The level of violence in schools is still high today.  Children with behavioral disturbances, especially those disturbances connected to impulsive behavior, display more violent behavior than those who do not have disturbances.

The development of game theory has done much to advance our understanding of the dynamics of conflict. An important subject for the understanding of the development of conflicts and their resolutions is the concept of retaliation (Schelling, 1980). 

Hitting back in schools has rarely been studied.  This study investigated the attitudes of children and parents towards hitting back. A Likert-type questionnaire of 6 ranks was used.  The questionnaire was designed with the purpose of investigating the factors influencing patterns of attitudes of children and their parents concerning hitting and the policy of teachers.

The analysis of variance showed that the family role (F=(3)6.2, P<0.001) and the special needs (F=(1)16.7, P<0.001) had statistically significant effects on attitudes toward hitting back.  Boys in general and boys with specials needs in particular, most strongly supported the attitudes of hitting back.  Most of the boys (61%) and a larger majority of boys with specials needs (79%), agreed that they would hit back if attacked.

This study shows that the majority of boys have positive attitudes toward hitting back.  As expected, children from special education are more involved in hitting back.  The respondents claimed that they would hit back children with behavior disturbances less than regular children.  It appears that this attitude stems from the ineffectiveness of hitting children back who have little self-control.  Game theory predicts that in conflicts between two parties, when one party is not in control, it is advisable to weigh the matter before responding in like by hitting back because the violence that will be displayed by this party is not a product of rational thought. 

Introduction and review of literature

The level of violence in schools is still high today (Astor, Benbenishty, Meyer-Heather, 2004; Brener, Lowry, Barrios, Simon & Eaton, 2005; Gianluca, 2004; Khoury-Kassabri, Benbenishty & Astor, 2005).

Bullies, usually boys, are impulsive and have much difficulty in self-control (Ando & Simons-Morton, 2005).  Children with behavioral disturbances and/or learning difficulties, especially those disturbances connected to impulse control, display more violent behavior than those who do not have disturbances (Bullies & Yovanoff, 2005; Connor, Anderson, Steingazed & Cunnigham, 2004; Nabuzoka, 2003; Unnever & Cornell, 2003; Webster-Straton & Ried, 2003).  In order to cope with violence, we must become aware of the mechanisms that motivate impulsive children to act out through bullying behavior.      

It appears that bullying serves to improve the social status of the bully (Little, Brauner, Jones, Nock, & Hawley, 2003) and to render him/her more likeable (Craig & Pepler, 1995; Hawley & Vaughn, 2003). On the other hand, violence has a devastating effect on the victims (Beale, 2001; Fulbright-Penland & Williams, 2003). 

The development of game theory has done much to advance our understanding of the dynamics of conflict (Fudenberg & Tirole, 1991). An important subject for the understanding of the development of conflicts and their resolutions is the concept of retaliation (Schelling, 1980).  Hitting back in schools has rarely been studied.  This study investigated the attitudes of children and parents towards hitting back.

Method

Hypotheses  

1. Boys hit back more than girls and support the attitude of hitting back more than any other group studied that included girls, mothers and fathers.

2. Children in the framework of special education support the attitude of hitting back more and will engage in hitting back behavior more often than children in the mainstream framework.

Research setting and sample   

Surveys were carried out in the homes of 82 fathers, 183 mothers, 116 boys and 139 girls. These included 149 children and their parents who claimed that they were not identified as having special needs and 119 children and their parents who claimed that they or their children were identified as having special needs.

Research tool 

A Likert-type questionnaire of 6 ranks was used.  Prior to the writing of the questionnaire, the research literature on violence in schools and game theory was studied and interviews with children and parents were carried out.  The questionnaire was designed with the purpose of investigating the factors influencing patterns of attitudes of children and their parents concerning hitting and the policy of teachers. 

Analysis

The results of the questionnaire were coded and applied to a statistical program. Indexes were calculated for different attitudes. The different items (answers) underwent factor analysis and the reliability of the different variables was tested by the Cronbach alpha for each one of the variables found.  The findings of the questionnaire (the individual questions, as well as the variables) were tested statistically according to accepted statistical procedures.

In the factor analysis, two variables were found: attitude toward hitting back (alpha = 0.89) and attitude toward integration of disturbed children (0.83). In this paper, we chose to relate to the attitude of the respondents towards hitting back. 

The identity of the participants remained anonymous.  Full consent was given by all the parents and children that participated in this study.  

Results

The analysis of variance showed that the family role (F=(3)6.2, P<0.001) and special needs (F=(1)16.7, P<0.001) had statistically significant effect  on attitudes toward hitting back.  Girls and boys with special needs supported this attitude more than their regular peers.  Boys in general and boys with specials needs in particular, most strongly supported the attitudes of hitting back.  Most of the boys (61%) and a larger majority of boys with specials needs (79%), agreed that they would hit back if attacked.  Only a minority of the regular girls (36%) and half of the girls with special needs (46%) agreed that they would ht back if attacked.  About a third of the mothers and fathers agreed to sayings showing that they would advise their children to hit back if attacked.  No significant difference was found between mothers and fathers or between parents of regular children and parents of special needs children concerning attitudes of hitting back regarding their own children.     

The analysis of variance showed that the respondents would hit back or advise to do so children with behavior disturbances less than regular children (F=(1) 20.1, P<0.00001).  Only about half of the regular boys (51%) would hit back children with behavior disturbances. 

38% of the special needs boys and 21% of the regular boys agreed with the sayings that claimed that they had hit children back over the last month.  Only 3% of the girls and 14% of the special needs girls agreed that they had hit back in the last month.

No correlation was found between the attitude of hitting back and the attitude toward children with special needs.

Discussion

This study shows that the majority of boys have positive attitudes toward hitting back.  This attitude is surprising in light of the negative attitudes of their parents and of the uncompromising stand of the Ministry of Education towards violence.  It appears that the social status of boys is determined by their ability to respond to violence (Fox & Boulton, 2005). Boys pay a high price as victims of violence and hitting back is their way of attempting to prevent themselves from becoming victims.  As expected, children from special education are more involved in hitting back.  The respondents claimed that they would hit back children with behavior disturbances less.  This appeared to be a tolerant reaction. However, it now appears that this attitude stems from the ineffectiveness of hitting children back who have little self-control.  Game theory predicts that in conflicts between two parties, when one party is not in control, it is advisable to weigh the matter before responding in like by hitting back because the violence that will be displayed by this party is not a product of rational thought (Dixit & Nalebuff, 1991).