Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 346–354

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Girls and physical aggression: Causes, trends, and intervention guided by

Social Learning Theory
Gretchen Snethen ⁎, Marieke Van Puymbroeck
Indiana University, Department of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Studies, HPER 133, Bloomington, IN 47405, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Until recently, physical aggression among youth was a topic primarily reserved for and
Received 24 April 2008 researched on boys. Girls are increasingly becoming the perpetrators of physical aggression.
Received in revised form 15 May 2008 Using the Social Learning Theory (SLT) of Aggression as a theoretical framework, we examine
Accepted 15 May 2008
the increasing prevalence of aggression in women in society and popular culture. This paper
Available online 29 May 2008
reviews the etiology of aggression in girls and describes the changes in types of aggression
perpetrated by girls. Additionally, we make recommendations for both prevention and
Keywords:
Girls
treatment interventions, as well as suggestions for future research.
Aggression © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Violence
Social Learning Theory
Recreation
Intervention

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
2. Social psychology of aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
2.1. Origins of aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
2.2. Media and modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
2.3. Instigators of aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
2.4. Maintaining aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
. 2.4.1 Direct reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
. 2.4.2 Vicarious reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
. 2.4.3 Self-reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
3. Girls and aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
3.1. Prevalence of female aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
3.2. Cause for concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
4. Interventions for aggression in girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
4.1. Prevention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
4.2. Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 812 855 4711; fax: +1 812 855 3998.
E-mail address: gsnethen@indiana.edu (G. Snethen).

1359-1789/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2008.05.003
 G. Snethen, M. Van Puymbroeck / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 346–354 347

1. Introduction

Aggression, defined as intentional injurious or destructive behavior (Bandura, 1978) in girls is not a new phenomenon. Until
recently, female aggression primarily involved relational aggression (i.e., aggression that damaged peer relationships as opposed to
physical harm) (Bowie, 2007). However, physical aggression by females is becoming a more common topic in the media, research,
and juvenile justice (Garbarino, 2006; Ravoira, 2005; US Department of Justice, 2005). Crick (1995) suggested that children use
aggression as a means to socially damage peers. Furthermore, she suggested that boys used physical aggression to damage a male
peer's relational image, while girls used relational aggression to achieve similar goals. In fact, if one considered relational
aggression and physical aggression as equal forms of aggression, few differences would exist between the frequency of aggression
in boys and girls (Bowie, 2007; Crick, 1995).
While the amount of physical aggression demonstrated by girls is still less than boys, the percentage of arrests related to
physical aggression has increased for girls while decreasing for boys (US Department of Justice, 2005). Because girls have
traditionally exhibited relational aggression (Bowie, 2007; Crick, 1995), interventions have logically focused on reducing this type
of aggression. However, the American Bar Association (ABA) and National Bar Association (NBA) (2001) suggest that professionals
should consider interventions that also target physical aggression based on the increasing trend of violence perpetrated by girls. In
developing these interventions, it is important to ground them in the theories that describe aggression and the emergent causes of
physical aggression in girls. Additionally, Cohen, Hsueh, Russell, and Ray (2006) suggest the importance of looking at aggression
within a broader social context. Therefore, in this paper, we review roots of aggression from a social psychological perspective as
well as the environmental changes that have occurred concurrently with the increase of physical aggression in girls. Finally, we
review programming for girls to make suggestions for research related to prevention and treatment interventions for physically
aggressive girls.

2. Social psychology of aggression

If aggression in girls is socially motivated, as many researchers have suggested (Bandura, 1978; Bowie, 2007; Crick, 1995), it is
important to operate from a theoretical view of aggression that is also socially oriented. Therefore, for the purposes of this paper,
we discuss the roots of aggression within the framework of the Social Learning Theory (SLT).
Developed as an all-encompassing theory, SLT described how individuals attain and maintain aggressive behavior, as well as
what triggers aggression. This approach to aggression was one of the first to suggest that aggression was a learned behavior, rather
than an innate trait (Bandura, 1978). Within SLT, Bandura (1973, 1978) suggested that individuals have the capability for aggression,
but that the individual must first learn the behavior (origin), have situations that trigger aggression (instigators), and must have
internal and external situations that reinforce the aggressive behavior (maintenance). Similarly, discussion of aggressive behavior
in girls within this paper considered the origins, instigators, and maintaining conditions of aggression.

2.1. Origins of aggression

Modeling plays a major role in an individual's learning of aggression. Observation not only allows the individual to learn the
directly modeled behavior, but individuals also expand on observed behaviors to develop innovative but related behavior
(Bandura, 1973). According to SLT, individuals learn behavior from three modeling sources: direct (e.g., family, peers, and other
close influential persons), community (e.g., town or neighborhood), and media (e.g., news, television, or internet) (Bandura, 1978).
An individual's earliest behavior is often representative of the behaviors and values of the individuals closest to him or her. Bandura
(1973) maintained that an individual's behavior is limited to behaviors similar to those of the persons with whom he or she most
frequently associates. This is indicative of both pro-social and antisocial (e.g., aggressive) behavior. Early in an individual's life,
these models are primarily limited to family; however, as the child grows up, models extend to members of the community as well
(Bandura, 1973, 1978). Bandura (1978) suggests that peers and older youth who value aggression more than their parents, often
influence individuals who live in neighborhoods of lower socio-economic status. Additionally, Werner and Crick (2004) found a
significant correlation in the selection of friends in that, aggressive individuals were more likely to have aggressive friends.

