¡Descarga Understanding Mechanisms of Social-Cognitive Info Processing and Aggression - Prof. Ramón y más Apuntes en PDF de Psicología solo en Docsity!
Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 467–490, 2000 Copyright 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 1359-1789/00/$–see front matter PII S1359-1789(98)00032-
CHILDREN’S AND ADOLESCENTS’
AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR IN
CONTEXT: THE DEVELOPMENT
AND APPLICATION OF AGGRESSIVE
PROBLEM-SOLVING STRATEGIES
Laura Pakaslahti
University of Helsinki, Finland
ABSTRACT. Social-cognitive information-processing models have frequently been used as a reference in studying children’s and adolescents’ aggressive behavior. According to these models, aggressive behavior is considered to be one way for children and adolescents to cope with the social problems of everyday life. A high level of aggressive behavior is traced to deficiencies in processing social information (e.g., in encoding social cues, interpreting situations, adopting goals, producing strategies, and evaluating responses), leading to an increased likelihood of employing aggressive problem-solving strategies. Emotions and physiological factors are also suggested to contribute to the social-cognitive information- processing activities promoting aggression. The development of aggressively biased ways of processing social information is seen to be related to numerous biological and environmental factors. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
KEY WORDS. Adolescents, children, aggressive behavior, aggressive problem-solving strategies
AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR MAY BE considered one of the most substantial social problems of many societies (Parke & Slaby, 1983). The level is especially high during adolescence, but the roots of aggression can largely be traced back to the childhood (Fogany, Target, Steele, & Steele, 1997). Consequently, much attention has been devoted to aggressive behavior appearing in children and adolescents (Loeber & Hay, 1997). Many theoretical and empirical attempts have been made to understand the environmen- tal and biological factors contributing to aggressive behavior (e.g., Bandura, 1973; Berko- witz, 1993; Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939; Freud, 1920/1955, 1923/1961; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Moyer, 1976). During the 1970s, the cognitive perspective and
Correspondence should be addressed to Laura Pakaslahti, Department of Psychology, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 4, FIN-00014, Finland. E-mail: [email protected]
467
468 L. Pakaslahti
the information-processing paradigm within it (i.e., information-processing and decision- making theories) increasingly became the theoretical framework for empirical psychology (Eysenck & Keane, 1990). Thus, aggression also began to be studied as related to individu- als’ cognitive capacities (see review by Loeber & Hay, 1997). Researchers started to direct particular attention to the specific social-cognitive information-processing mechanisms that were hypothesized to explain children’s and adolescents’ conduct disorders, including aggressive behavior, to a large extent (Dodge & Crick, 1990; D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; Spivack & Shure, 1974). Finally, since the 1980s, the social-cognitive information-processing approach has at- tracted much attention and became one of the main theoretical models for explaining the mechanisms underlying aggressive behavior among children and adolescents (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge & Crick, 1990; Huesmann, 1988; Huesmann & Eron, 1989). Moreover, as far as the development of aggressive behavior is concerned, the factors that are related to the establishment of differences in social-cognitive information-processing mechanisms found between aggressive and nonaggressive children and adolescents have been increasingly emphasized (e.g., Huesmann, 1988; Huesmann & Eron, 1989; Loch- man & Lenhart, 1993). The purpose of this article is to review published empirical studies focusing on social-cognitive information-processing mechanisms, and on the development of these mechanisms, as related to children’s and adolescents’ aggressive behavior. The findings are integrated in terms of four theoretical models presented by (a) D’Zurilla and Goldfried (1971), (b) Spivack and Shure (1974), (c) Huesmann and Eron (1989; Huesmann, 1988), and (d) Dodge and Crick (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge & Crick, 1990). Finally, suggestions for further research are presented.
AN OVERVIEW OF SOCIAL-COGNITIVE INFORMATION-PROCESSING MODELS
OF AGGRESSION
According to social-cognitive information-processing models of aggression, certain deficits in social-cognitive information-processing mechanisms reduce aggressive children’s and adolescents’ abilities to cope efficiently with everyday social problems. In other words, aggressive behavior is seen as one way for a child or an adolescent to solve social problems (Crick & Dodge, 1994; D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; Huesmann & Eron, 1989; Spivack & Shure, 1974). Encountered social problems may be very different from each other; thus, the goals and forms of aggression also may vary significantly. Encountering a social situation produces a vast array of information as the basis of social problem-solving. People process that information through several steps by applying specific social-cognitive activities. It is considered that a person can typically deal effectively with that information with minimal cognitive effort, and is able to produce situation- relevant behavior. However, deficiencies in social-cognitive activities may, for example, result in processing errors or shortcomings that increase the likelihood of employing inappropriate social problem-solving strategies and behavior focusing on aggressiveness (Crick & Dodge, 1994). Emotional and physiological factors are also hypothesized to be involved in social-cognitive information-processing activies, thus influencing to the adequacy of social behavior (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Huesmann & Eron, 1989). Processing social information (i.e., how to process and what to process) is suggested to be guided by latent social-cognitive memory structures (called a database by Crick and Dodge [1994], and scripts by Huesmann and Eron [1989]). That is, individual differences in the degree of adequacy of social-cognitive information-processing activities is proposed to be traced back to differences in social-cognitive memory structures. The development
470 L. Pakaslahti
FIGURE 2. Steps of processing information. See Crick and Dodge (1994), Dodge and Crick (1990), D’Zurilla and Goldfried (1971), Huesmann (1988), Huesmann and Eron (1989), and Spivack and Shure (1974).
