Norms for Aggression and Alternatives

Abstract

The Norms for Aggression and Alternatives (NAA) scale is a specialized psychological instrument developed to measure the social-cognitive evaluations of aggressive and prosocial behaviors among middle school students. The instrument is unique in that it quantifies two distinct levels of normative influence: school norms, which capture a student’s perception of their peers’ attitudes toward specific behaviors, and individual norms (or personal endorsement), which reflect the student’s own internal evaluation of those behaviors. By utilizing a simple three-point response scale (“like the behavior,” “not like it,” or “not care”), the NAA provides crucial data for understanding the social environment that either encourages or discourages youth aggression and delinquency.

Keywords

Aggression, Social Norms, Individual Norms, Antisocial Behavior, Delinquency, Violence Prevention, Middle School, Behavioral Assessment, Personal Attitudes and Beliefs, Peer Influence, Conflict Resolution.

Authors

Multisite Violence Prevention Project (MVPP)

Purpose

The primary function of the Norms for Aggression and Alternatives scale is to identify and assess the social-cognitive mechanisms underlying youth violence and delinquency. Researchers and prevention specialists use the NAA to gain detailed insight into the normative landscape of the school environment, specifically targeting students in the crucial adolescent period.

A key objective of the scale is to differentiate between perceived peer acceptance of aggression and an individual student’s internal moral or behavioral standards. This distinction is vital for designing effective, targeted intervention programs. If a large gap exists between perceived school norms and individual norms, interventions may need to focus on correcting descriptive norm misperceptions. Conversely, if individual norms strongly endorse aggressive behavior, the focus must shift toward changing personal attitudes and beliefs and enhancing conflict resolution skills.

Construct

The NAA scale measures the psychological construct of behavioral norms as they relate specifically to conflict, violence, and prosocial alternatives. The instrument is structured to capture both descriptive norms (what is commonly done or approved of by the peer group) and injunctive norms (what the individual believes is personally right or wrong).

The assessment is divided into four distinct, empirically supported dimensions, ensuring a comprehensive measurement of how social context interacts with personal standards. These four constructs are: School Norms for Aggression, School Norms for Alternatives to Aggression, Individual Norms for Aggression, and Individual Norms for Alternatives to Aggression. This sophisticated structure facilitates a detailed analysis of the variables influencing a student’s decision to engage in aggressive or prosocial responses.

Validity

Specific, stand-alone validity coefficients (such as convergent, divergent, or criterion validity metrics) for the Norms for Aggression and Alternatives instrument are not extensively detailed in the public descriptive summaries. However, the scale’s methodological rigor is strongly implied by its inclusion in the comprehensive assessment toolkit utilized by the Multisite Violence Prevention Project (MVPP).

Its application within the MVPP—a large-scale, federally funded research initiative focused on violence prevention—suggests that the instrument met the high methodological standards required for measuring complex constructs related to youth antisocial behavior. The scale’s ability to clearly differentiate between individual and perceived peer norms supports its construct validity in assessing social-cognitive factors.

Reliability

Explicit statistical reliability coefficients, such as Cronbach’s alpha or test-retest reliability scores for the individual subscales of the Norms for Aggression and Alternatives, are not provided in the source documentation. Nevertheless, based on its context and intended use within major public health and violence prevention research conducted by organizations like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it is assumed that the measure meets or exceeds standard thresholds for psychological scale reliability necessary for robust research on aggression and delinquency.

Factor Analysis

Although a formal, published factor analysis report is not readily available in the descriptive entry, the scale’s scoring and design methodology explicitly rely upon four distinct, orthogonal subscales. This indicates that the instrument is underpinned by a robust four-factor structure.

This empirical structure separates responses based on two critical dimensions: the source of the norm (Individual versus School/Peer) and the valence of the behavior (Aggression versus Alternatives to Aggression). This clear factorial separation is essential, as it validates the scale’s utility in isolating specific components of social cognitive theory related to the development and maintenance of aggressive behaviors.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychological scale measuring social and individual behavioral norms.

Format: 36 items, utilizing a 3-point Likert-type response format (Like it, Not like it, Not care).

Language Available: English (as presented in the source material).

Population Group: Youth/Adolescents.

