International Journal of Adolescence and Youth

ISSN: 0267-3843 (Print) 2164-4527 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rady20

School for Aggression: Types of Adolescent

Aggression in School Students and School
Dropouts

Revital Selah-Shayovits

To cite this article: Revital Selah-Shayovits (2004) School for Aggression: Types of Adolescent
Aggression in School Students and School Dropouts, International Journal of Adolescence and
Youth, 11:4, 303-316, DOI: 10.1080/02673843.2004.9747937

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2004.9747937

Published online: 27 Mar 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1674

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rady20
International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 2004, Volume 11, pp. 303-316
0267-3843/04 $10
© 2004 A B Academic Publishers
Printed in Great Britain

School for Aggression: Types of

Adolescent Aggression in School
Students and School Dropouts

Revital Selah-Shayovits

Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Institute of Criminology, Israel

ABSTRACT

The aim of the present study is to analyze gender differences in aggressive

behavior in adolescents, within the context of four types of aggression: physical,
verbal, indirect and property-related. The effect of the following variables were
tested: gender, educational framework (academic high schools, vocational high
schools) and school dropouts, and age (15-16 yrs versus 17-18 yrs). Data were
collected by a self-report questionnaire, administered to 921 adolescents. The
results show significant gender differences in aggression levels. Physical, verbal
and property-related levels of aggression were higher in males than in females.
However, gender-related differences involving indirect aggression were very
low. The results show that academic and vocational school students were
significantly different from school dropouts within the context of indirect
aggression. The highest indirect aggression level was found in vocational school
students, and the lowest -in school dropouts. Multivariate analyses of variance
for each separate variable demonstrated significant effects relating to differences
between gender and educational levels.

INTRODUCTION

There is a consensus in the literature on adolescent violence that

boys tend to be more violent than girls. This difference may be due
to the fact that violent behavior has primarily been studied in
terms of physical violence, and from this point of view physical
violence in boys is indeed higher than in girls (Baron and
Richardson, 1994; Bjorkqvist and Niemela, 1992; Bjorkqvist, 1994;

Correspondence to: Revital Selah-Shayovits, Institute of Criminology, Faculty of

Law, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91905, Israel. Tel: 972-2-533-4538. E-
mail: ron15r®zahav .net.il
304

Burbank, 1994; Campbell, 1995; Kinnear, 1995; Lang, 1991;

