The effects of the 'pencak-silat’ training program on the aggressiveness of the participants
Wilis Srisayekti
Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia
Presented at the 27th 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
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)
Figure 1
The General Aggression Model episodic processes
Present Internal StateAffect
Cognition Arousal
Personological Variables e.g aggresive pers.
Appraisal & decision processes
Situational variables e.g. pencak-silat training provocation
Thoughtful action
Impulsive action
2. Pencak silat
Pencak silat is one of the traditional Indonesian defense-sports. Deeply rooted in the Malaya society, pencak silat is an actualization of the high humanity values of the society (Notosoejitno, 1984, in Maryono, 1999). From this point of view human being is philosophically perceived as an individual as well as a social, natural and religious organism. This philosophy should be taught during the training and should be well internalized in the participants in order to prevent them from malpractice behaviors.
In the training process the participants will learn how to react on the enemy’s attack with proper speed and accuracy. They will learn how to always use their feeling to react properly, so that they generally will produce a relatively correct reaction automatically. This condition will be reached through a training in which the participants should repeat the particular pencak silat movements or techniques continuously. During they produce such movements they should also imagine the real situation where the techniques will be applied.
This study has been focused on the Maenpo Peupeuhan Adung Rais, a kind of pencak silat school developed in West Java. The training program of this school contains from three level, i.e. level 1, which is called ‘jurus’; level 2, which is called ‘nyieun’; and level 3, which is called ‘usik’ (Rafijen, 2000). The following description will give some ideas about every level of the school.
Repreated:
Level 1, ‘jurus’:
In this level the participants will learn several basic offensive and defensive methods such as positioning their feet, producing sets of stroke and kick. The learning materials include the meaning and the rules of every movement or technique. During the training the participants should look carefully at every movement or technique produced by the instructor as a model and then try to do it by themselves.
Level 2, ‘nyieun’:
The participants in this level will learn how to use and to apply every movement or technique learned in the previous level. Every participant is then encouraged to create sets of movements constructed from the basic movements or techniques. This condition requires high creativity from the participants as they have to imagine clearly the situation, i.e. fight or combat, in which they have to use or to apply the movements or techniques to knock the enemy down.
Level3, ‘usik’:
In this level the participants will learn how to apply the movements or techniques in a battle simulation. This will be done in a pair-method where the participant and the instructor are played as the combatants, in which every participant should fight against the instructor. In this situation the instructor will try to disturb the concentration of the participant and to make offensive movements toward the participant. The participant then has to react to the movements using or applying the movements and techniques learned in the previous two levels. During this training the participant is encouraged to think and to imagine how to hurt the instructor, a person to fight against, as though he was in the real combat or fight.
Although the recruitment process for the training is very competitive in order to prevent the malpractice of the movements or techniques in the daily situations, the interview to 18 practitioners show that 11 practitioners use quite often the movements or techniques in the daily situations (see Kemas, 2008). A descriptive study on the pencak-silat training program has revealed that the aggressiveness of the participants are growing higher a long with the time they are attending the training (see Kemas, 2008). Based on these results, this study was aimed to examine the effects of the 'pencak-silat’ training program on the aggressiveness of the participants.
Methods
Results
Results will present the following points:
1. The personological variable, aggresive personality
2. Effects of the 'pencak-silat’ training program on the aggressiveness (do / say, think, feel) of the participants of the level 1, level 2, level 2 at measured 1 and measured 2 3. Effects of the 'pencak-silat’ training program on the aggressiveness (do / say, think,
feel) of the participants between levels at measured 1 and measured 2
1. The personological variable, aggresive personality
As shown at table 1, almost all of the participants have an aggressive tendency personality.
