Author Topic: Positive Peer Culture  (Read 1407 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Positive Peer Culture
« on: April 28, 2006, 11:24:00 AM »
Interesting .. although the most recent of the citations in the summary you quoted (and linked) is 10 years old, and the citation doesn't indicate how old the actual data was.  Is there nothing more recent?  Also, it is not clear that comparisons are of like-to-like beyond all programs mentioned claiming PPC.

I understood a principle behind PPC was that adolescents are more influenced by peers than by adults, thus if peers exhibit/practice/support a certain kind of behavior, the individual will tend to follow.  So, I guess if you get a group of people behaving in what your references call a "pro social" way, a new member of the group will tend to do likewise.  Whether or not it works so well with a level system, I don't know, but it sure can work well in a well-structured setting.

Sure, there is an element of coercion.  There is lots of places.  But that doesn't mean all coercion is bad, or do I have my meanings messed up.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Positive Peer Culture
« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2006, 12:26:00 AM »
Most juvenile placements practice ?positive peer culture? that is often injurious to children with disabilities, who may be unable to conform to rigorous point systems. Concerned that Michigan juvenile facilities are structuring programming around positive peer culture programs, MACED staff is surveying all Michigan juvenile facilities in order to measure the prevalence of these programs. We have requested information on facility program components, including mental health services, the use of positive peer culture, point systems, seclusion and restraint, and behavior modification programs. The information received is providing MACED with a better understanding of what is happening inside these facilities. Using both this information and academic literature,  staff will develop a model brief for use by defense attorneys against the use of positive peer culture, and for use in public policy advocacy
http://www.michkids.org/index_files/page0028.htm
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Positive Peer Culture
« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2006, 10:30:00 AM »
How would you feel about a system founded on the idea that someone acting irresopnsibly -- say, by trashing other people's property, insulting others, failing to stay clean or properly nourished -- needs help in learning responsible thinking and behavior?
Would you go for an approach aiming to develop responsible thinking and behavior by helping one another - not asking whether a person wants to receive help, but whether they are willing to give help.
Would you go for an approach about teaching values and not rules?
How about an approach that calls for supporting affirmative change?  And one in which those involved have a sense of ownership and control over the changes that are occurring in their lives?

What would be good, bad, or up-in-the-aid about these things?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Positive Peer Culture
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2006, 10:35:00 AM »
Quote
On 2006-04-29 07:30:00, Anonymous wrote:

"How would you feel about a system founded on the idea that someone acting irresopnsibly -- say, by trashing other people's property, insulting others, failing to stay clean or properly nourished -- needs help in learning responsible thinking and behavior?

Would you go for an approach aiming to develop responsible thinking and behavior by helping one another - not asking whether a person wants to receive help, but whether they are willing to give help.

Would you go for an approach about teaching values and not rules?

How about an approach that calls for supporting affirmative change?  And one in which those involved have a sense of ownership and control over the changes that are occurring in their lives?


That would be called parenting.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Troll Control

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7391
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Positive Peer Culture
« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2006, 10:45:00 PM »
http://www.apa.org/journals/amp/amp549755.html
When Interventions Harm: Peer Groups and Problem Behavior
Excerpts:

The Adolescent Transitions Program Study
Group counseling and guided group interaction produced a negative effect on delinquent and antisocial behavior (Berger, Crowley, Gold, Gray, & Arnold, 1975; Feldman, 1992; Gottfredson, 1987; O'Donnell, 1992).

In this article, we tested the hypothesis that high-risk young adolescents potentially escalate their problem behavior in the context of interventions delivered in peer groups. To examine this hypothesis, we first invoked studies on adolescent social development, indicating the processes that might account for problem behavior escalation.

Second, we reviewed two controlled intervention studies involving peer aggregation that produced negative short- and long-term effects on high-risk young adolescents. Finally, we discussed the developmental and intervention studies and proposed conditions that might increase the likelihood of negative effects with respect to underlying developmental processes. We also proposed directions for future intervention research to both accurately detect and understand iatrogenic effects associated with peer aggregation.
Iatrogenic- induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures.

To examine the relative efficacy of the different intervention conditions, we randomly assigned 119 high-risk youth (boys and girls) and their families to one of four intervention conditions: (a) parent focus only; (b) teen focus only; (c) both parent and teen focus; and (d) an attention placebo group, referred to as self-directed change, which included free access to videotapes and written materials. We recruited a quasi-experimental control group (n = 38) to evaluate the extent to which the self-directed intervention reduced problem behavior. Outcome analyses combined the self-directed and control groups for comparisons with the relative effects of the teen and parent focus groups. Dishion and Andrews (1995) compared the characteristics of the participants, as well as the outcomes for the two groups, and found them virtually equivalent.

