This is the current revision of this page, as edited by DaphnePresent24 (talk | contribs) at 11:28, 26 December 2024 (edit all). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Social Isolation and Youth Aggression

Social isolation is an adverse experience involving the absence of meaningful social connections, and has been implicated as a prominent risk factor in the development of youth aggression (Niño et al., 2016).

Social isolation has a multifaceted influence across several adverse psychological and behavioural outcomes, including aggressive behaviour (Almeida et al., 2021). Several social psychological theories have been utilised to examine the relationship between social isolation and youth aggression (Niño et al., 2016). Understanding this relationship is crucial for developing interventions aimed at preventing criminal offending, as substantial evidence demonstrates adult criminality is predicted by childhood and adolescent aggression (Kalvin & Bierman, 2017). In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, a prolonged global period of social isolation, preliminary research has observed increased aggression within violent youth populations (Reid et al., 2021). It is important to identify the moderating factors underpinning this association, to effectively mitigate the long-term effects of social isolation during the pandemic amongst youth populations (Killgore et al., 2021).

Classification of Social Isolation and Youth Aggression

Youth aggression is conceptualised as behaviour intended to cause harm towards others (Yue & Zhang, 2023) amongst individuals under 24 years old (Sawyer et al., 2018). Research investigating social isolation and youth aggression utilises both offending and normative youth populations (Reid et al., 2021; Reijntjes et al., 2011). Social connections throughout youth development have been implicated in a range of positive outcomes, including mental health and behavioural control (Johnson et al., 2015).

Examinations of social isolation traditionally conceptualised socially isolated youth as a homogenous group (Niño et al., 2016). Consequently, earlier research in this field produced inconsistent findings, with some studies revealing no significant associations (Demuth, 2004). However, contemporary research consistently demonstrates significant relationships between social isolation and youth aggression (Yue & Zhang, 2023). This has coincided with a broad recognition that socially isolated youth constitute a heterogenous group, with evidence indicating that sub-groups exhibit differential patterns of prosocial and antisocial behaviour (Niño et al., 2016). These groups are broadly classified as self-imposed (socially disinterested and socially avoidant) or peer-rejected isolators (Rubin et al., 2009). Research has predominantly focused on peer-rejected youth, consistently demonstrating that peer rejection is a significant predictor of aggression (Yue & Zhang, 2023).

Empirical research suggests a bidirectional relationship between social isolation and youth aggression. Aggressive children are often excluded and rejected by peers (Kalvin & Bierman, 2017). This can result in more aggression, further encouraging peers to exclude them from positive social networks (Powers et al., 2013). Additionally, this relationship is further complicated by the differential impact of perceived social isolation (the affective experience of loneliness) in contrast to objective isolation (Karababa, 2020; Schinka et al., 2013). Research consistently reveals that feelings of loneliness, even in the absence of objective social isolation, can contribute to youth aggression, suggesting loneliness may moderate the relationship between social isolation and youth aggression (Brinker et al., 2022). Due to the complex and multifaceted nature of this relationship, various social psychological and criminological theories have been applied to examine the moderating factors that underpin the association between social isolation and youth aggression (Niño et al., 2016).

Theoretical Perspectives

General Strain Theory and the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis

General strain theory (GST) proposes that sources of strain underpin criminal and antisocial behaviour, including aggression (Agnew, 1992). Strain arises from three primary sources: negative stimuli, the removal of positive stimuli and failure to attain goals. Strain induces negative affective states, such as anger and frustration (Agnew, 1992). Consequently, individuals are motivated to reduce this negative affect, and aggression has been identified as a coping mechanism utilised amongst youths (Niño et al., 2016). GST provides a framework for examining the association between social isolation and youth aggression (Niño et al., 2016). Strains that are severe and interpreted as unjust are more likely to result in aggression, and social isolation is a key example of this form of strain (Agnew, 2001). Furthermore, positive peer interactions and the presence of social support function as protective factors against the adverse impacts of strain (Agnew, 2001). Thus, socially isolated youth are at an elevated risk of utilising aggression as a coping mechanism to reduce the impact of strain.

