell,
R.
Q.
(1992).
Developmental
theories
of
parental
contributors
to antisocial
behavior.
Unpub-
lished
manuscript,
University
of
Pittsburgh,
Pitts-
burgh,
PA.
Shaw,
S.
R.,
&
Braden,
J.
P.
(1990).
Race
and
gender
bias
in
the
administration
of
corporal
punishment.
School
Psychology
Review,
19,
378-383.
Simcha-Fagen,
O.,
Langner,
T.,
Gersten,
J.,
&
Eisenberg,
J.
(1975).
Violent
and
antisocial
behavior:
A
longitu-
dinal
study
of
urban
youth
(OCD-CB-480).
Unpub-
lished
manuscript,
Office
of
Child
Development.
Spuck,
D.
W.
(1974).
Reward
structure
in
the
public
school.
Educational
Administration
Quarterly,
1,
18-
34.
Sulzer-Azaroff,
B.,
&
Mayer,
G.
R.(1991).
Behavior
anal-
ysis
for
lasting
change.
Fort
Worth,
TX:
Holt,
Rine-
hart,
&
Winston.
Sulzer-Azaroff,
B.,
&
Mayer,
G.
R.
(1994a).
Achieving
educational
excellence:
Behavior
analysis
for
achieving
classroom
and
schoolwide
behavior
change.
San
Marcos,
CA:
Western
Image.
Sulzer-Azaroff,
B.,
&
Mayer,
G.
R.
(1994b).
Achieving
educational
excellence:
Behavior
analysis
for
improving
instruction.
San
Marcos,
CA:
Western
Image.
Sulzer-Azaroff,
B.,
&
Mayer,
G.
R
(1994c).
Achieving
educational
excellence:
Behavior
analysis
for
school
per-
sonnel.
San
Marcos,
CA:
Western
Image.
Thomas,
J.
D.,
Presland,
I.
E.,
Grant,
M.
D.,
&
Glynn,
T.
(1978).
Natural
rates
of
teacher
approval
in
grade-
7
classrooms.
Journal
of
Applied
Behavior
Analysis,
8,
367-372.
Tolan,
P.
H.,
Blitz,
C.,
Dafvis,
L.,
Fisher,
A.,
Schwartz,
L.,
&
Thomas,
P.
(1990,
November).
Stress,
coping,
and
development
of
adolescent
delinquency.
Paper
presented
at
the
annual
meeting
of
the
American
Society
for
Criminology,
Baltimore,
MD.
Tolan,
P.
H.,
Cromwell,
R.
E.,
&
Brasswell,
M.
(1986).
Family
therapy
with
delinquents:
A
critical
review
of
the
literature.
Family
Process,
25,
619-650.
Tolan,
P.
H.,
&
Guerra,
N.
G.
(1992).
A
developmental
perspective
on
adolescent
antisocial
behavior.
Unpubli-
shed
manuscript,
University
of
Illinois
at
Chicago.
U.S.
Department
of
Justice.
Federal
Bureau
of
Investiga-
tion.
(1989).
Uniform
crime
reports.
Washington,
DC:
Author.
Vuchinich,
S.,
Bank,
L.,
&
Patterson,
G.
R.
(1992).
Par-
enting,
peers,
and
the
stability
of
antisocial
behavior
in
preadolescent
boys.
Developmental
Psychology,
28,
510-521.
Wahler,
R.
G.,
&
Fox,
J.
J.
(1981).
Setting
events
in
applied
behavior
analysis:
Toward
a
conceptual
and
methodological
expansion.
Journal
ofApplied
Behavior
Analysis,
14,
327-338.
Walker,
H.,
Colvin,
G.,
&
Ramsey,
E.
(1994).
Antisocial
behavior
in
schools:
Strategies
and
best
practices.
Pacific
Grove,
CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Watson,
D.
L.,
&
Tharp,
R.
G.
(1993).
Self-directed
be-
havior:
Self
modification
for
personal
adjustment
(6th
ed.).
Pacific
Grove,
CA:
Brooks/Cole.
White,
M.
A.
(1975).
Natural
rates
of
teacher
approval
and
disapproval
in
the
classroom.
Journal
of
Applied
Behavior
Analysis,
8,
367-372.
Wyatt,
W
J.,
&
Hawkins,
R.
P.
(1987).
Rates
of
teacher
verbal
approval
and
disapproval:
Relationship
to
grade
level,
classroom
activity,
student
behavior,
and
teacher
characteristics.
Behavior
Modification,
11,
27-51.
Received
April
13,
1994
Initial
editorial
decision
June
9,
1994
Revisions
receivedJanuary
5,
1995;
July
27,
1995
Final
acceptance
August
8,
1995
Action
Editor,
Robert
Hawkins