2.2. Media and modeling

Another model of aggression introduced by SLT was media (Bandura, 1973, 1978). With western movies populating early
American television, aggression and violence is not new to American media. Bandura (1973) suggested that exposure to television
violence has at least four types of effects: (1) it teaches aggressive behavior; (2) it lessens the individual's natural restraint of
aggression; (3) it decreases the individual's sensitivity to violence, while increasing his or her tendency to react violently; and (4) it
roots the individual's perception of reality in violence. Moise and Huesmann (1996) found a relationship between viewing violent
television and physical aggression and fantasies of physical aggression in girls. This increased as girls identified with a violent
character on television; the correlation was stronger if the individual identified with a female character. Additionally, 69% of girls in
a separate study felt that television makes youth more violent (Smith & Thomas, 2000).
In modern culture, American media has begun to portray women as aggressive characters. Aggressive female characters are
evident in children's programming, such as the Powerpuff Girls, Power Rangers, and even Harry Potter. Additionally, portrayals of
female aggression are evident in television for adolescents and adults (e.g., Kill Bill, Charmed, and The Bionic Woman, among
348 G. Snethen, M. Van Puymbroeck / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 346–354

others). Television media is not the only place aggressive women reside. Video games and books also depict the aggressive female
character (Moise & Huesmann, 1996).
While the media have an effect on an individual's level of aggression (Bandura, 1978; Moise & Huesmann, 1996), it is important
to consider how much exposure to various types of media individuals have. The Kaiser Foundation conducted a survey of American
households to determine how much exposure youth have to media (Rideout, Foehr, Roberts, & Brodie, 1999). This study
determined that American youth (ages 2–18) spend an average of 38 h per week using both electronic and paper media unrelated
to schoolwork. For roughly 31%, television viewing constituted 1 to 3 h per day. Additionally, 42% reported the television was on
most of the day. These numbers increased when considering minority groups and individuals of lower socio-economic status. In
relation to gender and exposure to media, girls had approximately 20 min less media exposure per day and tended to read and
listen to music slightly more than boys (Rideout et al., 1999).
The Youth Risk Behavior Survey determined that 36.3% of girls watched a minimum of 3 h of television per day (Centers for Disease
Control [CDC], 2005). A smaller percent, 14.8%, played video games or used the computer for non-related schoolwork for the same
amount of time (CDC). Others have found that girls spent approximately 5 h using various types of media (Rideout et al.,1999) and that
violent girls were more likely than nonviolent girls to watch at least 3 h of television per day (32% vs 8%) (Smith & Thomas, 2000).

2.3. Instigators of aggression

Girls' are exposed to violence from a variety of sources (i.e., family, community, and media) (Bandura, 1973, 1978). According to
SLT, however, exposure provides only the knowledge and increased acceptance of physical aggression (Bandura, 1973, 1978). To
trigger aggressive acts, an individual has responded to a heightened emotional arousal caused by either a perceived infliction of
wrong upon the self or an attempt to gain status or power (Bandura, 1973, 1978).
Traditionally, relational incidents have triggered indirect aggression (e.g., backstabbing) in girls (Bowie, 2007), however, recent
research suggests some girls are beginning to react with physical aggression (Smith & Thomas, 2000; Werner & Crick, 2004). When
asked about reasons for feeling angry enough to hit someone, violent girls tended to respond with more globalized feelings of
anger, whereas nonviolent girls responded with specific examples (Smith & Thomas, 2000). Additionally, research has found that
strong feelings of anger potentially leading to aggression were correlated with feelings of alienation (e.g., loneliness, isolation, peer
rejection) (Smith & Thomas, 2000). Similarly, in a longitudinal study Werner and Crick (2004) found that girls who were rejected
by their peers were more likely to be physically aggressive a year later.
Girls often place much value on their relationship with others. Girls who experience jeopardized and/or negative familial and
peer relationships often resort to delinquent behaviors (Henderson & King, 1998). Similarly, relational motivations are a primary
cause of aggression (physical and relational) in girls (ABA & NBA, 2001). In addition to relational motivators, girls who developed
social skills later than their female peers were at a greater risk for developing conduct disorders or externalizing behaviors (Keenan
& Shaw, 1997). Furthermore, Björkqvist and Österman (2000) found a strong correlation between social intelligence and peaceful
conflict resolution. Similarly, individuals who can empathize with other individual are also more likely to resolve conflict situations
peacefully (Björkqvist & Östermann, 2000). The interpretation (or misinterpretation) of social cues may also trigger aggression. In a
literature review, Bowie (2007) suggested that children who inaccurately interpreted social messages more likely reacted with
socially inappropriate behavior, such as the use of physical aggression.
Misinterpretation of social cues is relevant when considering girls' locus of control. Henderson and King (1998) stated, “females
often have a more external locus of control and think that anything that happens to them is the result of chance, fate, luck, or powerful
others” (p. 7). When considering misinterpretation of social cues combined with a typically external locus of control, it is likely that
these individuals will become socially isolated; creating what one might call in extreme cases, the “proverbial time bomb” of aggression.