Rotenberg, 1984). Another possible reason is that most research
has been conducted by men, whose concept of violence may focus
mainly on physical violence (Bjorkqvist, 1994).
One current trend in research on aggression is to test gender
differences in other types of aggression, e.g., verbal, indirect and
property-related. In addition, the effect of personal and social
factors is also being examined, e.g., age, culture, education, ethnic
origin etc. (Harris and Knight-Bohnhoff, 1996; Hutchinson et al.,
1994; Jenssen and Engesbak, 1994; Sorenson and Telles, 1991).
The socio-cultural approach presupposes that the reason for
gender-related differences in aggressive behavior depends on the
effects of the environment via gender-related education and
socialization processes. Socialization processes for girls are
stricter, and therefore markedly restrict direct expressions of
aggression. Consequently, girls tend to express more indirect
aggression behavior patterns, because these tend to be less tightly
controlled (Lagerspetz and Bjorkqvist, 1994). Refraining from the
use of direct aggression is also an attribute of social maturity. It is
thought that girls reach social maturity earlier than boys, and
therefore abstain from patterns of direct aggression. Girls have a
clearer idea of the status of individuals within their society. Girls
form smaller social units than boys, and prefer long-term, intimate
social relationships, e.g., relationships between two good friends.
This type of social structure makes friendship more important
psychologically. In the sort of close, clear relationships girls
establish, there are more opportunities for aggression of the
indirect type (Bjorkqvist et al., 1992).
The socio-biological approach argues that biology provides the
basis for understanding gender-related differences in aggressive
behavior. However, for aggressive behavior to take place, an
interaction must occur between biological and social factors. The
choice of an aggressive pattern is related to the outcome, i.e., the
expected level of risk. (Bjorkqvist and Niemela, 1992). Generally,
the main trend is to choose a type of violence that will not put the
aggressor at risk. Girls tend to be physically weaker than boys, and
therefore they tend less to make use of direct, physical aggression,
due to the expected risk. Indirect aggression, however, minimizes
the expected risk to the aggressor, who often remains unexposed.
Girls tend to resort to indirect aggression at an earlier stage in life.
In the opinion of researchers, social patterns and gender designa-
tions help to emphasize the trend for gender-related difference in
aggressive behavior. Direct, physical aggression is considered
"masculine" according to the "male macho" stereotype, whereas
 305
indirect aggression does not threaten or harm the feminine
stereotype because the agressor remains under cover (Bjorkqvist
and Niemela, 1992). Previous studies have shown that increases in
age and educational levels are generally related to a decrease in
aggression levels in both genders (Harris and Knight-Bohnhoff,
1996). It is thought that aggressive behavior develops in stages
throughout life: direct, physical aggression is more typical of
children; the second stage, during elementary school, is character-
ized by direct verbal aggression, whereas indirect aggression
patterns develop during adolescence (Bjorkqvist and Niemela,
1992).
Research results demonstrate that aggression levels in both
genders increase ,during childhood and peak around the age of 12,
and thereafter gradually decrease (Landau et al., 2002; Lore and
Schultz, 1993). Findings for girls show that indirect aggression
however increases during adolescence as compared with
childhood. In addition, adolescent girls have been found to use
indirect aggression, e.g., labelling and exclusion, to support and
egg on boys to act with direct aggression (Bjorkqvist et at, 1992).
A number of studies have shown that age and educational level
are inversely related to readiness to accept aggressive behavior.
Educated people tend to view aggressive behavior less favorably
and define these as more harmful, compared to people without
higher academic education (Harris and Knight-Bohnhoff, 1996).
Similar results have been obtained from a study comparing the
concept of aggressive behavior in college males and high school
male students. This study showed that college males defined more
situations as violent compared to high school students
(Hutchinson et al., 1994). These studies prompted the conclusion
that age and educational level do affect the concept of aggressive
behavior. Older and more educated people thus view more
behavioral patterns as violent, and tend to justify aggression less
(Jenssen and Engesbak, 1994).
The literature relating to adolescents who have dropped out of
school usually focuses on the study of direct aggression. It may be
supposed that this results from the high frequency of direct
aggression among socially isolated youth. In a study conducted in
Israel it was found that 60% of school dropouts were involved in
physical violence at least once in the previous year. One fifth of
these were involved in violence that included firearms or knives
and a quarter of them had a criminal record (Kahan- Strawczynski
et al., 1999). Direct aggression is an attribute of the delinquent
culture that is present in such peripheral groups, and it serves to
protect the status of youths and strengthen it in the eyes of their
306
peers (Afria, 1999; Gamefski and Hirschi, 1996; Grennan et al.,
2000; Kahan- Strawczynski et al., 1999; Wiener, 1999). However, to
the author's knowledge, no studies have been analyzed indirect
aggression in school dropouts.
The general theory of crime developed by Gottfredson and Hirschi
(1990) clarifies the relationship between lower educational level
and violent behavior from the point of view of personal attributes.
According to this model, adolescents with a lower level of self-
control experience difficulties in adapting to educational frame-
works and drop out of school. These adolescents are violent,
impulsive and tend to take risks that endanger both themselves
and their environment. An additional attribute of individuals with
low self-control is minimal tolerance of confusion and difficulty in
dealing with conflicts by means of discussion, rather than physical
violence.
A review of the literature on the topic of gender-related
differences in aggressive behavior demonstrates that culture and
ethnic origin have a marked influence on the definition of
aggressive behavior (Harris, 1995; Harris and Knight-Bohnhoff,
1996; Hines and Fry, 1994; Landau et al., 2002; Samples, 1997;
Sorenson and Telles, 1991). A study testing the effect of ethnic
origin on aggressive behavior showed that Hispanic Americans as
compared to Afro-Americans and Anglo Saxons Americans
tended to react more violently than other ethnic groups, and also
tended more to support violent reactions to opposition (Harris,
1995).
The present Study examines aggressive behavior in classical
educational frameworks (academic schools and vocational
schools) as compared to the 'educational' setting of school drop-
outs on two age groups of male and female adolescents. Four types
of aggression were investigated: physical, verbal, indirect and
property-related. This study is novel in examining the differences
in indirect aggression between students at school and in school
dropouts.

