Anger management and violence prevention: a holistic solution.

ANGER IN THE CLASSROOM is usually destructive. Whether from student or teacher, anger undermines the learning environment. It may lead to disturbing threats of emotional or physical harm or to actual violence. It can interfere with relationships between students and teachers, e.g., it's difficult for a teacher to be nice to a youngster who says "take a hike" or perhaps something more insulting. Anger can directly affect student performance. There is a clear correlation between anxiety and academic achievement: the higher the anxiety, which can be caused by hostility in the environment, the lower the achievement.

Many programs focus on teaching children how to express anger in socially acceptable ways. While there may be some benefit in this, general semantics (GS) can help individuals avoid anger in the first place. General semantics ideas and formulations applied to everyday problems offer a more efficient approach and one that puts less strain on the body. Anger produces changes in pulse, stomach acid secretions, and blood pressure. Anger can also weaken the body's immune system and make it more difficult to fight off diseases.

The general semantics ideas and exercises described in this article are ones that I used when counseling middle-school students in the New York City public school system. Elementary and high school students can also benefit from these ideas and exercises if they are adapted to the students' level of development. (1) One does not have to be a counselor to use a general semantics anger-management approach with students. Teachers at my school were able to get good results with the approach when "teachable moments" presented themselves.

ANGER MANAGEMENT

Anger in Children: Two Theories

The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis

Some theories on anger maintain it is an emotion caused by frustration. This notion, which has been labeled the "frustration-aggression hypothesis," states that when people are frustrated, the aggression drive is stirred up. The only way to reduce this drive is for the individual to act aggressively in some way. For example, Joe constantly raises his hand in class to respond to the teacher's questions, but he is not called on. When Joe asks for an explanation, the teacher replies that she thinks Joe knows the answers to the questions and she wants other students, who may not know the answers, to respond. Joe becomes angry and shouts, "That's not fair! Why should I be penalized because I'm smart."

According to the frustration-aggression hypothesis, Joe became angry because he was blocked from his goal--to be called on to answer questions. But there is another theory that would posit that the source for Joe's anger is Joe. Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) asserts that anger is not caused by frustration but rather by a demand that one not be frustrated.

Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT)

If the frustration-aggression hypothesis is correct, then all "bright" students who are ignored by the teacher will become angry. But empirically this is not so. One can find "smart" students who become mildly annoyed when a teacher does not recognize their raised hands. Such students tend to think like this: "I don't like not being asked to answer questions in class but I guess that's the penalty 'intelligent' people like me have to pay with this particular teacher. No big deal."

REBT maintains, as did the philosopher Epictetus, that "People are not disturbed by things, but by the views they take of them." In other words, feelings are based on thoughts. If Joe thought the same way his mildly annoyed counterparts did in the above example, he would not have become angry.

REBT, a system heavily rooted in general semantics, was originated by psychologist Albert Ellis in 1955. It contends that events don't cause emotions. Beliefs about events cause emotional reactions.

Our beliefs can be rational or irrational. A belief that promotes survival and happiness is generally considered rational. The following are some distinctions between rational and irrational beliefs. (2)

Rational beliefs

** Can be supported by evidence or proof

** Are not absolute demands or commands

** Are desires, hopes, wishes, and preferences

** Produce moderate emotions such as sadness, irritation, and concern

** Help you reach your goals

Irrational Beliefs

** Lead to inaccurate deductions

** Are often overgeneralizations

** Are demands, commands, "shoulds," and needs

** Lead to disturbed emotions such as depression, rage, and anxiety

** Hinder you from reaching your goals

REBT maintains that the primary irrational belief leading to anger is the demand that "Things should be the way I want them to be." Anger is created by some type of demand, and that demand typically is formulated with words such as should, must, ought to, have to, etc. To avoid becoming angry, avoid making demands.

Irrational Beliefs that can lead to Anger and Some Effective Ways to Counter Them

Irrational Belief 1: Things should be quick and easy.

Many social scientists have argued that increased TV watching, with its quick-changing images and sounds, and the proliferation of modern time-saving devices that make tasks easier to complete, has led to an expansion of low frustration tolerance (LFT) in society. This phenomenon is manifested by an irrational belief that "Things should be quick and easy." When situations don't conform to this demand, people get angry. But the "reality" of life is that things are the way they are; demanding that things be easy will not make them easy; and many things in life are quite difficult.

