EDULIGHT Journal, Volume 5, Issue 9, May, 2016 ISSN: 2278-9545

AGGRESSION IN SCHOOL STUDENTS: A GENDER STUDY

Dr. Ujjwal Kumar Halder

Assistant Professor, Department of Education, University of Gour Banga, Mokdumpur,
District – Malda, E-mail: uk.halder@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
The present study was conducted to explore the status of aggression of the boy and girl students of class X of
secondary schools in Malda District. 300 students were selected as the sample of the study and the Aggression
Scale developed by G. P. Mathur and Raj Kumari Bhatnagar - 2004) was applied to collect the data of the urban
and rural sample. Independent t-Test was employed and the significant gender differences in aggression score
were found.
Introduction
The present world, though declaring the glamorous scientific inventions and is arranging the highest
comfortable living style, is now facing multidimensional problems in the form of various types of
mental stresses, anxieties and so many psychological drawbacks within the individual. In this ultra-
modern technologically sound informational age, the childhood boys and girls and also the
adolescents are in a state of growing psychological and psychosocial complexes and conflicts, which,
in turn, resulted aggression in young students. Though, aggression is an animal instinct which is
existed in human from the very beginning of the life as well as the human civilization. It is not a new
phenomenon. Aggression in childhood has been linked with later aggression, delinquency and crime
in adolescence and adulthood; with poor school outcomes, with unemployment in adulthood and with
adult negative circumstances. These are especially true for aggressive behaviour in children.
Aggressive behaviour in school can have far-reaching advance consequences for the child exhibiting
the behaviour and create a stressful environment for peers and teachers. It can affect social
completeness and school performance of the child (Rubin, Bukowsky, S parker 1998) and is found to
have high stability (Chen, Wang, Chan, S Liu, 2002). The adverse effects can be Pervasive. It has
long been a major concern of researchers and educationists. Recently teachers of secondary and
higher secondary schools have note that aggressive behaviour in young children has become a
problem but studies on aggressive behaviour in west Bengal is far less in number as compared to
those conducted with the children’s in western countries.
Aggression
The term ‘aggression’ have a surplus of meanings, ranging from an overt response that delivers
noxious stimuli to another organism to an internal state such as a personality trait (Hinde, 1974). A
broad definition of aggression would include all kinds of self-assertive and go-getting behavior:
"aggression is the entire spectrum of assertive, intrusive and attacking behavior" (Daniels, Gilula, &
Ochberg, 1970). In the Stricto sensu, aggression used to be defined as any overt behavior intending an
aversive effect as a goal either a personal injury - it does not need to be a physical harm; it can be
psychological damage, such as verbal hostility, devaluation or degradation-, or a destruction of
property. For Berkowitz (1962), "aggression serves only to inflict injury; the intent of being
potentially injurious would be its essential aspect". Bandura (1973) suggests that it would be more
accurate to differentiate the aggressive action in terms of their functional value, and to assume that the
infliction of suffering is, at best, a secondary purpose of the aggression; the aggressor, hurting the
victim, produces a variety of desired results that cannot be achieved otherwise; for instance, status-
conferring value, to gain control over other people, to secure resources and to force changes in social
practice. Bandura characterizes ‘aggression’ as an injurious and destructive behavior socially defined
as aggressive on the basis of a variety of factors, some of which reside in the performer and others in
the evaluator. As Brain (1981) noted, the concept of aggression as applied to man: may refer to an

EDULIGHT – Multi-disciplinary, Peer Reviewed Print Journal | 184

EDULIGHT Journal, Volume 5, Issue 9, May, 2016 ISSN: 2278-9545

extremely diverse assortment of written, verbal and physical phenomena; have an element of value
judgement, whether an action is aggressive or a reasonable action depending on the convictions of the
observer; include reactions generally considered to be products of complex interactions between
biological, environmental and experiential factors. Aggression in adolescents of secondary schools
needs special attention since it affects student’s comprehensive personality development substantially
in their education and also social life. Beck (2004) indicated that children who are aggressive at early
ages tend to show delinquent behaviour during adulthood than those students who are not aggressive.
Aggression in childhood and adolescence has been linked with later aggression, delinquency and
crime in adulthood; with boar school outcomes; with unemployment in adulthood; and with other
negative circumstances (Broidy et al., 2003).
Aggression and Gender
Possibly for the reason that psychologists produce the bulk of the study on aggression, research tends
to emphasis on the role of the involved individuals’ gender. Gender receives particular attention in the
study on aggression, with debate centering on whether females are angry as frequently and in the
same ways as males. For the most part, gender affects aggression insofar as it relates to peer status as
the effect of gender is primarily relational and contextual: adolescents’ aggressive behaviors are
influenced not so much by their own gender as by their relationships with the other gender. Gender
differences in aggression are very noticeable by the preschool years (Loeber and Hay, 1997), with
boys showing higher levels of physical aggression than girls. Crick and Grotpeter (1995) and Rys and
Bear (1997) show that pre-adolescent girls are physically aggressive, and, on average, girls show
levels of verbal and indirect aggression greater than boys. In later adolescence, gender differences
increase. Lagerspetz et al. (1988); Lagerspetz and Bjorkqvist (1992); Bjorkqvist et al. (1992) and
Crick and Grotpeter (1995) documented that indirect aggression becomes much greater for girls than
boys, physical aggression becomes much greater for boys than girls, and both genders become about
equally likely to engage in verbal aggression. Straus (1997) in surveys and Archer (2000) in a meta-
analysis have convincingly demonstrated that females are slightly more likely to use physical
aggression against their peers than are males. Laboratory studies with college students often yield
higher aggression by males, but provocation apparently has a greater effect on aggression than does
sex. Bettencourt and Miller's (1996) meta-analysis found that sex differences in aggression practically
disappear under high provocation. Recent research finds that aggression among males relates
positively to peer acceptance in school, particularly for students with poor academic performance
(Kreager 2007). Adolescents who seek status become more aggressive over time; and net of their own
individual motivations, youth in friendship groups that emphasize status are also more aggressive. If
centrality increases the capacity for aggression, and if adolescents view aggression as a means to
enhance status (or prevent losses), then the subsequent aggression increases. The researcher found a
lack of study on aggression and gender difference in West Bengal. Hence, the present researcher
intends to study the aggression among school students of Malda district, West Bengal, in terms of
their gender.
Objectives of the Study
 To measure the status of Aggression of secondary students of Malda District.
 To explore the patterns and levels of secondary students’ aggression.
 To explore the mean differences between boy and girl students’ aggression.
Null-Hypotheses
0
H1 : There would be no significant mean difference between the aggression of male and female
secondary students.

EDULIGHT – Multi-disciplinary, Peer Reviewed Print Journal | 185

EDULIGHT Journal, Volume 5, Issue 9, May, 2016 ISSN: 2278-9545
0
H2 : There would be no significant mean difference between the aggression of urban male and
urban female secondary students.
0
H3 : There would be no significant mean difference between the aggression of rural male and
rural female secondary students.
0
H4 : There would be no significant mean difference between the aggression of urban male and
rural male secondary students.
0
H5 : There would be no significant mean difference between the aggression of urban female and
rural female secondary students.

Method of the Study

The survey method of descriptive research was employed in the present study to measure and assess
the aggression of the students of class X.
Population and Samples: The students studying at class X of all the Bengali Medium Secondary
Schools affiliated to West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in Malda District was treated as the
population of the present study. The total sample of the study was consisted of 300 students from four
secondary schools among which two were from urban and two were from rural areas in Malda
District, West Bengal. Table 1 shows the details of the collected samples.
Table 1. Locality * Gender Cross-tabulation of the total sample
Count
Gender
Total
Boys Girls
Urban 75 79 154
Locality
Rural 72 74 146
Total 147 153 300

Variables of the Study: In this study, aggression of the students was considered as the research
variables and the gender of the students and locality of the schools were treated as the background
variable.
Tools used in the Study: The researcher adopted an Aggression Scale (G. P. Mathur and Raj Kumari
Bhatnagar - 2004) for data collection in the present study. The scale was a 5-point scale where
statements are in two forms i.e. 30 statements were in positive form and 25 statements were in
negative form. The test retest reliability of the scale was 0.88 in males and 0.81 in females. The
concurrent validity co-efficient of the aggression scale was 0.80 in males and 0.78 in females. The
scoring norm of the scale was as follows (Table 2) –
Table 2. Scoring Norm of the scale
Scores Status
Below 154 Low aggression
155 – 204 Average aggression
205 & Above High aggression

EDULIGHT – Multi-disciplinary, Peer Reviewed Print Journal | 186

EDULIGHT Journal, Volume 5, Issue 9, May, 2016 ISSN: 2278-9545

Analysis and Interpretation of the Data

0
H1: There would be no significant mean difference between the aggression of boy and girl secondary
students.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the aggression score of boy and girl secondary students.
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Aggression Status
Boys 147 194.37 23.859 Average
Aggression
Girls 153 187.80 21.272 Average

Table 4. Result of the t-Test for the aggression score of boy and girl secondary students.
Independent Samples t Test
t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Equal 2.520 298 .012 6.570
Aggression
Not Equal 2.514 291.086 .012 6.570

Table 4 shows a significant t-value (t = 2.52, df = 298, p < 0.05) between boy (M = 194.37,
SD = 23.859) and girl (M = 187.80, SD = 21.272) students’ aggression score which indicates that
there is sufficient evidence to reject the Null Hypothesis ( 0H1). Hence, it may be interpreted that there
is statistically significant difference between the aggression of boys and girls of secondary schools. In
this case, the boy students were more aggressive than their counterpart (M b > Mg, where Mb is the
Mean for boys and Mg is the Mean for girls).
0
H2: There would be no significant mean difference between the aggression of urban boy and urban
girl secondary students.
Table 5. Descriptive statistics of the aggression score of urban boy and urban girl secondary students.
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Aggression Status
Urban-Boys 75 199.13 24.462 Average
Aggression
Urban-Girls 79 194.34 22.978 Average

Table 6. Result of the t-Test for the aggression score of urban-boy and urban-girl secondary students.
Independent Samples t Test
t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Equal 1.253 152 .212 4.792
Aggression
Not Equal 1.251 150.026 .213 4.792

Table 6 shows statistically not significant t-value (t = 1.253, df = 152, p > 0.05) between
urban boy (M = 199.13, SD = 24.462) and urban girl (M = 194.34, SD = 22.978) students’ aggression
score which indicates that there is insufficient evidence to reject the Null Hypothesis ( 0H2). Hence, the
null hypothesis is accepted and it may be interpreted that there is no statistically significant difference
between the aggression of urban boys and urban girls of secondary schools.

EDULIGHT – Multi-disciplinary, Peer Reviewed Print Journal | 187

EDULIGHT Journal, Volume 5, Issue 9, May, 2016 ISSN: 2278-9545
0
H3: There would be no significant mean difference between the aggression of rural boy and rural girl
secondary students.
Table 7. Descriptive statistics of the aggression score of rural boy and rural girl secondary students.
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Aggression Status
Rural-Boys 72 189.40 22.314 Average
Aggression
Rural-Girls 74 180.81 16.800 Average

Table 8. Result of the t-Test for the aggression score of rural boy and rural girl secondary students.
Independent Samples t Test
t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Equal 2.633 144 .009 8.592
Aggression
Not Equal 2.623 131.893 .010 8.592

Table 8 shows a significant t-value (t = 2.633, df = 144, p < 0.05) between rural boy (M =
189.40, SD = 22.314) and rural girl (M = 180.81, SD = 16.80) students’ aggression score which
indicates that there is sufficient evidence to reject the Null Hypothesis ( 0H3). Hence, it may be
interpreted that there is statistically significant difference between the aggression of rural boys and
rural girls of secondary schools. In this case, the rural boy students were more aggressive than rural
girl (Mrb > Mrg, where Mrb is the Mean for rural boys and Mrg is the Mean for rural girls).
0
H4: There would be no significant mean difference between the aggression of urban boy and rural
boy secondary students.
Table 9. Descriptive statistics of the aggression score of urban boy and rural boy secondary students.
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Aggression Status
Urban-Boys 75 199.13 24.462 Average
Aggression
Rural-Boys 72 189.40 22.314 Average

Table 10. Result of the t-Test for the aggression score of urban boy and rural boy secondary students.
Independent Samples t Test
t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Aggression Equal 2.517 145 .013 9.731
Not Equal 2.521 144.628 .013 9.731

Table 10 shows a significant t-value (t = 2.517, df = 145, p < 0.05) between urban boy (M =
199.13, SD = 24.462) and rural boy (M = 189.40, SD = 22.314) students’ aggression score which
indicates that there is sufficient evidence to reject the Null Hypothesis ( 0H3). Hence, it may be
interpreted that there is statistically significant difference between the aggression of urban boys and
rural boys of secondary schools. In this case, the urban boy students were more aggressive than rural
girl (Mub > Mrb, where Mub is the Mean for rural boys and Mrb is the Mean for rural girls).

EDULIGHT – Multi-disciplinary, Peer Reviewed Print Journal | 188

EDULIGHT Journal, Volume 5, Issue 9, May, 2016 ISSN: 2278-9545
0
H5: There would be no significant mean difference between the aggression of urban girl and rural girl
secondary students.
Table 11. Descriptive statistics of the aggression score of urban girl and rural girl secondary students.
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Aggression Status
Urban-Girls 79 194.34 22.978 Average
Aggression
Rural-Girls 74 180.81 16.800 Average

Table 12. Result of the t-Test for the aggression score of urban girl and rural girl secondary students.
Independent Samples t Test
t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Equal 4.135 151 .000 13.531
Aggression
Not Equal 4.176 142.754 .000 13.531

Table 12 shows a significant t-value (t = 4.135, df = 151, p < 0.001) between urban girl (M =
194.34, SD = 22.978) and rural girl (M = 180.81, SD = 16.80) students’ aggression score which
indicates that there is sufficient evidence to reject the Null Hypothesis ( 0H5). Hence, it may be
interpreted that there is statistically significant difference between the aggression of urban girls and
rural girls of secondary schools. In this case, the urban girl students were more aggressive than the
rural girls (Mug > Mrg, where Mug is the Mean for urban girls and Mrg is the Mean for rural girls).
Discussion
The study explored that the students of class X in Malda District, West Bengal have average level of
aggression. Through this study, it is also revealed that there is a significant difference between boy
and girl students of urban and rural areas of Malda District in terms of their aggression level except
only the urban boys and girls of class X. Hence, the teachers, parents and other stakeholders should
consider this matter and further research in this field should be conducted to take necessary steps in
controlling the problem.
References
1. Archer, J. (2000). Sex Differences in Aggression Between Heterosexual Partners: A Mets-
Analytic Review, Psychological Bulletin, 126: 697-702.
2. Aron, A. and Aron, E.N. (1994). Statistics for Psychology. NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A Social Learning Theory Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
4. Beck, C. R. (2004). Motivation Theory and Practice. (5th Ed). New Jersey.
5. Berkowitz, L. (1968). Impulse, aggression, and the gun. Psychology Today, 2 (4), 18 – 22.
6. Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control New York: McGraw-
Hill.
7. Bettencourt, B.A. and Miller, N. (1996). Gender Differences in Aggression as a Function of
Provocation: A Meta-Analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 119: 422-47.

EDULIGHT – Multi-disciplinary, Peer Reviewed Print Journal | 189

EDULIGHT Journal, Volume 5, Issue 9, May, 2016 ISSN: 2278-9545

8. Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., and Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do Girls Manipulate and Boys
Fight? Developmental Trends in Regard to Direct and Indirect Aggression, Aggressive Behavior,
18: 117-27.
9. Brain, P. F. (1981). Classical ethology and human aggression. In P. F. Brain and D. Benton (Eds.).
The biology of aggression (pp.603-623). Alphen aanden Rijn, The Netherlands: Sitjhoff and
Noordhoff.
10. Brain, P.F. (1994). Hormonal Aspects of Aggression and Violence, in A.J. Reis, Jr. and J.A. Roth
(eds), Understanding and Control of Biobehavioral Influences on Violence (vol. 2). Washington,
DC: National Academy Press. pp. 177-244.
11. Broidy, L. M., Nagin, D. S., Tremblay, R. E., Bates, J. E., Brame, B., Dodge, K. A., et al.
(2003). Developmental trajectories of childhood disruptive behaviors and adolescent delinquency:
A six - site, cross - national study. Developmental Psychology, 39, 222 – 245.
12. Chen, X., Wang, L., Chen, H., & Liu, M. (2002). Noncompliance and child-rearing attitudes as
predictors of aggressive behaviour: A longitudinal study in Chinese children. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 26(3), 225-233.
13. Crick, N.R. and Grotpeter, J.K. (1995). Relational Aggression, Gender and Social-
Psychological Adjustment, Child Development, 66: 7 10-22.
14. Daniels, D.N., Gilula, M.I., & Ochberg, f.M. (Eds.) (1970). Violence and the struggle for
existence. New York: Little Brown.
15. Hinde, R. A. (1970). Animal behavior. New York: McGraw - Hill.
16. Hinde, R.A. (1974). Biological bases of human social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hil1.
17. Howell, D.C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (earlier editions than 5th) Belmont CA:
Duxbury.
18. Lagerspetz, K.M. and Bjorkqvist, K. (1992). Indirect Aggression in Girls’ and Boys', in L.R.
Huesmann (ed.), Aggressive Behavior: Current Perspectives. New York: Plenum. pp. 131-50.
19. Lagerspetz, K.M., Bjorkqvist, K., and Peltonen, T. (1988). Is Indirect Aggression Typical of
Females? Gender Differences in Aggressiveness in 11- to 12-Year-Old Children, Aggressive
Behavior, 14: 403-14.
20. Loeber, R. and Hay, D. (1997). Key Issues in the Development of Aggression from Childhood to
Early Adulthood, Annual Review of Psychology, 48: 371-410.
21. Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, peer relationships, and
groups. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Volume 3: Social,
emotional and personality development (5th ed., pp. 610-700). New York: Wiley.
22. Rys, G.S. and Bear, G.G. (1997). Relational Aggression and Peer Relations: Gender and
Developmental Issues, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43: 87-106.
23. Straus, M.A. (1997). Physical Assaults by Women Partners: A Major Social Problem', in MR.
Walsh (ed.), Women. Men and Gender: Ongoing Debates. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
pp. 210-21.

EDULIGHT – Multi-disciplinary, Peer Reviewed Print Journal | 190