We hypothesized that the optimal intervention would be the combined condition, involving both the parent and teen focus curriculums (Dishion et al., 1988). Consistent with this hypothesis, many of the short-term effects were quite positive. For example, both teen and parent focus participants showed more curriculum-specific knowledge following the intervention (Dishion, Andrews, Kavanagh, & Soberman, 1996). More important, both interventions resulted in statistically reliable reductions in observed negative family interactions (Dishion & Andrews, 1995). Parent reports of family conflict suggested that the teen and parent focus cognitive?behavioral intervention considerably reduced family tension and conflict.

Unfortunately, more complete long-term analysis revealed that negative effects were associated with the teen focus curriculum. Three months after random assignment, we noted an increase in tobacco use among the teen focus participants. One year following the families' involvement in the ATP study, increases in tobacco use and teacher report of externalizing behavior were found to be reliably higher for the teen focus groups, compared with problem behavior within the control conditions (Dishion & Andrews, 1995). The effect sizes were strong enough to undermine the short-term positive gains of the parent focus intervention (Dishion & Andrews, 1995; Dishion, Andrews, et al., 1996). The combined parent and teen focus intervention programs did not reduce risk for substance use and delinquency, as hypothesized.

Three-year follow-up assessments suggest that the iatrogenic effects of the teen focus conditions persisted for tobacco use and delinquency (Poulin, Dishion, & Burraston, in press). As shown in Figure 2, random assignment to teen focus, regardless of the accompanying intervention with parents, was associated with long-term increases in tobacco use.

A reasonable argument might be that the long-term effects are attributable to changes in youth-reporting strategies, representing an Intervention × Assessment interaction (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Contrary to this hypothesis were the results of the analysis on the Delinquency scale of the teacher version of the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991). During the intervention study, teachers were unaware of each student's intervention condition. They knew even less of the ATP study in later years of follow-up. As shown in Figure 3, teachers reported higher levels of delinquent behavior in youth randomly assigned to teen focus, compared with controls; these levels persisted over the three-year follow-up period.

The Cambridge?Somerville Youth Study Evaluation
used a comprehensive approach to crime prevention, based on knowledge that high-risk children lacked affectionate guidance (Healy & Bronner, 1936; Powers & Witmer, 1951).
Treatment began when boys were, on average, 10.5 years old and terminated shortly after they reached the age of 16. Although the intensity of treatment varied, boys were visited an average of twice a month in their homes. Counselors encouraged their participation in local community groups and took the boys to sporting events, taught many of them how to drive, helped them obtain jobs, and served their families in a variety of ways (including help with finding employment, assisting in the care of younger children, counseling, and providing transportation).

An evaluation shortly after the program ended failed to turn up differences between the treated and untreated boys (Powers & Witmer, 1951). Many suggested that judgment be delayed until the boys fully matured. When the CSYS participants reached middle age, an intensive effort was made to find them and assess the effects of their treatment; that search resulted in 98% retention by 1979. Vital statistics, the courts, mental hospitals, and alcohol treatment centers provided objective evidence by which to evaluate effects of the program. Distressingly, as reported earlier, the treatment program apparently had harmful effects (McCord, 1978, 1981).

Two analyses indicated that the iatrogenic effects came from the treatment program. First, boys who received the most attention over the longest period of time were the most likely to have iatrogenic effects. A dose?response analysis showed those in treatment longer, and those who received more intense treatment, were most likely to have turned out worse than their matched controls (McCord, 1990). Second, the iatrogenic results occurred only in the cooperative families. Among those, 27 pairs of treatment boys turned out better, but 52 pairs turned out worse. Among the pairs in which the treatment family was uncooperative, the control and treatment boys were equally likely to turn out badly (McCord, 1992).

Attempts failed to find subgroups for whom treatment had been beneficial. Those who started treatment at very early ages were not less likely to have bad outcomes than their matched controls. Nor was there evidence to show that some particular variation of treatment had been effective. Moreover, when comparisons were restricted to those with whom a counselor had particularly good rapport, or those whom the staff believed they had helped most, the objective evidence failed to show the program had been beneficial (see McCord, 1981, 1990, for details).

The comparison of outcomes among matched pairs of boys shows that although none of the groups benefited from treatment, most of the damaging effects of the CSYS program appeared among the boys who had been sent to summer camp more than once (see Figure 4) and who turned out considerably worse than their matched mates. Among these pairs, the risk ratio for bad outcome was 10:1. In 20 pairs, only the treatment boys had bad outcomes, whereas the control boys had bad outcomes only in two pairs.

Both processes suggest that repetition of contact within the peer-group intervention would create the iatrogenic effect observed in these two intervention studies, especially among those youth likely to engage in deviant talk and behavior primarily in the company of peers.