The theoretical framework of GST overlaps with and was influenced by the frustration-aggression hypothesis (Hoffmann & Spence, 2020). This proposes that failure to achieve goals can result in frustration, predisposing individuals to aggressive behaviour in an attempt to reduce this frustration (Berkowitz, 1989). Both GST and the frustration-aggression hypothesis have been implicated in the association between social isolation and youth aggression (Killgore et al., 2021; Niño et al., 2016). The presence of multiple sources of strain can form cumulative risks for aggressive behaviour (Agnew, 1992). This was demonstrated in a longitudinal cohort study of abused children, as social isolation combined with additional risk factors was a stronger predictor of criminal behaviour than examinations of individual factors in isolation (Horan & Widom, 2014).

Multi-motive Model and Hostile Attribution Bias

The Multi-motive Model (MMM) was developed to examine the moderating factors that lead to aggressive and antisocial behaviour in response to social isolation and rejection (Richman & Leary, 2009). The MMM identifies that peer rejection can lead to three distinct patterns of behaviour: prosocial, antisocial (including aggression) and asocial (withdrawn), with most individuals adopting prosocial behavioural responses (DeWall & Richman, 2011). The MMM proposes that whether rejection will lead to aggressive behaviour depends on the individual’s perception of the rejection across six separate construal domains such as the cost of the rejection and rejection unfairness (Richman & Leary, 2009).

The MMM has been conceptualised as encompassing elements of the broader social psychological theory Hostile Attribution Bias (Reijntjes et al., 2011). The cognitive appraisal of rejection is integral to the MMM’s framework for understanding antisocial behaviour, as aggression arises when rejection is perceived as unjust and hostile (Richman & Leary, 2009). Hostile Attribution Bias suggests some individuals develop cognitive predispositions for interpreting others’ actions as hostile (Dodge et al., 2015). This association between Hostile Attribution Bias and the MMM has been repeatedly demonstrated, as children exhibiting hostile biases are more likely to respond with aggression when provoked (Lee et al., 2018). Furthermore, this association was demonstrated in a study of adolescent participants who were told peers either rated their personality profiles neutrally or negatively (a hypothetical measure of peer rejection) (Reijntjes et al., 2011). Those who were evaluated negatively exhibited more aggressive behaviour against their peers, and mediation analysis revealed participants’ hostile attributions towards their peers drove this effect.

Social Identity Theory

Social Identity Theory proposes that individuals derive integral elements of their self-concept and self-esteem from group membership, as integration into meaningful social groups satisfies a fundamental need to belong (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Social isolation disrupts this process, preventing development of positive group-based identity (Evans et al., 2022) and can lead to negative affective states which may result in aggressive coping behaviours (Nesdale & Duffy, 2011). The impact of social identity upon the association between youth aggression and social isolation has substantial empirical support (Na & Paternoster, 2018; Twenge et al., 2007). For example, a study across two adolescent samples investigating the MMM found ‘perceived groupness’ to be the only predictor of aggressive behaviour, a factor that was not included in the original MMM (Stubbs-Richardson et al., 2021). Perceived groupness was conceptualised as interpreting rejection to be from the wider peer network and their social identity. This demonstrates the influence of social identity in mediating this association, as the perceived loss of meaningful social groups strongly predicted aggressive behaviour (Stubbs-Richardson et al., 2021).

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic was a global crisis which posed serious risks to public health (Baloch et al., 2020). To mitigate the spread of the virus, lockdown initiatives were implemented world-wide, involving prolonged periods of social isolation from the community, as individuals were required to stay within their own household (Onyeaka et al., 2021). As youths age, they increasingly rely on peer networks for social support, as adolescents strive to develop autonomy and identity outside of their family (Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011). This period represents a severe and prolonged experience of social isolation, as individuals were deprived of in-person interactions with peers (Killgore et al., 2021). Consequently, the pandemic has become a prominent focus in research examining the relationship between social isolation and youth aggression (Almeida et al., 2021).