METHODS

Sample

The sample consisted of 921 Israeli adolescents in the following

three groups:

• Academic high school students- 614 students (301 males and

313 females) in the 10th-12th grades drawn from six schools in
Jerusalem.
 307
• Vocational high school Students - 211 Students (153 males and
58 females) in the 10th-12th grades drawn from two schools in
Jerusalem.
• School dropouts - 96 adolescents of the same age as the students
(72 males and 24 females). The adolescents in this group do not
belong to any educational or occupational framework. Most
were identified by social workers at the Youth Promotion
Department of the Municipality of Jerusalem, working with
street gangs. Some of the youths in this group are street gang
members and are involved in delinquent behavior. 90% of the
school dropouts who were examined in this research are native
Israelis and 10% are immigrants from the former U.S.S.R ( 6 boys
and 3 girls). The Compulsory Education Law in Israel is
enforced on youth up to the lOth grade. The majority of the
school dropouts left school in the transition from junior high
school to high school, around the age of 13. The age range was
15 to 18 years (mean = 17.3 years). The population size was
adjusted to represent the actual relationship between groups of
secular1 adolescents in Jerusalem (from academic high schools,
vocational high schools, and school dropouts). Comparative
data were obtained from the Education Department of the
Jerusalem Municipality.

Instrument

An anonymous questionnaire was devised to collect the required

data. The questionnaire was constructed in a manner similar to the
DIAS (Direct and Indirect Aggression Scales) indices of direct and
indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist et al., 1992). Questions testing
aggression indices were adapted from Landau (Landau et al.,
2002). In the first stage, a pilot study was conducted on 60
adolescents from the three groups. The questionnaire was
modified following the pilot study, after inviting the respondents
to voice their opinions on the clarity of the questions. Respondents
were asked to relate their responses to the preceding year. The
pilot results were not included in the final sample population. The
questionnaire had 56 items. Questions concerning aggression
indices were combined, and did not appear separateiy as they do

1
Note that in Israel, the school system is divided in a complex way into religious
and secular educational institutions. Secular schools are co-educational; most
but not all religious schools are not.
308
below. Those who responded to the questionnaire were asked
questions such as: You are asked to describe what you did when
someone annoyed you very much during the previous year. Please select
the reply that suits you best from the following. Please circle the number
next to the most suitable response. Subjects responded on a four-point
scale as follows; (1) never (2) rarely (3) occasionally (4) often (5)
very often.
Sample item: How often did you respond by hitting that person?
(physical aggression); How often did you respond by threatening that
person? (verbal aggression); How often did you respond by telling
others bad things or lies about that person? (indirect aggression); How
often did you respond by breaking something? (property-related
aggression). Cronbach's alpha values for physical aggression
items were:

a = .88, for the verbal aggression a =. 73. The values for indirect
aggression were a =. 71, and for property-related aggression items
(l =. 65.

Data Collection

The questionnaire was administered to school-attending

adolescents within the framework of the class. For school
dropouts, the questionnaire was administered in groups or
individually, according to necessity. The meetings were held with
the assistance of workers from the Youth Promotion Department
of the Municipality of Jerusalem in a club designated for youth
social counseling. Some of the individuals in the latter group
required assistance in reading the questionnaire and responding
to it. The time framework required for filling in the questionnaire
was about 15 min.

RESULTS
Educational setting, gender and age differences for the four types
of aggressive behavior were subjected to statistical analyses. The
main results are summarized below.

Gender Differences and Aggressive Behavior

Table 1 presents gender-related differences in aggressive behavior.

 309
TABLE 1

T-Test for Gender and Aggressive Behavior (N=921)

Aggression Gender M SD N T p

Physical Boys 2.71 0.72 526 14.85 .00*

Girls 1.76 0.74 395
Indirect Boys 2.48 0.80 526 3.32 .00*
Girls 2.28 0.71 395
Verbal Boys 2.82 0.89 526 7.02 .00*
Girls 2.39 0.70 395
Property-related Boys 1.99 0.92 526 6.91 .00*
Girls 1.56 0.83 395

*p < .05

Analysis of the relationship between the aggression indices and

gender was performed separately for each aggression index
(physical, verbal, indirect and property-related), using aT-test. As
can be seen from the table. there are statistically significant
gender- related differences for all aggression indices. Boys display
a higher level of aggression for all four indices as compared to
girls. The results show that gender-related differences involving
indirect aggression were very low.