2.4. Maintaining aggression

In order for aggression to continue, SLT suggests that certain elements must reinforce it. There are three main types of
reinforcement: direct reinforcement, vicarious reinforcement, and self-reinforcement (Bandura, 1973, 1978).

2.4.1 Direct reinforcement

Direct reinforcement refers to the individual's external consequences for his or her action. Direct reinforcement may come from
peers, family member, or authority figures (Bandura, 1969). Relating back to the origins of aggression, the individual's environment
will likely predict the type of reinforcement received (Bandura, 1973, 1978). For example, an individual living in a family or
community that fosters aggression will likely receive one of three routes when dealing with aggression: praise, apathy, or
reciprocated aggression (Bandura, 1973, 1978). Any form increases the likelihood of future aggression.
The importance of peer relationships to girls (Henderson & King, 1998; Zahn-Waxler & Polanichka, 2004) suggests that direct
reinforcement from peers will also be highly important. Werner and Crick (2004) found a significant correlation between aggressive
individuals and their aggressive friends. Meaning, aggressive individuals choose to befriend aggressive peers. This was true for both
physically aggressive and relationally aggressive individuals. Moreover, this correlation was stronger when reevaluated 1 year later.

2.4.2 Vicarious reinforcement

Vicarious reinforcement occurs in two different settings. Direct observation of a peer's reinforcement and observation of
reinforcement within the media both constitute vicarious reinforcement according to SLT (Bandura, 1973, 1978). Consequences
 G. Snethen, M. Van Puymbroeck / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 346–354 349

received by peers often play a role as to whether or not an individual will commit the same act. In the case of aggression, if an
individual witnesses a punishment he or she would not like to receive, this knowledge may serve as prevention. However, if there
was no consequence, the consequence is unduly severe, or the peer received a reward for aggressive behavior, the individual may
be more likely to commit the same act (Bandura, 1973, 1978).
Much like modeling of aggression, media also has a role in vicarious reinforcement (Bandura, 1973, 1978). In a review of prime
time television, viewers most frequently saw no punishment for violence (71%) (Smith, Nathanson, & Wilson, 2002). Additionally,
23% of the aggressive characters received rewards; the antagonist character received no punishment 45% of the time; and the good
character was never punished 79% of the time (Smith et al., 2002). Along with reinforcement, physical consequences of violence
may also serve as a deterrent. The same study found only 23% of the programs suggested there were long-term consequences for
violence. The majority (44%) depicted characters who did not feel any resultant pain (Smith et al., 2002).

2.4.3 Self-reinforcement
Self-reinforcement is the third type of reinforcement in SLT. Bandura (1973) presented three types of self-reinforcement of
aggression: self-reward, self-punishment, and neutralization. Self-reward often manifests in a sense of pride about the behavior.
Self-punishment usually occurs as “self-disapproval, remorse, and attempts at reparation…” (Bandura, 1973; p. 210). More often,
individuals will try to justify their behavior through neutralization. One might accomplish this by comparing their behavior to
another individual's more violent act; justifying the action based on moral principle; blaming others or the involved group;
dehumanizing the victim (e.g., name calling); and/or simply blaming the victim (Bandura, 1973, 1978).
Self-reward and neutralization are more likely to encourage future aggressive behavior. These types of self-reinforcement serve
to desensitize the individual to his or her aggressive behavior. Much the same way as a community that values aggression, the
individual will begin to instinctually resort to aggressive behaviors, and the need for self-evaluation will become less frequent
(Bandura, 1973, 1978).
Because girls are often more motivated by an external locus of control (Henderson & King, 1998), self-reinforcement is difficult
for youth to use effectively. However, if effectively developed, self-reinforcement may be more influential than external
reinforcement in governing social behavior (Bandura, 1969). The effect of self-reinforcement is stronger for older children and
adults, suggesting the importance of teaching self-reinforcement at an early age (Bandura, 1969).
When direct or vicarious reinforcement counter an individual's natural self-reinforcement, the individual will likely resort to
forms of neutralization as the disconnect causes confusion and discomfort within the individual. Ultimately, the most effective
reinforcement is when direct, vicarious, and self-reinforcement send the same message (Bandura, 1969, 1973, 1978).