Consistent evidence across diverse populations and methodologies has demonstrated associations between the COVID-19 pandemic and increases in aggressive behaviours (Reid et al., 2021). For example, questionnaires distributed to parents (and practitioners) revealed a 70% increase in aggressive episodes amongst violent children throughout lockdown (Condry et al., 2020). Furthermore, a study examining 557 youths on probation compared two pre-COVID behavioural assessments of antisocial behaviour with two post-COVID assessments (Reid et al., 2021). Across sex and ethnicity, an overall increase in aggressive behaviour was found, alongside an increase in drug/alcohol use and mental health issues.

The researchers’ utilised GST as a theoretical framework for these findings. According to GST, high intensity stressors which disrupt social connections have a substantial influence on aggressive behaviour (Agnew & Brezina, 2019). The researchers propose the increase in aggression was mediated by heightened levels of frustration caused by exacerbated stressors during lockdown, impairing youths’ capacity for behavioural control (Reid & Loughran, 2019; Reid et al., 2021). However, research in this field has primarily been conducted utilising samples of individuals with known propensities for aggressive behaviour (Condry et al., 2020; Reid et al., 2021). Future examinations should investigate this association amongst normative youth populations, as the impact of the pandemic amongst this demographic remains unclear.

Cultural Influences

There is limited research investigating the cross-cultural association between social isolation and youth aggression (Yue & Zhang, 2023). However, evidence suggests the presence of prosocial peer networks are a cross-culturally protective factor against youth aggression, as demonstrated in a sample of 2,363 youths in Hong Kong and 1,663 youths from Germany (Cheung, 2023; Jung & Schröder-Abé, 2019). Furthermore, studies consistently demonstrate lower levels of aggression amongst youth in collectivist cultures in contrast to individualist cultures (Bergmüller, 2013). This relationship has been theorised to be mediated by the collectivist emphasis on social cohesion and group harmony over personal autonomy (Yue & Zhang, 2023). The influence of cultural identity upon youth aggression was demonstrated in a sample of Chinese adolescents, as stronger identification with collectivist ideals was significantly negatively associated with teacher-reported aggressive behaviour (Li et al., 2010).

Investigations into the specific association between social isolation and youth aggression, however, reveal inconsistent findings. A meta-analysis across 61 studies involving 45,966 youth participants found stronger associations between peer rejection and youth aggression in collectivist cultures, contrary to the researchers’ hypothesis that individualistic cultures would yield stronger relationships (Yue & Zhang, 2023). They acknowledge their findings do not align with prior research, attributing this discrepancy to the cross-sectional nature and varied methodologies of the included studies. Future research would benefit from the inclusion of longitudinal study designs, to clarify the nature of this cross-cultural relationship.

Conclusion

Theoretical and empirical research highlights the complex, bidirectional relationship between social isolation and youth aggression, moderated by various factors (Niño et al., 2016). Interventions aimed at reducing social isolation are essential for preventing aggression, as the bidirectional nature of this relationship suggests aggressive responses to isolation can perpetuate exclusion from peer networks (Yue & Zhang, 2023). Integrating theoretical perspectives is essential for developing targeted interventions, as generalized approaches may overlook underlying moderating factors (Osborn et al., 2021). For example, individuals exhibiting Hostile Attribution Bias may benefit from interventions involving cognitive reappraisal strategies (Brinker et al., 2022). As youth aggression strongly predicts adult criminality (Takahashi, 2022), effective interventions targeting social isolation are crucial for preventing offending behaviours (Dozortseva et al., 2022). Future research should examine the longitudinal effects of the pandemic on increasing youth aggression (Almeida et al., 2021). Furthermore, continued examinations of cross-cultural differences in the association between social isolation and youth aggression are needed, as effective interventions would benefit from culturally specific variations (Yue & Zhang, 2023).