suggested that the encoding of particular situational and internal cues (e.g., other people’s acts and one’s own heart rate) from a broad array of information that is available in the social context, plays the most important role. Socially adaptive behavior may be at risk if a person is deficient in seeking those cues (i.e., in recognizing apparent social problems) (Crick & Dodge, 1994; D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; Huesmann & Eron, 1989; Spivack & Shure, 1974). It has been shown empirically that aggressive adolescents search for fewer facts in the social situation that their nonaggressive counterparts (Dodge & Newman, 1981; Slaby & Guerra, 1988). It has also been found that aggressive children pay more attention to the aggressive social interaction in their environments than nonaggressive children (Gouze, 1987). According to social-cognitive information-processing models, people start to analyze the social context during the second step. By concentrating on the subjectively relevant information about the situation, people define and formulate the particular problem (D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971). According to Dodge and Crick (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge & Crick, 1990), they apply interpretative processes, such as causal analyses of the events (i.e., why particular social events have occurred), inferences about the perspectives of others in the situation (e.g., intent), and evaluations of their own role. Spivack and Shure (1974) have presented that people also analyze the variety of situational outcomes. Studies have shown that aggressive adolescents make their causal analyses of situations less on the basis of the facts, and more by relying on their past experiences of similar situations (Dodge, 1980; Dodge & Tomlin, 1987). Further, it has been found that aggressive children and adolescents make inferences about the perspectives of others in a hostile, biased way. They are also likely to exaggerate potential hostility directed toward them- selves. In other words, they perceive more than their nonaggressive counterparts that other people are trying to harm them intentionally (Bickett, Milich, & Brown, 1996;
Aggressive Problem-Solving Strategies 471
Dodge & Coie, 1987; Dodge & Frame, 1982; Dodge & Newman, 1981; Dodge & Tomlin, 1987; Graham & Hudley, 1994; Guerra & Slaby, 1989; Lochman & Dodge, 1994; Quiggle, Garber, Panak, & Dodge, 1992; Slaby & Guerra, 1988; Steinberg & Dodge, 1982). This also holds true when mothers are asked their opinion about their children’s interpretative processes (Dix & Lochman, 1990). Pakaslahti and Keltikangas-Ja¨ rvinen (1998) have sug- gested that aggressive adolescents’ biased way of seeing intentional aggression around them matches the quality of aggressive behavior that they would themselves employ in a similar situation. Pakaslahti and Keltikangas-Ja¨ rvinen (1998) found that the quality of aggression among aggressive adolescents emphasizes purposeful hostility (bullying and intriguing), while nonaggressive adolescents’ aggression, if they resort to it, is situation- specific (i.e., they may be driven to fighting and arguing). Finally, it has been shown that aggressive children make fewer inferences of the outcomes of the situation than nonaggressive children (Spivack & Shure, 1974). According to Crick and Dodge (1994), the formulation and clarification of a behavioral goal for the situation takes place in the third step. The function of the goal is seen as orientation toward producing or wanting to produce particular internal and/or external states or outcomes (Crick & Dodge, 1994). Commitment to a goal has been shown to be an efficient motivator for behavior regulation (e.g., Cantor, 1990; Showers & Cantor, 1985). And this has been supported by findings that aggressive adolescents differ from their nonaggressive counterparts in the degree to which they are likely to adopt hostile goals (Slaby & Guerra, 1988), even if they do not show hostile attributions of the situation (Erdley & Asher, 1996). Further, it has been found that aggressive boys place a higher value on social goals aimed at dominance and revenge, and a lower value on those focused on affiliation with peers, than do nonaggressive boys (Lochman, Wayland, & White, 1993). Spivack and Shure (1974) have also presented that the degree to which children and adolescents are able to attain the social goals with which they have been preoccupied, reflects the level of adequacy of their social-cognitive information-processing activities. If the initial goals frequently remain unachieved, frustration is likely to increase, which in turn makes the decision to behave aggressively more likely. On the other hand, the desired goals of better problem-solvers are more often attained, which ensure that unpleas- ant feelings and maladaptive behaviors are avoided more efficiently. The models of Huesmann and Eron (Huesmann, 1988; Huesmann & Eron, 1989) and D’Zurilla and Goldfried (1971) have not focused on the meaning of the goals. The fourth step is to produce one or more behavioral strategies at the cognitive level that are thought to solve the social