Age Group: Middle school students, specifically grades 6-8.

Population Details: Students typically ranging from 11 to 14 years old, targeted specifically for violence and delinquency prevention research.

Test Methodology: Respondents are presented with various scenarios involving aggressive acts (e.g., hitting, yelling, threatening) or non-aggressive alternatives (e.g., seeking adult help, calming down). For each scenario, the student rates both their own feelings (Individual Norm) and their perceived feelings of their peers (School Norm).

Keywords

Social Cognition, Peer Influence, Conflict Resolution, Behavioral Norms, Juvenile Delinquency, Violence Prevention, School Climate, Attitudes, Antisocial Behavior, Normative Assessment, Youth Development.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified.

Correspondence Address: Correspondence concerning the scale is typically handled through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA, given the instrument’s extensive use by the Multisite Violence Prevention Project (MVPP).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions and Fees: No fees or specific permissions are noted in the source documentation. The instrument appears to be available in public compendiums for general research use, particularly within the field of public health and violence prevention.

Test Year: The scale was actively utilized and described within the Multisite Violence Prevention Project’s 2004 cohort-wide student survey measures. Foundational conceptual work informing the scale design dates back to seminal sociological studies by Jackson (1966) and Sasaki (1979).

The instrument is available in the Compendium of Assessment Tools. The original PDF can be downloaded here: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/YV_Compendium.pdf. An additional resource is available here: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED486261.pdf.

Reference’s

• Jackson J. (1966). A conceptual and measurement model for norms and roles. Pacific Sociological Review, 9:35-47.
• Multisite Violence Prevention Project. Description of measures: cohort-wide student survey, 2004. Available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA. (Unpublished)
• Sasaki K. (1979). Present status of research on group norms in Japan. American Journal of Community Psychology, 7: 147-158.

Items of the Norms for Aggression and Alternatives

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. How would you feel if a kid in your school ignored a rumor that was being spread about him or her?

2. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid ignored a rumor that was being spread about him or her?

3. How would you feel if a kid in your school hit someone who said something mean?

4. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid hit someone who said something mean?

5. How would you feel if a kid in your school told another student who was starting to get into a fight that there’s a choice between fighting and other ways of solving problems?

6. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid told another student who was starting to get into a fight that there’s a choice between fighting and other ways of solving problems?

7. How would you feel if a kid in your school yelled at someone who said something mean?

8. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid yelled at someone who said something mean?

9. How would you feel if a kid in your school asked a teacher or another adult for help when challenged to a fight after school?

10. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid asked a teacher or another adult for help when challenged to a fight after school?

11. How would you feel if a kid in your school apologized to someone that he or she accidentally bumped into in the hall?

12. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid apologized to someone that he or she accidentally bumped into in the hall?

13. How would you feel if a kid in your school threatened someone who said something mean?

14. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid threatened someone who said something mean?

15. How would you feel if a kid in your school told another student to “stop and calm down” when the other student started to get into a fight?

16. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid told another student to “stop and calm down” when the other student started to get into a fight?

17. How would you feel if a kid in your school hit someone who hit first?

18. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid hit someone who hit first?

19. How would you feel if a kid in your school hit someone for no reason?

20. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid hit someone for no reason?

21. How would you feel if a kid in your school threatened someone because that person yelled first?

22. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid threatened someone because that person yelled first?

23. How would you feel if a kid in your school avoided a fight walking down a different hall to class?

24. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid avoided a fight by walking down a different hall to class?

25. How would you feel if a kid in your school listened to a friend’s side of the story, even though the two were in an argument?

26. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid listened to a friend’s side of the story, even though the two were in an argument?

27. How would you feel if a kid in your school yelled at someone for no reason?

28. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid yelled at someone for no reason?

29. How would you feel if a kid in your school yelled at someone who yelled first?

30. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid yelled at someone who yelled first?

31. How would you feel if a kid in your school threatened someone for no reason?

32. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid threatened someone for no reason?

33. How would you feel if a kid in your school threatened someone who hit first?

34. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid threatened someone who hit first?

35. How would you feel if a kid in your school took a deep breath when he or she started to lose his temper?

36. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid took a deep breath when he or she started to lose his temper?