3. Girls and aggression

Self-sufficient girls are more common in today's society. Often, portrayal of self-sufficiency demonstrates an individual who is
both physically and emotionally tough (Garbarino, 2006). Garbarino (2006)reviewed news headlines related to socially acceptable
aggression. These included “Girls rugby is the fastest-growing phenomenon in the country,” “Kidnapper foiled as girl recalls dad's
lesson: fight,” “Girl saves parents from mugger” (p. 4). The ability for a girl to protect herself and the increase in popularity of
contact sports among girls is something to be celebrated. However, as society begins to view girls as more assertive and individuals
with more physicality, society must also acknowledge that deviant girls may also become more physically aggressive.
The focus on the SLT of aggression is pertinent, as girls traditionally place high value in their relationships (Zahn-Waxler &
Polanichka, 2004). This suggests that their family and peers will have a high impact on their behavior. Additionally, it suggests that
if an individual is isolated, she may replace peer relationships and identify primarily with media characters. In a similar sense,
heavy television viewers construct their perception of their community based on what they watch. Often assumptions and
stereotypes about gender, nationalities, even career paths come directly from the media (Bandura, 1978). This may even transfer to
self-perception. A longitudinal study found that girls who identified with aggressive television characters also more identified with
aggressive characters in adulthood (Moise & Huesmann, 1996). This same study found that both the child and adult participant that
identified with aggressive characters also self-identified as being aggressive. The value in relationships also suggests that girls who
have learned aggressive behavior may resort to them when relationships are threatened (Center for Women Policy Studies, 1998).

3.1. Prevalence of female aggression

Empirical data support the increasing evidence of physical aggression in females. Risk characteristics, arrest data, and gang data
offer interesting perspective on these increasing trends.
Girls within the juvenile justice system often have similar characteristics. Practical Academic Cultural Education (PACE) Center
for Girls presented a collective set of risk characteristics of the individuals served in 2004 (Ravoira, 2005). Poor school performance
was a common theme among these girls; nearly 62% had been suspended or expelled from school, and compared to grade level
over 50% were 2–8 years behind in reading and/or math. Strained family situations often included instability (e.g., parent with
mental illness, seriously ill parent, frequent moving, and parental incarceration) and conflict (e.g., neglect and domestic violence).
Over 30% had incidence of mental health disorders, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, and/or cigarette addiction. Many reported prior
victimization such as physical, sexual, and/or emotional abuse; 35% had previously filed abuse reports, and 28% were abused
within the home. The PACE center had near equal representation of Caucasian and African American girls. Finally, nearly 80% of the
girls' families were of low or very low socio-economic status (Ravoira, 2005).
350 G. Snethen, M. Van Puymbroeck / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 346–354

Recent arrest data for youth compiled by the US Department of Justice (2005) showed increasing trends for females. While boys
still commit more violent crimes than girls, the percentage change in the arrest rate for girls from 2001–2005 was greater than
their male counterpart. Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter increased 15.3% for boys under 18 years of age, while for females it
increased by 19.7%. Increase (23.4%) for youth female robbery was nearly twice that of males, and increase in other assaults was
almost 2.5 times higher than the increase for boys. Weapons carrying, disorderly conduct, and vagrancy committed by girls also
increased more than the same crimes committed by boys (US Department of Justice, 2005).
While gangs are still primarily a male phenomenon, girls are increasing their presence both in male dominated gangs and in the
rise of all female gangs (National Alliance of Gang Investigators Association, 2005). The National Council on Crime and Delinquency
interviewed nearly 1000 incarcerated adolescent girls (Acoca, 1998). This report found that 47% of respondents reported being
involved in gangs. In the past, girl and female gang members served primarily as sex objects for male gang members, or as
prostitutes to earn money for the gang. These roles are still prevalent; however, girls are beginning to take on more aggressive and
violent responsibilities. These include carrying drugs and weapons, assisting other gang members with crimes, and assaulting and
intimidating girls from other gangs and/or students at school (National Alliance of Gang Investigators Association, 2005).
Arrest reports and crime statistics give an idea of how much society sees in terms of crimes committed by girls; however, they do
not portray girls' perception and levels of acceptance of aggression. A study conducted by the Center for Women Policy Studies
(1998) found that 42% of girls felt that boys and girls were equally violent. This same study found that 54% of girls and adolescent
women thought females were violent because of previous victimization, but that 50% also believed female perpetrated violence
occurred because the offender wanted to look tough. Most girls believe violence or physical aggression is acceptable when someone
threatens their personal safety. Perhaps of greater concern is that 40% felt theft justified violence; 38% considered verbal threats a
justifiable cause; and 22% felt violence was justifiable when victimized by rumors (Center for Women Policy Studies, 1998).
Relationships were also an important factor in considering arrested adolescent girls. The majority of girls were arrested for
assault involving bi-directional familial conflicts, in which physical altercations involved parents or siblings where the instigator
was unknown (Acoca, 1998). Girls acting alone rarely committed more serious offenses (e.g., robbery, murder, and weapons
offenses). These types of offenses often occurred either with one other individual, usually an older boyfriend or with peer groups,
including all female and/or mix-gendered groups (Acoca, 1998). This also supports the evidence of Werner and Crick (2004) that
aggressive individuals are more likely to befriend other aggressive individuals.

3.2. Cause for concern

There are differing opinions about the trends in aggression and violence among females. Chesney-Lind and Belknap (2004)
suggested the increase in female arrest rates reflects changes within law enforcement and the shift to zero-tolerance policies.
While it is difficult to ascertain whether these changes are the cause of more arrests or the reaction of increased physical
aggression, it is important to note that adolescents who have been arrested are more likely to become repeat offenders (O'Mahony,
2005). Often media, and occasionally research suggest that aggression and violence in girls is an entirely new phenomenon.
Perhaps a more effective standpoint is to suggest that violence and aggression in girls exists and should receive the same type of
attention as male aggression (Chesney-Lind & Belknap, 2004).
The physical, social, and emotional needs of girls differ from that of boys. Although this is not a new concept, the primary
treatment of aggressive girls has been similar if not identical to that of boys (Acoca, 1998; Ravoira, 2005). “Communities facing
increasing populations of delinquent girls need to develop and provide appropriate prevention, intervention and treatment
alternatives that address the root causes of girls' delinquent behavior and promote safe and healthy communities” (ABA & NBA,
2001, p. 8). A blanket cure has never been effective in the treatment of male aggression, nor will it be with girls. Communities must
consider the social, emotional, and developmental needs of girls when implementing programs (Acoca, 1998; Ravoira, 2005).

4. Interventions for aggression in girls

Interventions targeting aggression should follow two paths. First, communities must attempt to prevent aggression and
violence in girls. Communities can use prevention in a blanket format, assuming all girls are potentially at-risk and could benefit
from interventions targeting healthy social/emotional development. Second, as prevention may do nothing to help girls who are
currently aggressive, the design and implementation of treatment targeted specifically to aggressive girls must also occur.
Aggressive and violent girls are not simply a problem of the juvenile justice system. Families, peers, schools, and communities
as a whole are all affected by juvenile violence. In extending Cohen et al.'s (2006) suggestion that research on aggression include
social systems, treatment and prevention should also look beyond the individual. A systemic approach to prevention and
treatment is likely to be the most effective. Involvement from families, school districts, mental health agencies, profit and non-
profit agencies, and community departments must work collaboratively (Autry & Anderson, 2006; Bullock & Gable, 2006; Kramer,
Vuppala, Lamps, Miller, & Thrush, 2006). While an in depth review of how each entity can contribute is beyond the scope of this
article, we focus specifically on suggested preventative and treatment oriented interventions.
When implementing preventative programming or treatment interventions, the professionals delivering services, whether in a
preventative or therapeutic context, must be cognizant of the goals of the program. This is essential as this awareness will allow the
professional to initially model the desired behavior, and will serve as a reminder as to how to appropriately reinforce behavior.
Caldwell (2003) suggested that when practitioners are aware of the theoretical basis of their actions, they are mindful of the
intended outcomes and can make intentional modifications for consumers. In a study examining the qualitative outcomes of a
 G. Snethen, M. Van Puymbroeck / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 346–354 351

camp designed to teach adolescent girls firefighting skills, participants frequently identified the importance of the camp leaders
who demonstrated the necessary behaviors (Yarnal, Hutchinson, & Chow, 2006). This demonstrated the importance of leaders
modeling behaviors during an intervention. Furthermore, it is important that leaders are aware of the desired outcomes so they can
model desired behaviors at the onset of the intervention. SLT provides a basis for understanding how girls develop and maintain
aggressive behavior. Similarly, the design and implementation of interventions should also address the modeling, instigators, and
reinforcement elements of SLT. Using SLT as a theoretical background creates a framework that supports both prevention and
treatment of aggression.
Interventions that utilize recreation may be appropriate for this population, as recreation is often a social endeavor (Autry &
Anderson, 2006). Not only does recreation provide the potential to be an enjoyable intervention, but it also promotes the
development of healthy relational skills. Therefore, use of SLT as a theoretical underpinning is particularly appropriate. Programs
should focus not on the elimination of aggressive behaviors, but rather the development of pro-social behaviors. Effectively
designed programs have the opportunity to both model and reinforce pro-social behaviors. Henderson and King (1998) suggested
that girls need programming that will allow them to develop individuality, try new experiences, think from multiple viewpoints,
and be able to accurately evaluate their environment.

4.1. Prevention

Girls and boys both are at a higher risk when they participate in unstructured recreational activities. Activities such as an open
gym after school recreation program have been positively correlated with antisocial behavior (Mahoney & Stattin, 2000).
Conversely, individuals who participated in structured activities reported fewer symptoms of antisocial behavior (Mahoney &
Stattin, 2000). This correlation was stronger for girls than boys, which suggests that structured recreational activities may prevent
aggression and violence even more so among female adolescents. Similarly, Mancini and Huebner (2004) found a negative
correlation between activity participation and youth risk behaviors, including substance abuse, sexual activity, and what was
generically termed delinquency (e.g., destruction of property, burglary, cheating, and getting into trouble with the police).
All types of juvenile delinquency primarily occur between the hours of three and six in the afternoon (US Department of Justice,
2005). In other words, youth are likely to commit crimes both violent and nonviolent immediately after school. Because of this,
providing structured programs during after school hours may be more effective than citywide curfews (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).
Autry and Anderson (2006) implemented a recreational program during after school and summer hours in an attempt to increase
healthy socialization within an at-risk neighborhood. Based on the views of those involved and other members of the community,
an immediate improvement was made during the summer program. However, this did not last, and the program had little
continued involvement. The program leaders saw the breakdown of the program as an effect of uninvolved parents, suggesting
that these types of efforts will be more effective if the community, parents included, is actively involved (Autry & Anderson, 2006).
As girls increase their involvement in sports, a natural tendency for programmers is to provide sport related activities. Catering
to interests is important, however, the competitive nature of some sports, especially when unsupervised may not be effective in
preventing future aggression (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Warren, Schoppelrey, Moberg, and McDonald (2005) suggested that the
need to compete with peers is directly linked to physical aggression; that is, youth feel the need to prove they are more aggressive
as a form of protection and maintenance of status. Therefore, it is critical for those using competitive sports as an intervention to
actively promote sportsmanship and pro-social behaviors. Henderson and King (1998) suggested that a variety of activities be
provided, such as sports and art that focus on group cohesion versus competition. Girls participating in a firefighting camp found
that their initial development of individual skills and competencies could then be oriented to achieve group goals (Yarnal et al.,
2006). Cohesiveness of a group in one setting may also promote the individual's ability to use similar skills outside of organized
group environments. That is, the ability to effectively use resources and group problem solving skills when faced with social
opposition may transfer to individual problem solving skills (Bandura, 2000).
Familial relationships play an important role in girls' development. Therefore, interventions that target the development of
healthy families may also serve to prevent aggression (Reese, Vera, Simon, & Ikeda, 2000). Youth who identified healthy
relationships with family members and other important adults were also less likely to participate in risk behaviors (Mancini &
Huebner, 2004). Often, preventative interventions are the responsibility of the school system or broader community. However, a
shortcoming of a structured community recreation program maybe the disengagement of parents (Autry & Anderson, 2006). Reese
et al. (2000) suggested the complementary use of school and family based prevention as a more effective approach. This would
allow an individual to develop a healthy support system, thus increasing her coping skills, both in the community and within her
home.
A preventative intervention targeting fair play in middle school aged children in Greece called “Olympic Education” was based
on both social learning theories and structural development teaching strategies (Hassandra, Goudas, Hatzigeorgiadis, &
Theodoraks, 2007). This study found that students were able to learn pro-social behaviors, exhibited fair play during sports both in
the context of the intervention, and in sports up to two months after the intervention was completed. This suggests that sports,
despite some controversy about their use for pro-social development, can be used to develop healthy behaviors and in turn prevent
anti-social behaviors (Hassandra et al., 2007).
Due to the relational basis of girls' aggression (Bandura, 1978; Bowie, 2007; Crick, 1995) and the correlation of abuse and
aggression (Acoca, 1998; Ravoira, 2005), prevention programs should also help girls develop healthy coping skills. In addition, early
instruction in moral and character development may help girls who come from less structured and high-risk home environments
(Loper & Cronell, 1996).
352 G. Snethen, M. Van Puymbroeck / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 346–354

4.2. Treatment

To address the needs of girls who are already demonstrating physical aggression, the evidence suggests a collaborative effort
between multiple professions (e.g., education professionals, family therapists, mental health professionals, and recreation
professionals, among others). As behavior problems often manifest within the school system, schools are often a source of
intervention and mental health treatment (Bullock & Gable, 2006). However, like prevention, holistic treatment, including family,
school, and community may be the most effective (Autry & Anderson, 2006; Mancini & Huebner, 2004; Reese et al., 2000).
Recreational therapy interventions provided to both girls and boys in a local Boys and Girls Club utilized interventions targeting
emotional expression, anger management, assertiveness training, and social skills development (McGhee, Groff, & Russoniello, 2005).
The youth made improvements in emotional well-being and family functioning; however, improvements were difficult to maintain
due to the low intensity of the program. Because of the low intensity, it is also possible that the youth did not receive consistent
reinforcement, thus detracting from the effectiveness of the program. This type of intervention may be easily implemented within the
school system, and may simultaneously serve as an intervention for aggressive girls and prevention for others.
Treatment, like prevention, should also involve the family (Autry & Anderson, 2006; Reese et al., 2000). Familial successes and
failures may increase the individual's ability to empathize with others, which may result in an increased ability to resolve conflict
in a pro-social manner (Björkqvist & Österman, 2000). Wells, Widmer, and McCoy (2004) utilized challenge based interventions to
increase the families' collective efficacy. In this study, three types of challenge interventions, a survival trek, a handcart trek, and
family camping, that took place over a period of four days were utilized. During the survival trek, families made packs to carry their
gear for the strenuous hikes, collected food and water during the day; at night, food was cooked over an open fire and families built
primitive tents for rest. The handcart trek was less strenuous, and required families to pull a handcart carrying supplies while
hiking over relatively flat terrain. Additionally, these families camped, but were provided with more traditional camping gear and
ample food for cooking. The family camp intervention was the least difficult and was similar to a summer camp experience, in that
families slept in primitive cabins and participated in traditional camp activities (e.g., initiative games, crafts, skits, and astronomy,
among others). According to Bandura (2000), collective efficacy involves the group's belief in achieving a designated goal
collectively versus individually. The Wells et al. (2004) study found that collective efficacy significantly increased after the survival
trek and family camping interventions. Additionally, the families' ability to resolve conflicts also significantly increased following
all three adventure based interventions (i.e., handcart trek, survival trek, and family camping).
For those girls who have either been suspended or expelled from school, more intensive interventions are likely necessary.
Adventure therapy may be an appropriate avenue for reducing physical aggression in girls. In a qualitative study conducted with
girls in a residential mental health center, hiking and ropes course initiatives were used as an intervention. The participants in this
study felt the interventions promoted trust, empowerment, teamwork, and a recognition of personal value (Autry, 2001). An
essential part of maintaining healthy relationships is trust and teamwork. It is important that participants felt the intervention
promoted these. Outcomes associated with the firefighting camp included empowerment in adolescent girls' physical and
emotional capabilities (Yarnal et al., 2006). These outcomes (e.g., a sense of empowerment and personal value) are important to
developing assertiveness.

5. Conclusions

In the past decade, physical aggression among girls has become more commonplace. This is evident in girls' sports, media,
schools and the juvenile justice system (Center for Women Policy Studies, 1998; Garbarino, 2006; US Department of Justice, 2005).
SLT provides a sound theoretical basis to describe how a society that values aggression will foster aggressive youth. As the tide
turns towards a society that is accepting of physically tough girls, combined with a society that is immersed in violence; violent
girls have become an overlooked consequence.
Girls present physically aggressive and violent behavior for different reasons than boys (Ravoira, 2005). While similarities may
be drawn; girls also have unique treatment needs (ABA & NBA, 2001; Acoca, 1998; Ravoira, 2005). Future research should focus on
developing and evaluating gender specific preventative and treatment focused interventions. Interventions should utilize
recreation, challenge based activities, and family integrated activities.
The community and schools seem a logical starting point for preventative interventions (Kramer et al., 2006). Additionally, to
help develop healthy relationships at home, interventions should include family involvement (Autry & Anderson, 2006; Reese
et al., 2000). Supervised activities have the opportunity to model healthy behaviors and positively reinforce them (Snyder &
Sickmund, 2006). Programs should be intentionally designed to focus on activities that help girls develop positive relationship
skills and the ability to be more self-assured (Henderson & King, 1998). Subsequently, program staff should not suppose that the
activity will achieve the outcomes simply through participation; staff must be thoughtful and reflective throughout the process to
ensure positive outcomes. By understanding the theoretical basis of an intervention, the staff will understand the intended
outcomes and be more effective in working with consumers to implement change (Caldwell, 2003).
The use of SLT within interventions for aggressive girls provides a theoretical basis for understanding how girls develop and
maintain aggressive behavior. Beyond understanding, the three parts of SLT (origin, instigation, and maintenance) provides an
outline for practitioners to develop interventions. By modeling desired outcomes and targeting the values of the individual, her
peers, and her family, practitioners can provide the consumer with an origin of the desired behavior. Additionally, understanding
instigators and allowing behavioral instigators to occur within a controlled environment will give the staff the opportunity to help
the consumer make healthy decisions that will then have the possibility of transferring outside of the treatment setting. Finally,
 G. Snethen, M. Van Puymbroeck / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 346–354 353

when the practitioner, consumer, and family members are aware of the desired outcomes, all parties involved can accurately
reinforce behavior promoting long-term maintenance of desired outcomes.
Currently, only limited research of evidence based interventions targeted towards aggressive girls exists. Future research should
target developing evidence based interventions and provide programmatic steps for planning, implementing, debriefing, and
evaluating interventions. Furthermore, researchers must work collaboratively with practitioners to create an environment that
fosters effective program development.
Media are a source of modeling and vicarious reinforcement of aggression (Bandura, 1973, 1978; Moise & Huesmann, 1996).
Youth spend much time watching television (Rideout et al., 1999), and while this paper did not address media's ethical
responsibility to its viewers, future researchers and policy makers should consider the effect media has on youth, and question
whether or not television programmers should hold any responsibility.
Finally, while this paper focuses on physically aggressive and violent girls, girls today do not commit as many violent crimes as
boys (US Department of Justice, 2005). However, ignoring its increasing incidence will not help those already violent, nor will it
provide hope for future generations. Practitioners should continue to encourage girls to develop physicality, but must concurrently
help girls develop healthy assertive behaviors. Empowering girls within our society must be a goal of youth service providers,
including school and community professionals, family and child mental health professionals, among other. These groups must find
a way to work collaboratively to find interventions that give girls the tools they need in order to find success.