To help students that I counseled become more tolerant of life's frustrations, I introduced them to Alfred Korzybski's extensional theory of happiness. This theory contends that to reach a level of contentment in life we should place realistic expectations on situations, work hard, and be prepared to not find exactly what we want. Another idea that helped students deal better with frustration was this: try to figure out what caused the frustration and see if that can be changed. The general semantics delayed reaction technique (investigate what is going on before acting) supported them in doing this.

Delaying reactions can give a person time to bring logical thought to bear on situations. For example, Charlie, an eighth grade student I counseled, was furious that he had to take geometry: "Dr. Levinson, I can't stand math, and I particularly hate geometry. Why do I have to take such a boring subject?"

I suggested to Charlie that instead of reflexively focusing on how much he hated math, which had led him to avoid study and fail his math exams, that he take some time to reflect on the "particulars of the matter." When he did this he came to see that he was "stuck" with math for the next few years and that it would be in his best interests to accept this fact and figure out how to make math a more tolerable, and perhaps more interesting, subject.

"Either-or thinking" (GS labels it "two-valued thinking") narrows down choices to just two, which can make a frustrating situation worse. For example, Jim very much wanted to go to the school prom and had his heart set on taking Mary. But when he asked Mary to accompany him to the dance she said she had already agreed to go with someone else. Frustrated in his desire to take Mary to the prom, Jim angrily concluded, "If I can't go to the dance with the girl I want, I won't go at all."

Jim would have been better served by bringing a multi-valued approach to the problem (this GS notion involves taking into account the either-or choices plus other options that may be available). Using that approach he could have investigated additional possibilities such as asking other girls to the prom, going to the dance with male friends who also didn't have dates, or attending alone. Having a variety of choices to consider gives one a sense of control and reduces the helplessness and anger that can occur if one things there is no way out of a predicament.

Irrational Belief 2: People should love and approve of me.

Most of us want to be loved and approved of by others; for young people, because of their immaturity, these desires are particularly acute. To satisfy such wants they often make intense efforts to join cliques or curry favor with peers. If their exertions in these endeavors fail, anger (at the rejecting groups or individuals) or depression (self-anger) often results.

To help students to not react to rejection with anger or depression, I acquainted them with the idea of self-acceptance. (People who accept themselves, regardless of how others view them, are much more likely to experience minimum amounts of anxiety, anger, and depression.) I also discussed the rational belief that it makes sense to prefer things go our way, rather than demand they do.

If we prefer that people love and approve of us, and they don't, we will probably be disappointed, sad, and annoyed. But if we demand love and approval, and it is not forthcoming, then intense feelings of depression and anger are likely to occur. Changing a demand (I must have it this way) to a preference (I would like to have it this way but if things don't work out I can still survive and be happy) can help us to stay calm and composed. That state of mind is typically more productive for moving forward in life than feeling miserable or irate that things didn't turn out the way we thought they should.

Irrational Belief 3. Other people make me angry.

Because feelings are based on thoughts, we have power over our emotions. The irrational belief that other people have the ability to make us angry gives control of our emotions over to them. In doing this we set ourselves up as targets for emotional button pushers.

To rid students of the irrational belief that "other people make me angry," I invited them to behave like scientists and perform the following experiment: "Take this checklist of types of responses. Survey thirty of your classmates and ask them how they feel when someone gives them a 'dirty look.' Match the responses they give you to the categories on your checklist and review the results." The checklist categories were (a) angry (b) indifferent (c) curious (d) some other response. Invariably, the variety of survey answers showed that people do not have to become angry when given a dirty look.

The fact is we can choose to become angry if we are given a dirty look, or called a "bad name," or subjected to other sorts of "offenses." But the choice is ours. Other people cannot control our emotions, unless we let them.

Another exercise I did with the students was to give a youngster a piece of paper with the word "jerk" written on it. I then asked the student, "Did I make you into a jerk by giving you that paper?" (The student would answer "No.") "Can a mere word magically change you into something you are not?" (The student again would answer "No.") "Then how smart is it to let someone else rule your behavior through name-calling?"

After this exercise, we discussed the point that one does not have to impulsively react to words. We can select our reactions to situations depending on how we view them. We are responsible for our own feelings. We are not robots, subject to the whims of evil robot masters at the "emotional controls."

Irrational Belief 4: I must have certainty in my life.

Because we live in a process world, where things are constantly changing, it is impossible to have events always turn out the way we want them to. Demanding that they should is a surefire way to become angry.