problem at hand. That is, people are likely to generate social problem-solving means that reflect their ideas about possible alternatives for enact- ment (Crick & Dodge, 1994; D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; Huesmann & Eron, 1989; Spivack & Shure, 1974). Strategies are accessed from the long-term memory or, if the situation is novel, old information is used to construct new responses (Crick & Dodge, 1994). There is a reasonable unanimity among the social-cognitive information-processing models that both the content and the number of such strategies are of importance. It has been shown that aggressive children and adolescents report more aggressive, pragmatic, or impulsive, and fewer friendly or effective (e.g., help-seeking and compromising) social problem-solving strategies than their nonaggressive counterparts (Bryant, 1992; Gouze, 1987; Lochman & Dodge, 1994; Quiggle et al., 1992; Pakaslahti & Keltikangas-Ja¨ rvinen, 1996; Platt, Spivack, Altman, Altman, & Peizer, 1974; Shure & Spivack, 1972; Slaby & Guerra, 1988), especially if more than one behavioral response is required (Evans & Short, 1991; Guerra & Slaby, 1989; Richard & Dodge, 1982). Unconstructiveness in an
Aggressive Problem-Solving Strategies 473
easy (i.e., they have a high level of self-efficacy beliefs about behaving aggressively and a low level about behaving prosocially) (Erdley & Asher, 1996; Perry et al., 1986; Quiggle et al., 1992). After all the information-processing steps have been taken, a person will behaviorally enact the most positively evaluated problem-solving strategy. Social-cognitive information- processing deficiencies of aggressive children and adolescents are likely to increase the possibility of their eventually employing an aggressive behavioral strategy (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge & Crick, 1990; Huesmann, 1988; Huesmann & Eron, 1989). An essential element in the social-cognitive information-processing models is the possi- bility to return before the end of the processing to some earlier information-processing step and make some reconsiderations (Crick & Dodge, 1994; D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; Huesmann & Eron, 1989). This kind of feedback loop is suggested to go from the cue interpretation step (Step 2) to the cue encoding step (Step 1) (Crick & Dodge, 1994), and from the final decision-making step (Step 5) to the problem-solving strategy construc- tion step (Step 4) (Crick & Dodge, 1994; D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; Huesmann & Eron, 1989). In other words, if a person considers that he or she does not have enough information to make interpretations of the social situation, he or she may return to encode more information, or if a person is not satisfied with the social problem-solving strategy he or she has produced, he or she may go back to search for a better response alternative. Whether aggressive and nonaggressive children and adolescents differ in their likelihood of making reconsiderations has not been studied directly, but the evidence that the nonaggressive encode more information about the social situation (Dodge & Newman, 1981; Slaby & Guerra, 1988), and that they generate more social problem-solving strategies than their aggressive counterparts (Lochman & Dodge, 1994; Mize & Cox, 1990; Platt et al., 1974; Richard & Dodge, 1982; Shure & Spivack, 1972; Slaby & Guerra, 1988) may indicate a higher propensity to use feedback loops as compared to aggressive ones. Describing the process of social problem-solving as time-related steps and feedback loops does not imply that people are dealing with only one processing step at a time. On the contrary, Crick and Dodge (1994) have argued that social-cognitive information- processing is an on-line brain performance, suggesting that people are involved in a number of social-cognitive information-processing activities simultaneously. People may engage in interpreting some cues while they are still encoding others, and keep on with the interpretation processes while starting to select a personal goal. They may also access behavioral responses from their long-term memory while they are still preoccupied with goal clarification, and finally they may evaluate the appropriateness of problem-solving strategies while constructing more response alternatives. It is also likely that people may be involved in social-cognitive information-processing activities concerning different social situations at the same time (e.g., speaking on the phone with one person while attending a conversation taking place in the same room). The phenomenon of divided attention has been one of the traditional interests in cognitive psychology (e.g., Treisman, 1964), and it seems that well-practiced cognitive processes, such as those that are suggested to be related to the regulation of social behavior (e.g., Crick Dodge, 1994; Huesmann & Eron, 1989), may be conducted in parallel (e.g., Spelke, Hirst, & Neisser, 1976). There is no empirical evidence, however, regarding how aggressive and nonaggressive children and adolescents simultaneously process social information derived from different social situations.