References

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x

Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the Foundation of General Strain Theory: Specifying the Types of Strain Most Likely to Lead to Crime and Delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 319–361. Sage Journals. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427801038004001

Agnew, R., & Brezina, T. (2019). General Strain Theory. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research, 2(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20779-3_8

Almeida, I. L. de L., Rego, J. F., Teixeira, A. C. G., & Moreira, M. R. (2021). Social Isolation and Its Impact on Child and Adolescent Development: a Systematic Review. Revista Paulista de Pediatria, 40(40). National Library of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-0462/2022/40/2020385

Baloch, S., Baloch, M. A., Zheng, T., & Pei, X. (2020). The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic. The Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine, 250(4), 271–278. https://doi.org/10.1620/tjem.250.271

Bergmüller, S. (2013). The Relationship Between Cultural Individualism-Collectivism and Student Aggression Across 62 Countries. Aggressive Behavior, 39(3), 182–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21472

Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59

Brechwald, W. A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2011). Beyond Homophily: A Decade of Advances in Understanding Peer Influence Processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.x

Brinker, V., Dewald-Kaufmann, J., Padberg, F., & Reinhard, M. A. (2022). Aggressive intentions after social exclusion and their association with loneliness. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 273(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-022-01503-8

Chen, X. (2011). Culture, Peer Interaction, and Socioemotional Development. Child Development Perspectives, 6(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00187.x

Cheung, C. (2023). Violent Behavior and Social Network Antisocial and Prosocial Behaviors. Crime & Delinquency, 001112872311615. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287231161526

Condry, R., Miles, C., Brunton-Douglas, T., & Oladapo, A. (2020). Experiences of Child and Adolescent to Parent Violence in the Covid-19 Pandemic. https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/migrated/final_report_capv_in_covid-19_aug20.pdf

Demuth, S. (2004). Understanding the Delinquency and Social Relationships of Loners. Youth & Society, 35(3), 366–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x03255027

DeWall, C. N., & Richman, S. B. (2011). Social Exclusion and the Desire to Reconnect. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(11), 919–932. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00383.x

Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Lansford, J. E., Sorbring, E., Skinner, A. T., Tapanya, S., Tirado, L. M. U., Zelli, A., Alampay, L. P., Al-Hassan, S. M., Bacchini, D., Bombi, A. S., Bornstein, M. H., Chang, L., Deater-Deckard, K., Di Giunta, L., Oburu, P., & Pastorelli, C. (2015). Hostile attributional bias and aggressive behavior in global context. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(30), 9310–9315. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418572112

Dozortseva, E. G., Oshevsky, D. S., Syrokvashina, K. V., & Badmaeva, V. D. (2022). Social Integration of Adolescents as a Prevention of Auto- and Hetero-Aggressive Behavior. Springer EBooks, 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13646-7_22

Evans, O., Cruwys, T., Cárdenas, D., Wu, B., & Cognian, A. V. (2022). Social Identities Mediate the Relationship Between Isolation, Life Transitions, and Loneliness. Behaviour Change, 39(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/bec.2022.15

Hoffmann, J. P., & Spence, K. R. (2020). Who’s to Blame? Elaborating the Role of Attributions in General Strain Theory. BYU ScholarsArchive. http://hdl.lib.byu.edu/1877/6715

Horan, J. M., & Widom, C. S. (2014). Cumulative childhood risk and adult functioning in abused and neglected children grown up. Development and Psychopathology, 27(03), 927–941. https://doi.org/10.1017/s095457941400090x

Johnson, B. R., Pagano, M. E., Lee, M. T., & Post, S. G. (2015). Alone on the Inside: The Impact of Social Isolation and Helping Others on AOD Use and Criminal Activity. Youth & Society, 50(4), 529–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x15617400

Jung, J., & Schröder-Abé, M. (2019). Prosocial behavior as a protective factor against peers’ acceptance of aggression in the development of aggressive behavior in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 74, 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.06.002

Kalvin, C. B., & Bierman, K. L. (2017). Child and Adolescent Risk Factors that Differentially Predict Violent versus Nonviolent Crime. Aggressive Behavior, 43(6), 568–577. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21715

Karababa, A. (2020). The relationship between trait anger and loneliness among early adolescents: The moderating role of emotion regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 159, 109856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109856