Education and Aggressive Behavior

Table 2 presents education-related differences in aggressive

behavior. Analysis of the differences in aggression indices across
the three groups (academic school students, vocational school
students and school dropouts) was performed by means of the
Tukey-Kramer test. The results for each aggression index were as
follows:

Physical aggression - There was a statistically significant

difference across the 3 groups for physical aggression. School
dropouts displayed the highest physical aggression index
(M=3.27), whereas academic school students exhibited the lowest
(M=l.96).

Indirect aggression - Academic school students were not

310

TABLE2

Tukey-Kramer Test for Educational Framework and

Aggressive Behavior (N=921)

Educational Framework

Aggression Voca- School M SD N

tional Drop-
outs

Physical Academic 0.39* 1.02* 1.96 0.96 614

Vocational 0.39* 2.53 1.15 211
School
Dropouts 3.27 1.04 96
Indirect Academic -{).02 -{).11 2.37 0.86 614
Vocational 0.04 * 2.51 1.02 211
School 2.27 0.86 96
Dropouts
Verbal Academic -0.01 0.53 * 2.26 0.83 614
Vocational 0.31 * 2.42 1.09 211
School 3.08 0.97 96
Dropouts
Property- Academic 0.19* 0.31 * 2.26 0.91 614
related Vocational 0.11 * 2.63 0.87 211
School 2.83 0.96 96
Dropouts

*p < .05

substantially different from vocational school students. Con-

versely, vocational school students were significantly different
from school dropouts. Vocational school students displayed the
highest level of indirect aggression (M=2.51), whereas school
dropouts demonstrated the lowest level (M=2.27).

Verbal aggression - Academic students were not significantly

different from vocational school students. On the other hand,
school dropouts were significantly different from school students
in both groups. School dropouts exhibited the highest level of
verbal aggression (M=3.08), whereas academic school students
displayed the lowest (M=2.26).

Property-related aggression - Academic school students were

 311
significantly different from vocational school students and school
dropouts. No significant difference was found between the latter 2
groups within the context of property-related aggression. The
highest level of aggression was found in school dropouts (M=2.83)
and the lowest, among academic school students (M=2.26).

Age and Aggressive Behavior

Table 3 presents age-related differences in aggressive behavior.

Analysis of the differences between aggression indices and age
was performed using a T-test. As can be seen from the table, the
only statistically significant age-related difference between the
younger and older age group was for the physical aggression
index, whereas no significant differences were found for the
verbal, indirect and property-related aggression indices. Thus
overall all aggression indices exhibit a similar trend: the younger
age group displayed a somewhat higher level of aggression
compared to the older age group.

Multivariate Analysis of Variables (Manova) for Aggression

A Manova was used to test for the simultaneous effects of the

independent variables (gender, education, and age) on the
dependent variable (physical, verbal, indirect and property-
related aggression).

TABLE 3

T-Test for Age and Aggressive Behavior (N=921)

Aggression Age M so T N p

Physical 17-15 2.38 0.79 2.83 318 .00*

17-18 2.06 0.82 603
Indirect 15-17 2.39 0.80 1.82 318 .70
17-18 2.35 0.89 603
Verbal 15-17 2.68 0.82 1.72 318 .08
17-18 2.56 0.86 603
Property-related 15-17 1.85 0.85 1.56 318 .11
17-18 1.74 0.89

*p < .05
312
No triple interaction for the independent variables was found.
Analysis of each of the independent variables confirmed there was
a statistically significant gender- related difference for each of the 4
aggression indices: Wilks' Lambda= .93 F (7,456)=11.94, p<.OOOl.
Analysis of the differences between the younger and older age
groups showed no significant difference. However, analysis
results demonstrated a statistically significant difference in all 4
aggression indices across the groups within the context of
educational framework: Wilks' Lambda= .89 F (10,876) p=<.0001.