Physiology, Social Information Processing and Aggression
In so far as aggressive behavior is explained on the basis of social-cognitive information- processing activities (i.e., processing steps), Crick and Dodge (1994) and Huesmann and
474 L. Pakaslahti
Eron (Huesmann, 1988; Huesmann & Eron, 1989) have proposed that physiological functioning may play an important role. Hypothesizing this relationship, Lochman and Lenhart (1993) have suggested that aggressive children may be easily aroused physiologi- cally, which may then impair their social-cognitive information-processing and increase the likelihood of behaving aggressively. It has been shown empirically that, among other things, activation of certain brain circuits (e.g., the limbic system), the autonomic nervous system, and the endocrine system (e.g., levels of serotonin and testosterone) are related to aggressive acting (Goldstein, 1974; Kruesi et al., 1992; Moyer, 1976). Associations have also been found between the physiological functioning of the brain and cognitions related to social behavior, such as focusing attention, using situational cues in planning actions, keeping mental images in mind, and evaluating potential consequences of actions (Germine, 1993; Leiner, Leiner, & Dow, 1986). However, the role of physiological functioning has not, so far, been studied as it relates to social-cognitive information-processing activities underlying aggressive behavior. Current views of psychopathologies have rather been criticized for being limited in this sense (Germine, 1993).
Emotions, Social Information-Processing and Aggression
Given the need to study the role of physiological functioning, there is also a need to study emotions as related to social cognitions (Forgas, 1995) and to social behavior (Parke & Asher, 1983). Representing attempts to explain aggressive behavior on the basis of social- cognitive information-processing activities, the information-processing models presented have acknowledged the multilevel role of emotions, although their effects have not been the central focus (Crick & Dodge, 1994; D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; Huesmann & Eron, 1989). It has been suggested that many social situations are emotionally valenced. The effects of other people in the situation may serve as a source of information for a child or an adolescent who is trying to interpret it (Crick & Dodge, 1994; D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; Forgas, 1995). Dodge and his colleagues (Dodge & Frame, 1982; Dodge & Newman,
- have shown that the anger of a fictional person in a hypothetical social situation provokes more hostile attributions among children and adolescents than in a neutral situ- ation. Moreover, the emotions of a child or adolescent, particularly the negative effects, are likely to influence the social-cognitive information-processing activities underlying aggressive behavior (Crick & Dodge, 1994; D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; Forgas, 1995). First, a person’s own emotions may serve as a source of information for making judgments in a situation. Related to this, it has been found that aggressive adolescents make inferences about a social situation on the basis of their emotional state more than nonaggressive adolescents, who rely more on the situational facts (Dodge, 1980; Dodge & Tomlin 1987). Second, emotions are suggested to affect attention and the encoding of cues. It has been found that mood-congruent information is generally more often perceived than mood- incongruent information (Forgas, 1995). Third, emotions may influence the interpretation of cues. As a rule, it seems that anger increases the likelihood of making hostile attributions of others (Forgas, 1995) and their intent (Graham, Hudley, & Williams, 1992). However, the extent of emotional influence largely depends on the characteristics of the situation. Forgas (1995) has presented that emotions affect social judgments less in situations in which a person has directly retrievable pre-existing evaluation alternatives in their long-term memory, or has strong motives to make particular kinds of judgment (i.e., the outcome of a judgment is guided by a prior
476 L. Pakaslahti
processes (Lore & Schultz, 1993). It has been also shown that some of the individual differences in aggression may be explained on the basis of differences in inherited charac- teristics. For example, twin studies (i.e., the comparison of identical and fraternal twins) have shown that the level of aggression among identical twins is more similar than among fraternal twins (e.g., Rushton, Fulker, Neale, Nias, & Eysenck, 1986). It has also been found that the attitudes of identical twins are more alike than among fraternal ones (Tesser, 1993). The possibility of the heritability of the social information-processing deficiencies underlying aggressive behavior has not been investigated, however, although Crick and Dodge (1994) and Huesmann and Eron (1989) have hypothesized that the association might be significant. As far as inheritance and aggression are concerned. Parke and Asher (1983) have suggested that aggressiveness might also be worth studying in the context of larger biologi- cally based personality constructions. From this perspective, individual differences in temperament should be emphasized. Mounting empirical evidence, indeed, shows that temperamental difficulty, such as a high level of negative emotionality and activity and a low level of sociability, increases the risk of aggressive behavior during childhood and adolescence (Prior, 1992). It has also been hypothesized that temperament may partly explain the aggressive biases in information-processing patterns underlying aggressive behavior (Crick & Dodge, 1994). For example, it has been presented that individual differences in attention-paying reflect temperament traits of distractibility and persistence, and threshold differences for aversive stimuli indicate the level of negative emotionality and negative reactivity, while differences in the amount of seeking social attention and interactions express the level of sociability (see review by Goldsmith et al., 1987). Rothbart and Ahadi (1994) have suggested that temperament particularly influences children’s developing self-perceptions of their own abilities for successful performance, their possibilities for action within a given situation, and their concepts about whether objects or events are threatening or safe. Empirical evidence of the relationship between temperament and social cognitions is, however, rather limited. Goldstein, Rollins, and Miller (1986) have found that distracti- bility