If we understand the characteristics of preteen aggressive boys, we can find ways to help these youth to be less aggressive. This was the purpose of a recent study. To this end, the characteristics of 231 boys ages 2 to 12 were assessed. The CARE2 (Seifert, 2007) was used to assess the problems, treatment needs and resiliency of this group. Youth with assaultive behaviors were compared to youth with no assaultive behaviors. Understanding their characteristics will help inform the direction that treatment needs to take.

Of the entire sample, 11% were under the age of 6, 29% were between the ages of 6 and 8, while 60% were ages 9 to 12. Ninety-eight percent of the sample were from the mid- Atlantic region of the US. Eighty-four percent were living at home with their parents and 16% were in the care of an agency. This was primarily a rural/suburban sample. Forty-four percent had a history of assaulting others and 56% did not have such a history. However, 80% had a history of moderate to severe behavior problems and 20% had histories of no or mild behavior problems.

There were similarities among the families of the assaultive boys that were not shared by the families of non-assaultive boys to the same extent. Significantly more (69%) of the families of assaultive boys had histories of family violence, than the families of non-assaultive boys (56%, p < .05). Similarly, a greater percentage of the families of assaultive boys (65%) had low warmth and high conflict when compared to the families of non-assaultive boys (39%; p< .00). Additionally, significantly fewer (1/3) of the families of assaultive boys used appropriate disciplinary practices (no too lax or too harsh and consistent), than the families of the families of non-assaultive boys (1/2; P< .05).

A greater percentage of the group of assaultive pre-adolescent males had skill deficits when compared to non-aggressive same age group of boys. More of the assaultive boys had deficits in problem solving, social, and anger management skills and the ability to have remorse for their misdeeds.

The behaviors of the two groups of boys were compared, as well. There were no differences in the percentage of each group that was known to abuse substances, running away from home, harming animals, or truancy. These behaviors occurred at very low rates in both groups. There were significant differences between groups in the percentage of boys that engaged in fire setting, delinquency, bullying others, and school behavior problems. Significantly more of the assaultive boys engaged in these behaviors than non-assaultive boys. The only behavior engaged in by more than half of the assaultive group was school behavior problems. In terms of resiliency factors, approximately ¼ of the assaultive boys and ½ of the non-assaultive boys were engaged in some type of positive activity (p = .00). There were no other differences between groups on any resiliency items.

There were no significant differences between groups on the rates of psychiatric or neurological problems or distribution of IQ, However, A greater percentage (61% or 76) of the assaultive group were identified as having attachment problems than the non-assaultive group (31%; p < .00). The assaultive boys were more than twice as likely to have attachment problems as the non-assaultive boys.

So while we see that there are some differences in the percentage of the 2 groups that have a particular problem, these differences do not totally separate the groups. It was hypothesized that it was the greater the number of problems, combined with the fewer the resiliency factors, the higher a youth's risk for violent behaviors would be. Since not all risk and resiliency factors carry equal weight in their association with violent behaviors, they carry varying weights in the CARE2. So a higher CARE2 score means that a youth has a higher number of problems associated with violence. To demonstrate this, the means, standard deviations, and ranges of the CARE2 Scores of youth with and without behavior problems and assaults were assessed and reported here.

Conclusions

The assaultive boys were more than twice as likely to have attachment problems as the non-assaultive boys. Additionally, they were twice as likely to lack remorse for their victims. More than half of the assaultive boys had anger management, problem solving and social skill deficits. Significantly more of the assaultive group of boys engaged in delinquent and bullying behaviors, fire setting and school behavior problems. A greater percentage of assaultive boys came from families with histories of violence, high conflict and low warmth, and inappropriate disciplinary practices.

We know that high conflict, low warmth, violence, and inappropriate discipline in the home can lead to attachment problems among children. We also know that attachment problems can be associated with problem solving, anger management and social skill deficits. These skill deficits lead to delinquency and school behavior problems. The more of these problems that a youth and his family have, the more likely a youth will continue to have serious behavior problems, such as violence.

This information supports the research that youth with violent behaviors and their families have multiple problems and need multi-faceted treatment that addresses the needs of the youth and his/her family. It also points out that the domestic violence of parents is significantly related to the violence of the youth in their care. We must advocate for assessment and services for the children who are in households where there is domestic violence. It also points to the needs for families to be included in the interventions for youth who are at risk for violent behaviors.