DISCUSSION

This study examined gender-related differences in adolescents

within the context of 4 aggression indices, i.e., physical, verbal,
indirect and property-related in two contrasting settings:
academic and school dropouts. The results show that there was a
statistically significant gender-related difference as far as
aggressive behavior is concerned. Overall, physical, verbal and
property-related aggression levels were higher in boys than in
girls. The only exception was the indirect aggression index, which
did not display a substantial difference between boys and girls.
These findings confirm what is known from the literature on
gender-related differences (Bjorkqvist and Niemela, 1992;
Campbell, 1995; Lagerspetz and Bjorkqvist, 1994). It may be
supposed that one reason for the higher frequency of indirect
aggression among girls is related to the fact that girls acquire this
type of behavior via social learning. Indirect aggression is learned,
as are other types of aggression. Girls are exposed to indirect
aggression by feminine role models, with whom they identify and
whose behavior they mimic. Girls may even think that some
indirect aggression behavior patterns are socially normal, because
no social sanctions are usually directed at the indirect aggressor.
Another possible explanation may be that girls are afraid of
reacting with direct aggression. Direct aggression would expose
their identity to the victim and the environment and thus might
impair their social status, because girls express a dislike towards
direct aggression. In addition, direct aggression might lead
controllers, such as teachers and parents, to take steps against the
aggressor. The results of this study support the socio-cultural
approach as described in the introduction.
The literature on the subject of the relationship between
education and violent behavior focuses mainly on direct
aggression. This study is novel in examining the differences in
 313
indirect aggression between school students and school dropouts.
The results of this study show that there is a statistically significant
difference in the context of physical aggression levels. Aggression
levels were lower in academic school students compared to
vocational school students, whereas the highest level of aggression
was found in school dropouts. Results relating to physical
aggression may be explained in terms of Gottfredson and Hirschi's
(1990) general crime theory. This theory emphasizes the importance
of the term "low self-control" as a central theme in understanding
violent behavior. In particular, adolescents with lower self-control
usually have difficulties in adapting to various frameworks and
drop out of school. These adolescents tend to be violent and im-
pulsive, and tend to risk both themselves and their environment.
Another attribute of people with low self-control is minimal
tolerance of confusion and difficulties in dealing with conflicts by
means of discussion rather than physical violence. The most
interesting finding concerning differences between groups is
related to indirect aggression. The results show that academic and
vocational school students were significantly different from
school; dropouts within the context of indirect aggression. Note
that academic school students were not found to be substantially
different from vocational school students. The highest indirect
aggression level was found in vocational school students, and the
lowest in school dropouts. The difference between school students
and school dropouts may be related to the level of control of school
aggression is kept under tighter control in schools. Therefore,
school students tend more to react indirectly, because the control
on this type of aggression is lower. School dropouts, however,
experience little or no control over aggressive behavior. Therefore,
they tend to react directly and display less indirect aggression. It
may be supposed that another reason for the high frequency of
direct aggression in dropouts is that this type of behavior is
considered part of the delinquent sub-culture of that group. Direct
aggression is considered "masculine", in keeping with the "male
macho" stereotype, and it aims at protecting the honor of the
aggressor and raising his status among his peers. Indirect
aggression, however, may be considered a feminine pattern of
behavior, or as an indication of fear and weakness, thus impairing
the social status of the aggressor. The results of this study show
that statistically significant age- related differences between the
younger and older age group are only found only within the
context of the physical aggression index, and no significant
differences were found for the verbal, indirect and property-
related aggression indices. Overall, all aggression indices display a
314

similar trend: the younger age group exhibits a somewhat higher

level of aggression compared to the older. Thus an increase in age
is related to decreasing levels of all types of aggression as
suggested by the literature on the relationship between age and
aggression. Results obtained from the multivariate analyses
demonstrate that when the differences are examined in
relationship to the 4 aggression indices, there is no significant
interaction among the three independent variables (age, gender
and education). Conversely, multivariate analyses conducted
separately for each variable showed that gender and education
differences were statistically significant. The age variable did not
yield a coherent statistical result. This findings, similar to the those
for each aggression index, demonstrate that education and gender
affect aggression levels in all of the aggression indices. The finding
that no significant age- related difference was found for the verbal,
indirect and property-related aggression indices may be due to the
fact that the age difference between the groups was not very great.
This study did not analyze the effects of ethnic origin or socio-
economic status. A review of literature concerning gender-related
differences in aggressive behavior indicates that culture and ethnic
origin influence the definition of aggressive behavior (Harris,
1995; Harris and Knight-Bohnhoff, 1996; Landau et al., 2002). In
light of the differences in aggression indices between the different
groups, socio-economical status and ethnic origin may influence
aggression levels. Future studies testing the effects of these
variables may shed further light on aggressive behavior in
adolescents.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper is based on the findings of the author's doctoral thesis

at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, written under the
supervision of Prof. S.F. Landau and Dr. M. Regev. The author
would like to thank Prof. Landau for his useful comments on
earlier drafts of this paper, and the late Maya Landau for her
superb work in editing it.