is positively related to impulsiveness in cognitive problem-solving, and that persis- tence is negatively related to problem-solving errors. Analogically, aggressive children and adolescents have been shown to be impulsive in their social problem-solving processes (D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; Platt et al., 1974; Spivack & Shure, 1974), and apt to make errors (e.g., exaggerated hostile attributions) (Dodge & Coie, 1987; Dodge & Tomlin, 1987; Lochman & Dodge, 1994; Slaby & Guerra, 1988). Further, the contribution of maturation with age cannot be ignored in the discussion of the relationship between biology and the development of the aggressively biased information-processing patterns underlying aggressive behavior. Although there has been speculation that basic information-processing mechanisms, such as recognition and mem- ory scanning, are innately coded in people’s long-term memory (Siegler, 1983), human brains do not reach their full growth and maximal capacity to execute mental processes until adolescence (Leiner et al., 1986). As far as the social-cognitive information-processing mechanisms, underlying aggressive behavior are concerned. Dodge and his colleagues (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge & Price, 1994) have proposed that cumulating social experiences result in changes in children’s metacognition and knowledge base, and the cumulating activation of neural paths increases the automatization of information-pro- cessing activities. The positive end of the cumulation is improved problem-solving skills, but a high level of experience of aggression may result in increased aggressive bias in social cognitive memory structures. And a high level of stimulation of the synaptic path-
Aggressive Problem-Solving Strategies 477
ways activating aggression may make aggressive responding more persistent with age (see also Huesmann, 1988; Huesmann & Eron, 1989). Empirical evidence derived mainly from cross-sectional studies has shown that, as a rule, the skills of defining social problems more thoroughly, generating more effective and alternative social problem-solving strategies, and expecting more from their consequences develop from the ages of 6 to 12 (March, 1982). The ability to see more negative outcomes of aggressive behaviors also increases from the ages of 9 to 11 (Crick & Ladd, 1990). Such developments continue up to midadolescence. In a comparison of 10- to 11-year- old and 14- to 15-year-old adolescents, it was found that the older ones considered the antecedental factors of the situations more, produced more social problem-solving strategies, and expected more outcomes and consequences of a problem-solving decision than the younger ones (Hains & Ryan, 1983). However, there is also a developmental trend in another direction. From 9 years through 11 years, children become less confident in their ability of resolve interpersonal problems (Branden-Muller, Elias, Gara, & Schneider, 1992), and their scores on approval of aggression increase throughout their elementary school years (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997). When they reach the age of 13 they begin to expect less signs of pain in victims of aggression, and they start to believe that aggression leads to positive self-evaluations (i.e., feel good) (Perry et al., 1986). Finally, at the age of 14, they reach a peak in their likelihood of employing aggressive problem-solving strategies, at least as far as compared to the 11- and 17-year-old adolescents (Lindeman, Harakka, & Keltikangas-Ja¨ rvinen, 1997). As well as relating maturation to these general developmental changes in social informa- tion-processing patterns, Crick and Dodge (1994) have suggested that dysfunctions ex- plaining aggressive behavior may be quite different at different ages. However, empirical evidence has not, so far, supported this assumption. Rather, it has been shown that the level of hostile attributional bias (e.g., Dodge & Coie, 1987; Dodge & Frame, 1982; Lochman & Dodge, 1994; Slaby & Guerra, 1988), aggressive, ineffective and alternative social problem-solving strategies (e.g., Gouze, 1987; Lochman & Dodge, 1994; Mize & Cox, 1990; Pakaslahti & Keltikangas-Ja¨ rvinen, 1996; Richard & Dodge, 1982; Slaby & Guerra, 1988), and moral approval of aggression (Pakaslahti & Keltikangas-Ja¨ rvinen, 1997; Quiggle et al., 1992; Slaby & Guerra, 1988) predict aggressive behavior from early childhood to late adolescence. Consequently, in light of these findings, the effect of age on aggressively biased information-processing patterns and aggressive behavior needs to be investigated further.
Living Environments and Aggressively Biased Ways of Processing Social Information
There is an increasing amount of evidence to suggest that aggressive behavior is related to many demographic variables characterizing some children’s and adolescents’ living environments (see Goldstein, 1994). For example, aggressive behavior is more frequent among children and adolescents living in low-income neighborhoods, or in families of low socioeconomic status, parental unemployment, extended family sizes, and with only one parent (Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994; Goldstein, 1994; Kupersmidt, Griesler, De Rosier, Patterson, & Davis, 1995). However, social-cognitive information-processing mod- els of aggression have particularly focused on the role that previous learning history plays in the development of aggressively biased ways of processing social information that underlie aggressive behavior (Crick & Dodge, 1994; D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; Hues- mann, 1988; Huesmann & Eron, 1989; Lochman & Lenhart, 1993; Spivack & Shure, 1974). It has been considered that aggressive children and adolescents have not had enough opportunities to learn skillful ways of processing social information, and, rather, have
Aggressive Problem-Solving Strategies 479
behavior increases self-esteem and reduces aversive treatment (Lochman & Dodge, 1994; Perry et al., 1986; Slaby & Guerra, 1988). As far as environmental feedback is concerned, much direct and vicarious reinforcement for the use of aggression as a social problem-solving strategy during childhood and adoles- cence is provided by parents and peers. They are also the people who are potential models providing aggressively biases information-processing patterns (Huesmann, 1988; Huesmann & Eron, 1989; Loeber & Hay, 1997; Parke & Asher, 1983; Parke & Slaby, 1983). How this is related to the development of children’s and adolescents’ aggressively biased processing of social information is discussed next.