We hypothesize that the reinforcement processes within the peer groups are quite subtle and potentially powerful. For example, Buehler, Patterson, and Furniss (1966) found that within institutional settings, peers provided a rate of reinforcement of 9-to-1, compared with adult staff, suggesting that the density of reinforcement from peers can be so high it seriously undermines adult guidance.

Research by Chamberlain and colleagues revealed that mobilizing adult caregiving is a critical and viable intervention target for even the most severe adolescent delinquent (Chamberlain & Moore, 1998; Chamberlain & Reid, 1998). Her research compared a treatment foster care model with group home treatment, finding that the former resulted in reductions in deviant peer contact and subsequent self-reported and court-documented delinquency, compared with group home placement.

Moreover, interventions with high-risk parents have shown results in improved parenting, concomitant reductions in child and adolescent problem behavior (Dishion et al., 1995; Dishion, Spracklen, et al., 1996; Webster-Stratton, 1990), and improvement in academic skills (Forgatch & DeGarmo, in press). Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of group interventions is retained if focus is on the parents and aggregating young adolescents is avoided.

To really understand the impact of interventions with adolescents, researchers will have to assess a variety of short- and long-term outcomes (Kelly, 1988) addressing expected intervention outcomes (e.g., targeted skills) with real-world outcomes (e.g., behavior in the natural environment). The scientific and professional community must be open to the possibility that intentions to help may inadvertently lead to unintentional harm.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


This is a settled topic.  This has been proven to be damaging for decades.  

The PPC treatment modality leads directly to iatrogenic delinquency.  It really couldn't be any clearer.

I have a very strong background in juvenile delinquency as my mentor is Dr. Herman Schwendinger (and his wife, Julia, to a lesser extent), perhaps the most prolific researcher of modern juvenile delinquency, and his conclusions and teachings mirror those of this study.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
The Linchpin Link

Whooter - The Most Prolific Troll Fornits Has Ever Seen - The Definitive Links
**********************************************************************************************************
"Looks like a nasty aspentrolius sticci whooterensis infestation you got there, Ms. Fornits.  I\'ll get right to work."

- Troll Control

Offline Troll Control

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7391
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Positive Peer Culture
« Reply #5 on: April 29, 2006, 11:01:00 PM »
Sorry, dude.  If only I had psychic ability...

Seriously though, if you want to get a good understanding of iatrogenic delinquency, that study is pretty damn good.

_________________
"Compassion is the basis of morality."

-Arnold Schopenhauer[ This Message was edited by: Dysfunction Junction on 2006-04-29 20:06 ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
The Linchpin Link

Whooter - The Most Prolific Troll Fornits Has Ever Seen - The Definitive Links
**********************************************************************************************************
"Looks like a nasty aspentrolius sticci whooterensis infestation you got there, Ms. Fornits.  I\'ll get right to work."

- Troll Control

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Positive Peer Culture
« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2006, 03:53:00 PM »
Quote
On 2006-04-29 07:35:00, Anonymous wrote:

"
Quote

On 2006-04-29 07:30:00, Anonymous wrote:


"How would you feel about a system founded on the idea that someone acting irresopnsibly -- say, by trashing other people's property, insulting others, failing to stay clean or properly nourished -- needs help in learning responsible thinking and behavior?


Would you go for an approach aiming to develop responsible thinking and behavior by helping one another - not asking whether a person wants to receive help, but whether they are willing to give help.


Would you go for an approach about teaching values and not rules?


How about an approach that calls for supporting affirmative change?  And one in which those involved have a sense of ownership and control over the changes that are occurring in their lives?




That would be called parenting."


OK.  Then how do you go about supporting affirmative change when there isn't any - such as in the face of negative behavior or negative change?  Certainly you'd not give rewards.  Do you withhold something you might have offered under "neutral" conditions?  Example, please.

Moving earlier ... how do you offer help in learning responsible behavior?  Do you offer incentives?  Disincentives?  If incentives, would they lead to constant payment for good behavior when it should be its own reward???  If disincentives, would that be punishment?  What incentives or disincentives should you use?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline katfish

  • Posts: 543
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.cafety.org
Positive Peer Culture
« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2006, 04:14:00 PM »
Quote
PPC fails to consider the basic agenda of most residents in a program. I have yet to meet a Resident whose first thought of the day is something along the lines of, "Golly I just want to use PPC to make someone's life a better place."



Most residents tend to think along the lines of, "What the hell do I need to do to get out of this festing cess pit in the shortest time possible? Who to step on today to make myself look better?"



Basic human motivations simply will not allow a theory like PPC that for all intents and purposes reminds me alot of communism.


I'm wondering if this is really only the case when individuals are placed in a facility involuntarily, where there necessarily exists a hierarchy to deferentiate and seperate and excuse the need for lengthy placement by creating a artificial leaps and bounds a kid has to make in order to be re-intergarated into society....