REFERENCES

Afria, Q. (1999). Adolescent gangs: A practitioners perspective. In Adolescent

gang-old issues, new approaches (W.B. Curtis, ed.) pp. 39-53. Brunner Press;
Los Angeles, CA.
 315
Baron, R.A. & Richarson, D.R. (1994). Aggression (2nd ed.). Plenum Press: New
York.
Bjorkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal and indirect aggression:
A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30(3/4), 177-187.
Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K .M. J. & Osterman, K. (1992). The direct and indirect
aggression scales. Abo Akademi University; Vasa, Finland.
Bjorkqvist, K. & Niemela, P. (1992). New trends in the study of female
aggression. In Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression (K. Bjorkqvist &
P. Niemela, eds) pp. 3-16. Academic Press; San Diego, CA.
Burbank, V.K. (1994). Cross- cultural perspectives on aggression in women and
girls: An introduction. Sex Roles, 30, 169-175.
Campbell, A. (1995). A few good men: Evolutionary psychology and female
adolescent aggression. Ethnology and Sociobiology, 16, 99-123.
Garnefski, N. & Okma, S. (1996). Addiction-risk and aggressive/criminal
behavior in adolescence: Influence of family, school and peers. Journal of
Adolescence, 19, 6, 503-512.
Gottfredson, M.R. & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford
University Press; Stanford, CA.
Grennan, S. Britz M.T. Rush, J. & Barker, T. (2000). Gangs - an international
approach. Prentice Hall; New Jersey.
Harris, M.B. (1995). Aggressive experiences and aggressiveness: Relationship to
etbnicity, gender and age. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 38-70.
Harris, M.B.& Knight-Bohnhoff, K. (1996). Gender and aggression: Perception of
aggression. Sex Roles, 35, 1-25.
Hines, N.J. & Fry, D.P. (1994). Indirect modes of aggression among women of
Buenos Aires, Argentina. Sex Roles, 30, 213-236.
Hutchinson, R.L. ,Tess, D.E., Gleckman, A.D., Hagans, C.I. & Reese, I.E. (1994).
Students' perceptions of male sexually aggressive behavior as a function of
educational level and gender. Sex Roles, 30, 407-422.
Jenssen, A.T. & Engesbak, H. (1994). The many facts of education: Why are
people with lower education more hostile towards immigrants than people
with higher education? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 38, 33-50.
Kahan-Strawczynski, P. Dolev, T. & Shemesh, I. (1999). A survey of Youth in the
care of the youth at risk advancement section, youth and society administration,
ministry of education, culture and sport. Characteristics, needs and responses-
research report. Youth and Society Administration, State of Israel.
Kinnear, K.L. (1995). Violent children. Santa Barbara, ABC- CLIO, INC; California.
Lagerspetz, K.M.J. & Bjorkqvist, K. (1994). Indirect aggression in boys and girls.
In Aggressive Behavior; Current Perspectives (R. Huesmann, ed. ) pp. 131-146.
Plenum Press, New York.
Landau, S.F, Bjorkvist, K. Lagerspetz, K M. J. Osterman, K& Gideon, L. (2002).
The effect of religiosity and ethnic origin on direct and indirect aggression
among males and females: Some Israeli findings. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 281-
298.
Lang, S.S. (1991). Teen violence. Franklin Watts; New York.
Lore, R.K., & Schultz, L.A. (1993). Control of human aggression: A comparative
perspective. American psychologist, 48, 16-25.
Rotenberg, K.J. (1984). Causes, intensity, motives and consequences of children's
anger from self-reports. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146, 101-106.
Samples, F.L. (1997). Cognition, behaviors and psychological sympatomatology:
Relationships and pathways among African and Latino children. Journal of Negro
Education, 66, 172 -188.
316
Sorenson, S.B. & Telles, C.A. (1991). Self-reports of spousal violence in a
Mexican-American and Non-Hispanic White Population. Violence and
Victims, 6(1), 3-15.
Wiener, V. (1999). Winning the war against youth gangs. Greenwood Press;
London.