Level of the training personality (person)
non-aggressive aggressive tendency very aggressive
Level 1 4 11
-Level 2 - 15
-Level 3 - 15
-Table 1: The aggressive personality of the participants
2. Effects of the 'pencak-silat’ training program on the aggressiveness (do / say, think, feel) of the participants of the level 1, level 2, level 2 at measured 1 and measured 2
level of the training
measured 1: pre test 1 – post test 1 (2-tailed)
do / say think feel
t sig t sig t sig
Level 1 -14.892 .000 -32.073 .000 -20.101 .000
Level 2 -18.609 .000 -9.654 .000 -17.093 .000
Level 3 -11.765 .000 -10.625 .000 -16.870 .000
level of the training
measured 2: pre test 2 – post test 2 (2-tailed)
do / say think feel
t sig t sig t sig
Level 1 -11.000 .000 -17.338 .000 -12.160 .000 Level 2 -17.029 .000 -17.481 .000 -16.989 .000
Level 3 -8.730 .000 -7.642 .000 -9.893 .000
Table 3: Effects of the 'pencak-silat’ training program on the aggressiveness (do / say, think, feel) of the participants of the level 1, level 2, level 2 at measured 2
3. Effects of the 'pencak-silat’ training program on the aggressiveness (do / say, think, feel) of the participants between levels at measured 1 and measured 2
aggressiveness F sig.
do / say 1.692 .197
think 5.220 .009**
feel 5.970 .005**
α : * = 0.10 ** = .05 *** = .001
Table 4: Effects of the 'pencak-silat’ training program on the aggressiveness (do / say, think, feel) of the participants between levels at measured 1
aggressiveness sig.
level 1 – level 2 level 1 – level 3 level 2 – level 3
do / say .374 .955 .238
think .010*** .475 .156
feel .58 .007* .069
α : * = 0.10 ** = .05 *** = .001
Table 5: Effects of the 'pencak-silat’ training program on the aggressiveness (do / say, think, feel) of the participants between levels at measured 1
aggressiveness F sig.
do / say 62.398 .000***
think 57.554 .000***
feel 72.177 .000***
α : * = 0.10 ** = .05 *** = .001
aggressiveness sig.
Table 7: Effects of the 'pencak-silat’ training program on the aggressiveness (do / say, think, feel) of the participants between levels at measured 2
In general the results show that the 'pencak-silat’ training program effects on the aggressiveness of the participants, i.e. the aggressive do / say, -think, and -feel. These results could be explained that the repeatedly exposing participants to certain factors, in this study materials of the training, will produce aggressive persons (Huesmann & Miller, 19994; Patterson et al., 1992; in Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Such long-term effects result from the development, automatization, and reinforcement of aggression-related knowledge structures. It means that the creation and automatizataion of these aggression-related knowledge structures and the desensitization effects change the individual’s personality (see Anderson & Bushman, 2002).
Conclusion
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.
References
Alexander, H., Chambers, Q., & Draeger, D. F. 1972. Pentjak-Silat: The Indonesian Fighting Art. Tokyo: Kodansha International.
Anderson, C. A. 1997. Effects of violent movies and trait irritability on hostile feelings and aggressive thoughts. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 161–178.
Anderson, C. A., Anderson, K. B., Deuser, W. E. 1996. Examining an affective aggression framework: Weapon and temperature effects on aggressive thoughts, affect, and attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22:366-376.
Anderson, C. A., Benjamin, A. J., & Bartholow, B. D. 1998. Does the gun pull the trigger? Automatic priming effects of weapon pictures and weapon names. Psychological
Science, 9, 308–314.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. 2001. Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12, 353–359. Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. 2002. Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53,
27–51.
Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. 2000. Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,
772–790.
Anderson, C. A., Flanagan, M., Carnagey, N. L., Benjamin, A. J., Eubanks, J., & Valentine, J. C. (2002). Specific effects of violent video game content on aggressive thoughts and
behavior. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Berkowitz, Leonard. 1995. Agresi: Sebab dan Akibatnya. Penerjemah: Hartatni Waro Sisiatni. Lembaga PPM. Jakarta
Campbell D. T., & Stanley, J. C. 1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Dill, K. E., Anderson, C. A., Anderson, K. B., & Deuser, W. E. 1997. Effects of aggressive personality on social expectations and social perceptions. Journal of Research in
Personality, 31, 272-292.
Geen, R. G. 2001. Human Aggression. Open University Press. Buckingham.
Glass, G. V, Willson, V. L., & Gottman, 1. M. 1975. Design and analysis of time-series
experiments. Boulder, CO: Colorado Associated University Press.
Huesmann, L. R., & Miller, L. S. 1994. Long-term effects of repeated exposure to media violence in childhood. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 153–186). New York: Plenum Press.
Kemas, Megatian Ananda. 2008. Descriptive study on the aggressiveness of the participants of the pencak-silat training program Unpublished. Padjadjaran University, Bandung.