Killgore, W. D. S., Cloonan, S. A., Taylor, E. C., Anlap, I., & Dailey, N. S. (2021). Increasing Aggression During the COVID-19 Lockdowns. Journal of Affective Disorders Reports, 5, 100163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2021.100163

Lee, S., Chang, H., Ip, K. I., & Olson, S. L. (2018). Early socialization of hostile attribution bias: The roles of parental attributions, parental discipline, and child attributes. Social Development, 28(3), 549–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12349

Li, Y., Wang, M., Wang, C., & Shi, J. (2010). Individualism, collectivism, and Chinese adolescents’ aggression: intracultural variations. Aggressive Behavior, 36(3), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20341

Na, C., & Paternoster, R. (2018). Prosocial Identities and Youth Violence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 56(1), 84–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427818796552

Nesdale, D., & Duffy, A. (2011). Social identity, peer group rejection, and young children’s reactive, displaced, and proactive aggression. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 823–841. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835x.2010.02012.x

Niño, M., Ignatow, G., & Cai, T. (2016). Social Isolation, Strain, and Youth Violence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 15(3), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204016636435

Onyeaka, H., Anumudu, C. K., Al-Sharify, Z. T., Egele-Godswill, E., & Mbaegbu, P. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic: A review of the global lockdown and its far-reaching effects. Science Progress, 104(2), 003685042110198. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00368504211019854

Osborn, T., Weatherburn, P., & French, R. S. (2021). Interventions to address loneliness and social isolation in young people: A systematic review of the evidence on acceptability and effectiveness. Journal of Adolescence, 93, 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.09.007

Powers, C. J., Bierman, K. L., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2013). The multifaceted impact of peer relations on aggressive-disruptive behavior in early elementary school. Developmental Psychology, 49(6), 1174–1186. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028400

Reid, J. A., Chenneville, T., Gardy, S. M., & Baglivio, M. T. (2021). An Exploratory Study of COVID-19’s Impact on Psychological Distress and Antisocial Behavior Among Justice-Involved Youth. Crime & Delinquency, 68(8), 001112872110547. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287211054729

Reid, J. A., & Loughran, T. A. (2019). Parallel‐process trajectories of exposure to violence and psychological distress among justice‐involved youth. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 29(2), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2108

Reijntjes, A., Thomaes, S., Kamphuis, J. H., Bushman, B. J., de Castro, B. O., & Telch, M. J. (2011). Explaining the Paradoxical Rejection-Aggression Link: The Mediating Effects of Hostile Intent Attributions, Anger, and Decreases in State Self-Esteem on Peer Rejection-Induced Aggression in Youth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 955–963. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211410247

Richman, L. S., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model. Psychological Review, 116(2), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015250

Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (2009). Social Withdrawal in Childhood. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 141–171. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163642

Sawyer, S. M., Azzopardi, P. S., Wickremarathne, D., & Patton, G. C. (2018). The Age of Adolescence. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 2(3), 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-4642(18)30022-1

Schinka, K. C., van Dulmen, M. H. M., Mata, A. D., Bossarte, R., & Swahn, M. (2013). Psychosocial predictors and outcomes of loneliness trajectories from childhood to early adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 36(6), 1251–1260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.08.002

Stubbs-Richardson, M., Sinclair, H. C., Porter, B., & Utley, J. W. (2021). When Does Rejection Trigger Aggression? A Test of the Multimotive Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.660973

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The social psychology of intergroup relations(pp. 33–37). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Takahashi, A. (2022). The role of social isolation stress in escalated aggression in rodent models. Neuroscience Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2022.07.009

Twenge, J. M., Zhang, L., Catanese, K. R., Dolan-Pascoe, B., Lyche, L. F., & Baumeister, R. F. (2007). Replenishing connectedness: Reminders of social activity reduce aggression after social exclusion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(1), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605x90793

Yue, X., & Zhang, Q. (2023). The association between peer rejection and aggression types: A meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 135, 105974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105974