The effects of the pencak-silat’ training program on the aggressiveness of the participants Wilis Srisayekti
Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia Presented at the 27
th
International Congress of Applied Psychology 11-16 July 2010, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
This study was a continuation of a descriptive study on the aggressiveness of the participants of the Indonesian-traditional-defend-sport pencak-silat training. It was intended to find out whether
the training program significantly effected on the aggressive thoughts and feelings of the participants. Interrupted time-series with sequential multiple group – multiple intervention design
Glass, 1975 was applied in this one-month-study twice a week, two hours per session. 45 subjects male, 19-25 years old, M = 21.9; SD = 1.33 were involved. They were from the three
levels of the training 15 subjects each. The adapted aggression questionnaire Buss Perry, 1992 and the story completion task Dill, 1997 were used to measure the aggressiveness.
Results showed that the pencak-silat training program significantly increased the aggressiveness of the participants within level the aggressive do say measured 1: level 1, t = -14.892; level 2, t
= -18.609; level 3, t = -11.765; α = 0.001; measured 2: level 1, t = -11.000; level 2, t = -17.029; level 3, t = -8.730; α = 0.001; the aggressive thoughts measured 1: level 1, t = -14.892; level 2, t =
-9.654; level 3, t = -10.625; α = 0.001; measured 2: level 1, t = -17.338; level 2, t = -17.481; level 3, t = -7.642; α = 0.001; the aggressive feelings measured 1: level 1, t = -20.101; level 2, t =
-17.093; level 3, t = -16.870; α = 0.001; measured 2: level 1, t = -12.160; level 2, t = -16.989; level 3, t = -9.893; α = 0.001. Results also revealed that at measured 1 significantly differences
occur on the aggressive think .009 and -feel .005, but at measured 2 significantly differences occur on the aggressive do say .000, -think .000 and -feel .000. The results are in line with
the General Aggression Model Anderson Bushman, 2002. Based on these results improvements of the training program should be recommended and developed.
Introduction
The following description will present a short view of the two important subjects related to the study, i.e. the theory of aggression and pencak silat.
1. Aggression
Anderson and Bushman 2001, differentiate aggression, violence and hostile. The following words will describe the three of them.
Aggression Human-aggression is any behavior directed toward another individual that is carried out with
the proximate immediate intent to cause harm. In addition, the perpetrator must believe that the behavior will harm the target, and that the target is motivated to avoid the behavior
Bushman Anderson, 2001; Baron Richardson, 1994; Berkowitz, 1993; Geen, 2001; in Anderson Bushman, 2002. Accidental harm is not aggressive because it is not inended.
Harm that is an incidental by-product of helpful actions is also not aggressive, because the harm-doer believes that the target is not motivated to avoid the action e.g. pain experienced
during a dental procedure. Similarly, the pain administered in sexual masochism is not aggressive because the victim is not motivated to avoid it. Indeed the pain is actively solicited
in service of a higher goal Baumeister, 1989, in Anderson Bushman, 2002.
Violence Violence is aggression that has extreme harm as its goal e.g. death. All violence is
aggression, but many instances of aggression are not violent. For example one child pushing another off a tricycle is an act of aggression but is not an act of violence.
Hostile vs. instrumental aggression Hostile aggression has historically been conceived as being compulsive, thoughtless i.e.
unplanned, driven by anger, having the ultimate motive of harming the target, and occurring as a reaction to some perceived provocation. It is sometimes called affective, impulsive, or
reactive aggression.
Instrumental aggression is conceived as a premeditated means of obtaining some goal other than harming the victim and being proactive rather than reactive Berkowitz, 1993; Geen,
2001; in Anderson Bushman, 2002.
Bushman and Anderson 2001, in Anderson Bushman, 2002 modify these definitions in two ways. First they distinguish between proximate and ultimate goals. They views intention
to harm as a necessary feature of all aggression as in purely hostile aggression models, but it is necessary only as a proximate goal. Thus, both robbery and physical assault are acts of
aggression because both include intention to harm the victim at a proximate level. However, they typically differ in ultimate goals, with robbery serving primarily profit-based goals and
assault serving primarily harm-based goals. In short, the definition allows discussing the commonalities in and distinctions between affective and instrumental aggression, while
including aggression that has mixed motives.
Four aggression’s criteria according to Gill 1986, in Anderson Bushman, 2001, are: 1 aggression is a behavior, 2 aggression is related to hurt or injure others, 3 aggression is
directed toward organism, 4 aggression involves intention. In this manner aggression could be physical or verbal behavior, and it is not attitude or emotion. Aggression is related to behavior
that hurts others physically or psychologically such as threatening or insulting. An action is called an aggressive behavior if the target is an organism such as a person, and not an object such as a
door or a table. Aggressive behavior is a purposed behavior, it is not an accident.
The General Aggression Model GAM
The theoretical approach is General Aggression Model GAM, which has emerged from the work on variety of aggression-related domains Anderson, Anderson Deuser, 1996; Anderson,
Deuser De Neuve, 1995; Anderson, Anderson Dill, 1998; Dill, Anderson, Anderson Deuser, 1997 in Anderson Dill, 2000. The model integrates existing theory and data
concerning the learning, development, instigation, and expression of human aggression. It does so by noting that the enactment of aggression is largely based on knowledge structures e.g. scripts,
schemas created by social learning processes. GAM in this way incorporates the theoretical insights of much previous work, particularly Bandura’s social learning theory see Anderson
Dill, 2000. Figure 1 presents the basic GAM structure with example relevant to this article. Figure 2 illustrates the process and identifies five types of the knowledge structures that have
received attention in aggression-related context.
Figure 1 The General Aggression Model episodic processes
Present Internal State
Affect
Cognition Arousal
Personological Variables
e.g aggresive pers.
Appraisal decision processes
Situational variables e.g. pencak-silat
training provocation
Thoughtful action
Impulsive action
Social encounter
2. Pencak silat