To help my "counselees" accept the rational belief that uncertainty is the norm in life I acquainted them with the Greek philosopher Heraclitus' idea that you cannot step twice into the same river. I also brought up T.S. Eliot's observation, from The Cocktail Party, that "What we know of other people is only the memory of the moments during which we knew them. And they have changed since then ... At every moment we are meeting a stranger." And I spoke about a GS notion known as the General Principle of Uncertainty.

The General Principle of Uncertainty (GPU), a generalization of the more restricted uncertainty principle as formulated in physics, states that because our nervous systems and all events in life are unique, statements describing situations can only be made in terms of probability. For example, "There is an 85% likelihood that 'x' will happen." "I am almost sure that 'y' will occur." The GPU is a rational counterbalance to the idea of absolute certainty.

This counterbalance is based on the scientific view of chance. Because of the possibility of chance, the concept of absolute certainty does not exist in science. Events are relative. To stay on a fairly even keel, general semantics recommends learning to live with the "relatives."

Irrational Belief 5: I must do well in everything that I try.

The irrational demand to do well in everything one tries can result in anger if one does less than well in a particular activity. A more rational conception is that "doing" is more important than doing well. G.K. Chesterton went so far as to say, "If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly."

People have many skills and abilities. Success does not make an individual worthy and failure does not make an individual worthless. It is far more rational to accept a person as intrinsically valuable and meritorious than to link a person's value with his or her achievements. People are far too complex to be given ratings, or to rate themselves, on all aspects of their lives. Who would decide which aspects are the most meaningful? Are verbal skills more important than mechanical skills?

It is true that one can "objectively" measure failure in an activity, e.g., you score 40% on an English exam or you lose a tennis match. But when you define yourself as "a failure" you are engaging in what philosopher Bertrand Russell calls a "category error." The things you fail at are in one category and you, the doer of those things, are in a different category. We all have various levels of mastery in the projects we undertake. When we categorize our performances as "successes" or "failures" and then categorize ourselves, the doers, as "successes" or "failures" because of our performances, we have confused one category with another. We are not what we do. Consequently, it is sensible to rate only the things we do and not identify them with who we are, which is quite a different category.

Wendell Johnson, in his GS classic book People in Quandaries, states that people who demand that they must do well can end up with a case of IFD disease. This is a condition in which high ideals combined with continued frustration can lead a person to become demoralized (IFD specifically refers to an individual going from Idealization to Frustration to Demoralization). People who become demoralized sometimes get angry with themselves or others for causing this problem.

To prevent my students from developing IFD disease, I carefully reviewed with them the importance of setting realistic goals. In addition, I emphasized the notion that failure to reach one's goals does not mean the person who didn't meet their objectives is a failure. Defining oneself that way is factually incorrect. And it is self-defeating.

Irrational Belief 6: I must seek revenge for past harms.

The idea that revenge is sweet is fairly prevalent in our society. But typically revenge begets revenge and this can escalate--you hurt me, I hurt you, you get back at me for hurting you, I get back at you for hurting me, etc. Revenge is unproductive for attaining constructive relationships and peace of mind.

People who become angry and seek revenge frequently do so because they feel they have been embarrassed or humiliated (their anger is a cover up for these feelings.) Being assertive, letting others know how we feel, can often prevent such an emotional spiral. (Another benefit of being assertive is that standing up for oneself, in a socially acceptable manner, makes it less likely that one will be taken advantage of.)

I found that training students in assertiveness skills (e.g., expressing feelings directly, expressing what one would like, respecting the rights of others) helped them to resolve problems and avoid cravings for retribution. For example, Mary insulted Jane in the school cafeteria. Jane, who had taken assertiveness training, told Mary she felt hurt by the remark and that it was uncalled for. Mary apologized for her insensitive comment and the incident came to a happy conclusion.

I also suggested students use dating, a GS tool that involves attaching dates to our evaluations to remind us that things change over time, e.g., student[.sub.2005], is not student[.sub.2006].

The dating of people and events helped to prevent student reprisals. It did so because individuals who are antagonistic to us today may become less so, or even friendly, to us tomorrow. For example, Jack[.sub.2005], an eighth grader who unmercifully teased his fellow students, is not Jack[.sub.2006], a young man who is much nicer since his mother was summoned to the school by the dean. And Betty[.sub.two months ago], when Melinda was furious at her for "stealing" her boyfriend, is not Betty[.sub.today], who regrets her actions and has asked Melinda to forgive her. Taking quick revenge over grievances precludes the chance that time may heal past injustices. Dating can keep that opportunity alive.

VIOLENCE PREVENTION

Considerable research indicates that many children live in fear of violence at school. The constant threat of violence can have a devastating effect on their psychological well-being and their ability to function and learn in a school environment. Children who commit violence also pay a price. The American Psychological Association (APA) reports that, "... aggressive and disruptive classroom behavior contributes to poor school achievement and poor peer relations." (3)

What causes violence in schools? Some experts believe that because violence has become an accepted norm in the media, children have become desensitized to the level of violence around them. Other experts say that parents contribute to the problem of violence in schools by not communicating responsible values to their children or by their own violent behavior. Young people also often see their peers use violence to their advantage at home, at school, or on the streets with scant protest from parents or other adults, including teachers. Such peers have become "disinhibited" to violent behavior. Disinhibition leads to more violence in schools.

Violence prevention strategies such as installing metal detectors, providing security guards, conducting routine locker searches, and implementing special curricula on anger management, conflict resolution, and peer mediation have not had the hoped-for results. One reason for this is that these strategies are often implemented in a piecemeal manner, and so they address only one or two aspects of a multifaceted problem. In addition, some strategies (e.g., metal detectors, locker sweeps) create a punitive atmosphere that punishes all students through overly restrictive procedures, thus losing students' respect and cooperation. And many violence prevention strategies drive violent behavior "underground" or outside the school where teachers and students are more vulnerable.

But, some experts believe violence prevention strategies have failed because the problem requires a holistic response--one that addresses and engages the entire school system, as well as the other major systems of which young people are a part, such as families and the community. (General semantics tends to favor holistic responses because of its view that people function as organisms-as-a-whole-in-environments.)

The Johnson Institute is an advocate of holistically responding to violence. A belief in that philosophy motivated them to develop the internationally renowned, science-based, Respect and Protect violence prevention program. (4)

The Respect and Protect Violence Prevention Program

Background

Johnson Institute researchers, through extensive investigation, discovered that violent behavior in school was taking place largely because of two pervasive attitudes: entitlement and tolerance. They observed that many students felt entitled to act violently toward teachers and toward other students. Their lack of sensitivity on the effects of violence inclined these students to think it normal and acceptable to express their anger, get their needs met, or fulfill their desires in violent ways. The Johnson Institute found the sense of entitlement to act in violent ways was not being addressed effectively by adults in schools. It was being tolerated. Students tended to ignore adults' warnings concerning violent behavior because adults typically tolerated the behavior and allowed students to do it.

In addition to the attitudes of entitlement and tolerance, Johnson researchers detected another factor that was seriously hampering the schools' ability to solve violence problems--the lack of a clear definition of violence, one that students and teachers could understand, accept, and use to identify violent incidents.

Violence is difficult to define. It can occur along a continuum from an act as inconsequential as jumping ahead of someone in line at the movies to the Holocaust of World War II. The American Heritage Dictionary has six separate entries for the word. And society's ambivalence toward violence adds to the "definition problem"--most people would be angry if they saw a person grab and slam an individual to the sidewalk yet many people cheer that sort of behavior at football games. Violence clearly has diverse forms and interpretations.

The Johnson Institute determined that schools needed to have a clear definition of violence to help educators to focus and act directly on the forms of aggression that occurred in their schools. The definition they came up with, for educators, is the following:

  "Violence occurs when anyone inflicts or threatens to inflict physical
  or emotional injury or discomfort upon another person's body,
  feelings, or possessions."

For students, the definition was simplified:

  "Violence is any mean word, look, sign, or act that hurts a person's
  body, feelings, or things."

Johnson researchers acknowledged that it could seem unrealistic to some to use a working definition of violence that included fairly normal adolescent behaviors like "joking" and "teasing." But these behaviors have potential for causing real physical and emotional injury. And they asserted that they had to start somewhere to change students' and educators' perceptions about violent behaviors to succeed in solving the problem of violence in schools.

The Respect and Protect Program

The Respect and Protect Violence Prevention program promotes a system-wide school ethos that "Violence is not okay and that it will not be tolerated here." The program contains both a prevention element (environmental control) and an intervention element (choices, consequences, and contracts).

The prevention element is based in part on the Olweus approach to bully prevention. (For a fuller description of that approach, see "A General Semantics Approach to School-Age Bullying" in the January 2005 ETC). The core program of the Olweus model involves specific measures taken by adults on three levels:

1. At the school level:

** A student/teacher survey on the prevalence of bullying

** A school conference day

** Better adult supervision during recess and lunchtime

** Meetings between staff and parents on bullying policies

2. At the class level:

** Class rules against bullying

** Regular class meetings to discuss programs

3. At the individual level:

** Serious talks with bullies and their targets

** Serious talks with parents of involved students

** Teachers and parents creatively working together to identify and impose nonpunitive consequences for violent behavior.

The intervention element of the Respect and Protect program uses a combination of logical consequences for behavior--spelling out what will happen if the behavior happens again, restitution, and education. For any incident of violence, the choices, consequences, and contract element,

a. defines what actions or activities the school staff need to carry out;

b. identifies a specific type of behavior contract to be used to identify what the consequences will be if the students act out in violent behavior again, and;

c. provides clear guidelines for appropriate consequences for the current behavior.

The purpose of the intervention element is to furnish the school with an efficient tool for sorting out and dealing appropriately and fairly with individual students engaged in different levels of violence. (It is important to note that the intervention element of the Respect and Protect program is not an appropriate tool for dealing with the problems of gangs or weapons--these are criminal issues that call for police intervention.)

The Johnson Institute strongly recommends that all schools formally incorporate anger management, conflict mediation, and peer mediation training for students into their curriculum. They also suggest that workshops or in-service training be provided to all teachers and other school staff to help them to examine how their own enabling behaviors (misguided beliefs, feelings, attitudes, and behaviors concerning violence) contribute to the problem of violence in schools. And they advise that school staff be given skills training in the use of violence prevention and intervention techniques.

My school district in New York City used the Respect and Protect program in twelve elementary and middle schools for several years during the 1990s. Feedback from students, educators, and parents was quite positive. The Hazelden Foundation currently administers the program. (5)

NOTES

1. Jerry Wilde. Anger Management in Schools: Alternatives to School Violence. Lancaster, PA: Technomic, 1995, p.9.

2. Susan Walen, Raymond DiGiuseppe, and Richard Wessler. A Practitioners Guide to Rational Emotive Therapy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.

3. Carole Remboldt. Violence in Schools: The Enabling Factor. Center City, MN: Hazelden, 1994, p.1.

4. The Respect and Protect program is more fully described in Carole Remboldt, Violence in Schools: The Enabling Factor. Center City, MN: Hazelden, 1994.

5. The web site for the Hazelden Foundation is www.hazelden.org.

REFERENCES

Ellis, Albert. How to Stubbornly Refuse to Make Yourself Miserable About Anything--Yes, Anything! New York: Lyle Stuart, 1995.

Greene, Ross. The Explosive Child: A New Approach for Understanding and Parenting Easily Frustrated, Chronically Inflexible Children. New York: Quill, 2001.

Johnson, Wendell. People in Quandaries: The Semantics of Personal Adjustment. Fort Worth, TX: Institute of General Semantics, 2002.

Kodish, Susan Presby and Bruce I. Kodish. Drive Yourself Sane: Using the Uncommon Sense of General Semantics, Revised Second Edition. Pasadena, CA: Extensional Publishing, 2001.

Minteer, Catherine. Words and What They Do to You. New York: Row Peterson, 1953.

Olweus, Dan. Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1993.

Remboldt, Carole. School Violence Problems in Your School: Why a Systematic Approach is Necessary: A Guide for Educators. Center City, MN: Hazelden, 1994.

Remboldt, Carole. Violence in Schools: The Enabling Factor. Center City, MN: Hazelden, 1994.

Walen, Susan, Raymond DiGiuseppe, and Richard Wessler. A Practitioners Guide to Rational Emotive Therapy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.

Whitehouse, Elaine and Warwick Pudney. A Volcano in My Tummy: Helping Children to Handle Anger: A Resource Book for Parents, Caregivers and Teachers. Gabriola, BC: New Society Publishers, 1996.

Wilde, Jerry. Anger Management in Schools: Alternatives to School Violence. Lancaster, PA: Technomic, 1995.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

MARTIN H. LEVINSON, PHD*

* Martin H. Levinson, PhD, author of many ETC articles, recently retired as director of PROJECT SHARE, a New York City school-based drug prevention program. Dr. Levinson also writes the ETC "Books" feature.