In theory this practice may sound good, I'm guessing so long as kids can leave.  Forced positivity just doesn't work far as I can tell.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead

Offline Nihilanthic

  • Posts: 3931
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Positive Peer Culture
« Reply #8 on: April 30, 2006, 06:26:00 PM »
Quote
In theory this practice may sound good, I'm guessing so long as kids can leave. Forced positivity just doesn't work far as I can tell.


Ever heard the stories from Striaght where they had to sing ZIPPA DE DO DA while someone was screaming during a takedown and pain-compliance 'restraint'?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
DannyB on the internet:I CALLED A LAWYER TODAY TO SEE IF I COULD SUE YOUR ASSES FOR DOING THIS BUT THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

CCMGirl on program restraints: "DON\'T TAZ ME BRO!!!!!"

TheWho on program survivors: "From where I sit I see all the anit-program[sic] people doing all the complaining and crying."

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Positive Peer Culture
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2006, 09:07:00 AM »
Quote


OK.  Then how do you go about supporting affirmative change when there isn't any - such as in the face of negative behavior or negative change?  Certainly you'd not give rewards.  Do you withhold something you might have offered under "neutral" conditions?  Example, please.



Moving earlier ... how do you offer help in learning responsible behavior?  Do you offer incentives?  Disincentives?  If incentives, would they lead to constant payment for good behavior when it should be its own reward???  If disincentives, would that be punishment?  What incentives or disincentives should you use?"



The question I want you to ask is no matter if you are offering positive incentives, or negative consquences is the change going to be sincere?

If I was in a treatment program I would say and do whatever was needed to exit the program as soon as possible.

Myself I tended to favor neither positive rewards, and negative consquences. To me them graduating was reward enough, and further they were in a treatment program far away from home living in substandard living conditions so why consquence them anymore than was needed?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Positive Peer Culture
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2006, 09:07:00 AM »
TSW wrote that.. sorry to lazy to log in.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Positive Peer Culture
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2006, 10:47:00 AM »
It's still called parenting.  It starts from birth.  It's not like you can start setting limitations, teaching responsibility or anything else AFTER you've let them take control of the house and family.  That's your fault for not doing it in the beginning and it's your problem to fix, not the kids.  Sending them away to be "fixed" is punishing them for YOUR goddamn mistakes.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Positive Peer Culture
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2006, 12:00:00 PM »
Quote
On 2006-05-01 06:07:00, Anonymous wrote:

"
Quote




OK.  Then how do you go about supporting affirmative change when there isn't any - such as in the face of negative behavior or negative change?  Certainly you'd not give rewards.  Do you withhold something you might have offered under "neutral" conditions?  Example, please.





Moving earlier ... how do you offer help in learning responsible behavior?  Do you offer incentives?  Disincentives?  If incentives, would they lead to constant payment for good behavior when it should be its own reward???  If disincentives, would that be punishment?  What incentives or disincentives should you use?"






The question I want you to ask is no matter if you are offering positive incentives, or negative consquences is the change going to be sincere?



If I was in a treatment program I would say and do whatever was needed to exit the program as soon as possible.



Myself I tended to favor neither positive rewards, and negative consquences. To me them graduating was reward enough, and further they were in a treatment program far away from home living in substandard living conditions so why consquence them anymore than was needed?"


TS ... are you totally incapable of providing coherent answers to the questions posed?  Is that the pattern here?  Bitch and moan but don't provide viable alternatives?  Blame X but don't tell how to provide Y?

The questions were about how to provide support and help.  It seems those are things you can't do.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Positive Peer Culture
« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2006, 03:56:00 PM »
Quote
On 2006-05-01 09:02:00, Three Springs Waygookin wrote:

"Learn to read I did offer you an answer just not one you wanted to see.



I said pretty plainly that I preferred to offer neither rewards or consquences.



It's our goddamn duty to get these people back on drugs so they can think for themselves again!!!
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=4728&forum=7&start=20#40163' target='_new'>RTP2003

"


Thanks.  It's really good to know you would do nothing.  You wouldn't help the kids.  You wouldn't do anything to support them.  You'd simply let them do whatever to get out.  I guess that you also want them to return to drug addiciton influenced behavior, or so your closing bit suggests.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Positive Peer Culture
« Reply #14 on: May 02, 2006, 07:51:00 AM »
Quote
On 2006-05-02 01:10:00, Three Springs Waygookin wrote:

"No I just refuse to bully them into submission nor am I willing to bribe them to behave.


Thanx again.  I got it.  You would do nothing.  except, of course, bitch about others who do something   your responses are all "no" or "don't"     never anything at all positive in any way    have a great life
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »