PSYCHOLOGY

ELLEN GALINSKY, Families and Work Institute President, July 30, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: Did you find major differences in violence displayed by young women versus violence shown by young men? Is it true, as I have been told, that boys tend to strike back at people they feel have harmed them is some way, whereas females have a greater tendency to bottle their anger and lash out at another person? If so, what does this tell us on how violence prevention should be handled?
\ GALINSKY: Girls and boys are equally likely to be mean. But boys are more likely to be victors and aggressors in bullying. Boys are more likely to have experiences in physical and extreme violence. Yes, there are differences in ways that violence prevention should be handled for boys and girls but also, the pressure to fit in and to pick on people who are different, are the same for both boys and girls. Both say that they want that to end. One of the skills that is important in handling violence is to be able to understand how someone else might feel. And that needs to be taught to both boys and girls. There are also problem solving skills for handling conflict that both boys and girls can benefit from.
Studies have evaluated a number of programs that work. For example, the program Facing History and Ourselves prevents violence and promotes intergroup understanding by looking at historical events in the 20th century. It is based on the premise that the ability to understand oneself and others is an important intellectual skill. It is the first step in moral understanding and interaction. Another program is Resolving Conflict Creatively for kinds in 1-12 grades and it teaches kids alternative strategies----choices for managing conflict and helps them make these choices. It also helps them to stand up against prejudice. A third program is called Providing Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) for elementary age children. It teaches kids to learn to recognize and understand their feelings and find effective ways to express them.

SHANKAR VEDENTAM, Washington Post Staff Writer, and FIERY CUSHMAN, Harvard University Psychology Department Doctoral Student, December 8, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: I can relate (to Cushman’s research) on a totally different topic. I was noting how upset I was that a loved one deliberately threw out something. Ironically, it was pointed out that had it been destroyed by fire, I would have accepted that better. The fact there was a human hand behind its destruction is precisely what upsets me. Is this indeed something similar?
VEDENTAM: I think your story is a really beautiful example of what the research illustrates. We are much more upset when we see a human hand behind something that hurts us rather than an impersonal force. When I put myself in your shoes, I feel exactly the same way.
CUSHMAN: That is a very nice example, thanks for sharing it. Part of what might be occurring in cases like this is that we tend to get more upset about events that we can control. BY getting upset at your loved one, you have the change to control his or her future behavior’ next time they will be more careful! But in the case of the fire, you are probably imaging an event outside of your control. No point in getting upset---there isn’t much you can do to prevent fires.
Here’s a critical test: how would you feel if the fire “was” under your control? Imagine that you left a candle burning next to the draperies. IN that case, I suspect you’d feel just as upset with yourself as you did with your loved one.