Parents and Aggressively Biased Processing of Social Information. There is much evi- dence to show that parental aggressiveness, maltreatment, helplessness, indifference and lack of warmth toward their children, and harsh and punitive child-rearing practices, predict children’s aggressiveness (Bierman & Smoot, 1991; Dodge, Pettit, Bates, & Va- lente, 1995; Downey & Walker, 1989; Holden & Ritchie, 1991; Mondell & Tyler, 1981; Parke & Slaby, 1983; Patterson, 1986; Patterson et al., 1984; Shaw & Bell, 1993). From the social-cognitive information-processing point of view, it has been presented that parental aggressiveness and ineffectiveness reflect maladaptiveness in parents’ social infor- mation-processing patterns, and this may be transmitted to their children’s respective processes, resulting in children’s aggressiveness (Huesmann, 1988; Huesmann & Eron, 1989; Lochman & Lenhart, 1993; Neapolitan, 1981; Rutter, 1985). Deficiencies in parents’ social information-processing patterns may expose them, first, to reinforce maladaptive ways of solving social problems in their children, and second, to serve as models for their children to incorporate aggressively biased and ineffective problem-solving strategies (Huesmann, 1988; Huesmann & Eron, 1989). To avoid social maladjustment, parents should moderate their children’s social problem-solving by helping them and advising them about which strategies are realistic, and avoiding reinforcement of aggressive problem-solving strategies (Huesmann, 1988; Huesmann & Eron, 1989). Further, rather than serving as models or providers of opportunities for their children to observe and incorporate aggression into their problem-solving strategies, they should demonstrate alternative strategies (Huesmann, 1988; Huesmann & Eron, 1989; Lochman & Lenhart, 1993; Neapolitan, 1981; Rutter, 1985). Dodge et al. (1995) found that parental physical abuse may make children hypervigilant for hostile cues and inattentive to relevant nonhostile cues, and encourage them to acquire a large repertoire of aggressive problem-solving alternatives and learn that aggressive behaviors can lead to positive consequences for the attacker. It has also been shown that the levels of maternal, hostile, biased interpretations of situations and endorsement of aggressive problem-solving strategies are related to their preschool-aged children’s level of aggressive bias in social problem-solving, as well as to their level of actual aggressive behavior (Bickett et al., 1996; Pettit, Dodge, & Brown, 1988). Further, Barrett, Rapee, Dadds, and Ryan (1996) found that aggressive children’s aggressive problem-solving strategies, and nonaggressive children’s nonaggressive strategies, are enhanced when the problem-solving is discussed at home. In line with these findings, Pakaslahti and colleagues (Pakaslahti, Asplund-Peltola, & Keltikangas-Ja¨ rvinen, 1996; Pakaslahti, Spoof, Asplund- Peltola, & Keltikangas-Ja¨ rvinen, 1998) found that mothers and fathers of aggressive adolescents express more parental hostility in their social-cognitive strategies when dealing with problematic everyday life situations of their sons or daughters than did parents of nonaggressive adolescents. Pakaslahti et al. (1996, 1998) further showed that parents of aggressive adolescents use more social problem-solving strategies that emphasize parental indifference than did parents of nonaggressive adolescents, who are, in turn, more likely
480 L. Pakaslahti
to apply strategies that focus on parental help (i.e., they advise or discuss with their sons and daughters more). Finally, Dix and Lochman (1990) have found that mothers of adolescent aggressive boys attribute more responsibility for the social problem-solving to their sons than the mothers of nonaggressive boys. There is also a finding to suggest that aggressiveness in a child may increase the aggressive bias in the social problem-solving process of the parent. It was found that preschool children’s aggression aroused more high-powdered problem-solving strategies in their parents (i.e., force and coercion strategies) than social withdrawal (Mills & Rubin, 1990). In fact, it has been increasingly emphasized that the family is a system and must be understood in the context of interdependent relationships (e.g., Belsky, 1984; Cox & Paley, 1997; Hinde, 1989; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Minuchin, 1985; Olson & Lavee, 1989; Parke & Slaby, 1983). The child may have an active role in contributing to the development of his or her own aggressive behavior by influencing on his or her parents (Parke & Slaby, 1983; Scarr & McCartney, 1983). For example, the child’s temperament is shown to affect parental child-rearing attitudes (e.g., Prior, 1992). However, specific social problem-solving patterns, such as aggressive problem-solving strategies, are likely to be learned (Huesmann, 1988; Huesmann & Eron, 1989). Consequently, it has been suggested that parent–child causality is the primary direction in the development of social-cognitive skills, not the other way round (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). To add to the discussion on parental influence on the learning of aggressively biased processing of social information, there is a growing body of research dealing with the multiple effects of early attachment that is worth emphasizing. It has been shown that securely attached children and adolescents have a lower level of aggressive behavior than their insecurely attached counterparts (i.e., those that express an ambivalent attachment style, or especially avoidant or disorganized styles) (Fogany et al., 1997; Lyons-Ruth, 1996). Further, it has been found that the security of