References

Acoca, L. (1998). Outside/inside: The violation of American girls at home, on the street, and in the juvenile justice system. Crime & Delinquency, 44(4), 561−589.
American Bar Association & National Bar Association (2001). Justice by gender: The lack of appropriate prevention, diversion, and treatment alternatives for girls in the
justice system. Washington DC: Author.
Autry, C. E. (2001). Adventure therapy with girls at-risk: Responses to outdoor experiential activities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 35(4), 289−306.
Autry, C. E., & Anderson, S. C. (2006). Recreation and the Glenview neighborhood: Implications for youth and community development. Leisure Sciences, 29(3),
267−285.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, INC.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28(3), 12−29.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75−78.
Björkqvist, K., & Österman, K. (2000). Social intelligence-empathy=aggression? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(2), 191−2000.
Bowie, B. H. (2007). Relational aggression, gender, and the developmental process. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 20(2), 107−115.
Bullock, L. M., & Gable, R. A. (2006). Programs for children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders in the United States: A historical overview,
current perspectives, and future directions. Preventing School Failure, 50(2), 7−14.
Caldwell, L. L. (2003). Basing outcomes on theory: Theories of intervention and explanation. In N. J. Stumbo (Ed.), Client outcomes in therapeutic recreation services.
State College, PA: Venture.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005). 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Retrieved 10/23/2007 from www.cdc.gov/yrbss
Center for Women Policy Studies (1998). Report of the Summit on girls and violence. Washington, DC: Author.
Chesney-Lind, M., & Belknap, J. (2004). Trends in delinquent girls' aggression and violent behavior: A review of the evidence. In M. Putzllaz& K.L. Bierman (Eds.),
Aggression, antisocial behavior, and violence among girls: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford Press.
Crick, N. (1995). Relational aggression: The role of intent attributions, feelings of distress, and provocation type. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 313−322.
Cohen, R., Hsueh, Y., Russell, K. M., & Ray, G. E. (2006). Beyond the individual: A consideration of context for the development of aggression. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 11, 341−351.
Garbarino, J. (2006). See Jane hit: Why girls are growing more violent and what can be done about it. New York: Penguin Press.
Hassandra, M., Goudas, M., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Theodoraks, Y. (2007). A fair play intervention program in school Olympic education. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 22(2), 99−114.
Henderson, K. A., & King, K. (1998). Recreation programming for adolescent girls: Rationale and foundations. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16(2),
1−14.
Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. (1997). Developmental and social influences on young girls' early problem behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 95−113.
Kramer, T. L., Vuppala, A., Lamps, C., Miller, T. L., & Thrush, C. R. (2006). The interface between mental health providers, families, and schools: Parents and child
attitudes about information-sharing. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15(4), 377−392.
Loper, A. B., & Cronell, D. G. (1996). Homicide by juvenile girls. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5(3), 323−336.
Mahoney, J. E., & Stattin, H. (2000). Leisure activities and adolescent antisocial behavior: The role of structure and social context. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 113−127.
Mancini, J. A., & Huebner, A. J. (2004). Adolescent risk behavior patterns: Effects of structured time-use, interpersonal connections, self-system characteristics, and
sociodemographic influences. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(6), 647−668.
McGhee, S. A., Groff, D. G., & Russoniello, C. V. (2005). We care too: Providing community based therapeutic recreation services for youth with emotional and
behavioral disorders. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 39(1), 32−46.
Moise, J. F., & Huesmann, L. R. (1996). Television violence viewing and aggression in females. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 794, 380−383.
National Alliance of Gang Investigators Association (2005). 2005 National gang threat assessment. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance.
O'Mahony, P. (2005). Juvenile delinquency and emotional and behavioural difficulties in education. In P. Clough, P. Garner, J. T. Pardeck, & F. K. O. Yuen (Eds.),
Handbook of emotional and behavioural difficulties (pp. 168−181). London: Sage Publications.
Ravoira, L. (2005). PACE believing in girls: Portrait of risk. Retrieved 10/15/2007 from http://www.pacecenter.org/POR%202005.pdf
Reese, L. E., Vera, E. M., Simon, T. R., & Ikeda, R. M. (2000). The role of families and care givers as risk and protective factors in preventing youth violence. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review, 3(1), 61−77.
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., Roberts, D. F., & Brodie, M. (1999). Kids and media at the new millennium. Washington, DC: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Smith, H., & Thomas, S. P. (2000). Violent and nonviolent girls: Contrasting perceptions of anger experiences, school, and relationships. Issues in Mental Health
Nursing, 21, 547−575.
Smith, S. L., Nathanson, A. I., & Wilson, B. J. (2002). Prime-time television: Assessing violence during the most popular viewing hours. Journal of Communication, 52(1),
84−111.
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 National report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
US Department of Justice. (2005). Crime in the United States 2005. Retrieved 10/12/2007 from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_35.html
Warren, K., Schoppelrey, S., Moberg, D. P., & McDonald, M. (2005). A model of contagion through competition in the aggressive behaviors of elementary school
students. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(3), 283−292.
354 G. Snethen, M. Van Puymbroeck / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 346–354

Wells, M. S., Widmer, M. A., & McCoy, J. K. (2004). Grubs and grasshoppers: Challenge-based recreation and the collective efficacy of families with at-risk youth.
Family Relations, 53(3), 326−333.
Werner, N. E., & Crick, N. R. (2004). Maladaptive peer relationships and the development of relational and physical aggression during middle childhood. Social
Development, 13(4), 495−514.
Yarnal, C. M., Hutchinson, S., & Chow, H. (2006). “I could probably run a marathon right now”: Embodiment, space, and young women's leisure experience. Leisure
Sciences, 28(2), 133−161.
Zahn-Waxler, C., & Polanichka, N. (2004). All things interpersonal: Socialization and female aggression. In M. Putzllaz & K.L. Bierman (Eds.), Aggression, antisocial
behavior, and violence among girls: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford Press.