Children with behavioral and emotional problems: Is their behavior explained only by complex learning? Or do internal motives have a role?

Abstract

The Development of Antisocial Behavior: Coercive Interactions and Temperament As far back as 1967, Patterson, Littman, and Bricker found that aggressive behavior on the part of nursery school children resulted in positive reinforcement in nearly 80% of the incidents, (i.e. either the victim cried or gave up the toy). Thus began the work of Patterson and his colleagues in analyzing the development of antisocial behavior throughout the lifespan from a behavioral perspective. Patterson and his colleagues (1992; 2002) provided an explanation for how coercive patterns of interaction between parents and their young children constituted early for antisocial behavior and created a foreshadowing of a life-long trajectory of problems, including: noncompliance, fighting in childhood, truancy and delinquency in adolescence, and criminal behavior, marital problems and a whole myriad of adjustment difficulties in adulthood. Patterson and his colleagues identified several variables that have consistently co-varied in research related to antisocial behavior: disadvantage, ineffective parental discipline, lack of parental supervision, parental use of physical punishment, academic failure, parental rejection, peer rejection, member of a deviant peer group and low 'self-esteem' (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992, p.10). These researchers provided evidence from retrospective accounts and many hours of observations of children with antisocial behavior and their families' interactions that antisocial behavior follows a sequence of development over time. The first stage involves the basic training of coercive interactions when the child learns from the parents that coercive behaviors (i.e. hitting, yelling, temper tantrums) terminate demands (negative reinforcement) and frequently result in getting his way (positive reinforcement). After hundreds of trials of coercive interactions with family members, Patterson and his colleagues hypothesize that these interactions increase in duration and escalate, then leading to the parental problems of poor discipline, use of physical punishment and rejecting the child. In 1995, Snyder and Patterson demonstrated that the re is a match between the amounts of prosocial vs. antisocial tactics used in interaction and the relative rates of reinforcement for these behaviors. In stage two, the child reacts with 'low self-esteem', 'depression' and poor academic performance, while being rejected by peers due to his coercive interaction style. At the same time, the child receives positive reinforcement for bullying peers. By stage three, due to peer rejection and parent failure to provide supervision, the child has often chosen a deviant peer group and may be involved in substance abuse and delinquency. Stage four is when the child has grown into a 'career antisocial adult' who is highly at-risk for problems with alcohol, substance abuse, crime, marital discourse, mental illness, and unemployment (Caspi, Elder, & Bern, 1987; Caspi, Bern, & Elder, 1989). Patterson and his colleagues claim that [t]heir (children with antisocial behavior) lack of social skills leads them to an increasingly marginal existence characterized by a constant stream of crises, many of which are of their own making (Patterson et al., 1992, p. 14). These researchers also claim that is difficult to teach these children social and academic skill [due to] their explosive tempers and refusal to except negative feedback (Patterson et al., 1992, p. 12). It is functional and natural for infants and toddlers to use coercive behaviors (crying, whining, etc.) to elicit certain behaviors from others (getting fed or a preferred toy) until they learn to mand (make verbal requests). Problem children, however, continue to use coercive behavior beyond the toddler years to gain more immediate gratification (positive reinforcement) or to avoid/escape unpleasant demands or situations (negative reinforcement). …