the attachment is related to information- processing. Mikuliner (1997) demonstrated that secure adults more actively seek new information from the environment, and integrate it more flexibly into their memory base, than do insecure adults. Analogically, nonaggressive adolescents search for more information about social situations, and use the received information more when making social judgments, than do aggressive adolescents (Dodge, 1980; Dodge & Newman, 1981; Dodge & Tomlin, 1987; Slaby & Guerra, 1988). In addition, Mikuliner (1995) found that insecurely attached adolescents have a less organized cognitive structure of themselves, and a larger discrepancy between their actual and ideal selves, than secure adolescents. Adolescents with an ambivalent attachment style were also shown to have a more negative view of themselves than secure adolescents (Mikuliner, 1995). Finally, it has been suggested that internalized insecurity reflecting anger, mistrust, and chaos may partly explain hostile attributional bias in aggressive children and adolescents (Fogany et al., 1997). However, empirical investigations integrating attachment and social information-processing activities underlying aggressive behavior are still needed.
Peers and Aggressively Biased Processing of Social Information. The effect of peers is evident in childhood; however, it is of utmost importance during adolescence, when there is a strong need to be similar to friends (Hortac¸su, Geno¨ z, & Oral, 1995; Pombeni, Kirchler, & Palmonari, 1990). Peer relationships are likely to influence both children’s and adolescents’ social-cognitive and behavioral development (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992; Loeber & Hay, 1997). Although it has been suggested that the origins of aggression can seldom be attributed to the impact of peers (Fogany et al., 1997), peer relationships help to reinforce existing predispositions. Huesmann and Guerra (1997) have proposed that children and adolescents choose friends whose normative beliefs about the acceptabil-
482 L. Pakaslahti
GENDER AND AGGRESSIVELY-BIASED PROCESSING OF SOCIAL INFORMATION
As far as aggression is concerned, gender-related variance cannot be ignored. Generally, boys have been shown to behave more aggressively than girls (se Parke & Slaby, 1983 for a review), and to have more deficiencies in social-cognitive information-processing patterns underlying aggressive behavior, during both childhood and adolescence. Adoles- cent boys have been shown to seek fewer facts about the social situation (Slaby & Guerra, 1988), and to have a higher level of hostile attributions than girls (Slaby & Guerra, 1988; Steinberg & Dodge, 1982). Social problem-solving strategies of boys during childhood and adolescence are also less effective and more aggressive than those of girls (Lindeman et al., 1997; Pakaslahti & Keltikangas-Ja¨ rvinen, 1996; Quiggle et al., 1992; Slaby & Guerra, 1988). Further, adolescent boys have been shown to approve morally of aggression more than girls, (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997; Keltikangas-Ja¨ rvinen & Lindeman, 1997; Pakas- lahti & Keltikangas-Ja¨ rvinen, 1997). Finally, during childhood and adolescence, boys believe more than girls that victims do not suffer from aggression, that victims are not likely to retaliate if attacked, but that victims have to be controlled, and that aggression increases self-esteem (Archer & Parker, 1994; Boldizar, Perry, & Perry, 1989; Slaby & Guerra, 1988). Instead, girls have been shown to believe more that hostile behaviors are negative (Crick & Ladd, 1990), and that aggressive behavior is followed by negative sanctions, than boys (Perry et al., 1986). Gender differences have not been, found however in expectations of tangible rewards for aggression (Boldizar et al., 1989), or in anticipation of the capabilities to behave aggressively (Perry et al., 1986). Further, it has been shown that girls hold more beliefs that victims of aggression deserve to be victimized than boys (Slaby & Guerra, 1988). Consequently, it is not perfectly evident that boys are more aggressive than girls. In fact, it has been found that boys are more aggressive than girls only as far as direct and overt means of aggression (e.g., fighting) are concerned. Moreover, girls may resort more to indirect aggression (e.g., intriguing), and doing harm for social relationships than boys (Bjo¨ rkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjo¨ rkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Pakaslahti & Keltikangas-Ja¨ rvinen, 1998). That is, boys’ and girls’ aggression seems to be qualitatively different. Cross and Madson (1997) have suggested that these qualitative differences in aggressive behavior reflect gender variance in males’ and females’ self-construals. They have proposed that females emphasize inter- dependency in their self-construals, while males stress independence and the desire for autonomy. According to Cross and Madson (1997), these differences in self-construals are also likely to direct males’ and females’ social-cognitive processing in terms of social perception, inference, and memory retrieval, for example, in different directions. In line with this, Crick and Dodge (1994) have hypothesized that the social information-processing patterns underlying aggressive behavior may be different among boys and girls. Empirical evidence has supported the notion that cognitive representation of aggression is, indeed, qualita- tively different between the genders, at least during childhood, with boys emphasizing expressive means of aggression and girls more indirect means (e.g., Archer & Parker, 1994; Campbell, Muncer, & Coyle, 1992). Boys and girls have also been shown to differ in their ways of reasoning about moral decisions. Boys emphasize justice, and girls sensitiv- ity and caring about other people (Ford & Lowery, 1986; Galotti, Kozberg, & Farmer, 1991; Wark & Krebs, 1996). Females even approve of emotional aggression to a greater extent than males (Lagerspetz & Westman, 1980). However, more empirical evidence is needed to clarify the relationship between gender and the aggressively biased processing
Aggressive Problem-Solving Strategies 483
of social information that underlies boys’ and girls’ qualitatively different types of aggres- sive behavior. Gender may also be a moderating factor in the development of aggressively biased processing of social information in terms of parent and peer relationships. Although Mills and Rubin (1990) found that, as a rule, parents apply the same child-raising strategies with girls and boys. Pakaslahti et al. (1998) have suggested that parental strategies applied in problematic everyday life situations may differ. Pakaslahti et al. (1997, 1998) showed that maternal and paternal strategies within families of aggressive boys and girls generally emphasize rejection, but that maternal strategies focusing on punishing or underestimating the capabilities of the child also featured in families with aggressive boys, not those with aggressive girls. In addition, although relying on helping strategies typically characterized the mothers and fathers of nonaggressive boys and girls, paternal strategies indicating underestimating the capabilities of sons and maternal strategies emphasizing rejection, were alternatively used in families with nonaggressive boys, but not in those with nonag- gressive girls. As far as peer influence on aggressively biased information-processing patterns is con- cerned. Pakaslahti and Keltikangas-Ja¨ rvinen (1996) have shown that, during adolescence, peer acceptance is more clearly related to aggressiveness in social problem-solving strate- gies among boys than among girls. A high level of social acceptance makes social problem- solving strategies less aggressive, and a low level of acceptance makes them more aggressive more apparently among boys than among girls. Supporting this, it has been found that adolescent boys are more dependent on the acceptance of larger peer groups, while girls spend time with only a few close friends (Lagerspetz et al., 1988). Cross and Madson (1997) have suggested that females evaluate themselves more on the basis of the feedback they receive from close relationships, while males make the comparisons in larger social groups (see also Baumeister & Sommer, 1997). However, more empirical investigations of the moderating effect of gender on the process of learning aggressively biased information- processing patterns is needed.
SOME PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
It has been shown that individual levels of aggressive behavior are unlikely to decrease spontaneously (Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984). Related to this, among the most important reasons for the breakthrough of social-cognitive information-processing models in aggression research has been the need for an effective intervention program to systematically search for a theory to explain the mechanisms involved in the develop- ment and production of aggressive behavior (e.g., Dodge & Crick, 1990; D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971). Historically, intervention programs aimed at reducing aggression behavior by focusing on relieving the person from interfering emotional discomfort have met with limited success at best (Kazdin, 1987). In social-cognitive information-processing models, the underlying idea behind the intervention programs is to teach aggressive children and adolescents to process social information in a more effective way. This has included defining a social problem in a less hostile way, seeking more facts about the situation, adopting less hostile goals (Guerra & Slaby, 1990), seeking more alternative problem- solving solutions that are, in addition, more effective and less hostile and anticipating their causes and consequences (Guerra & Slaby, 1990; Spivack & Shure, 1974). Interven- tions have also been applied to the beliefs supporting the use of aggression (i.e., that aggression is not a legitimate response, that it does not increase self-esteem or help to
Aggressive Problem-Solving Strategies 485
empirical evidence concerning the interrelationships of social-cognitive information-pro- cessing mechanisms, physiological factors, emotions, and aggressive behavior is quite limited, and further research in that area is needed. Second, the social-cognitive information-processing approach has extended our knowl- edge of the development of aggressive behavior. On the basis of the evidence, it seems that parents and peers contribute significantly to the development of inadequate ways of processing social information that underlie children’s and adolescents’ aggressive behavior (e.g., Dix & Lochman, 1990; Pakaslahti et al., 1996, 1998; Pettit et al., 1988). Social- cognitive information-processing models have also suggested that a person’s constitutional characteristics, such as temperament, may partly explain the development of information- processing deficits, but more empirical support for this assumption is needed. Finally, to summarize, the basic hypothesis of the social-cognitive information-pro- cessing models is that certain developmental factors may cause a deviation in the social- cognitive memory structure that, in turn, may be reflected as deficiencies and aggressive biases in social-cognitive information-processing patterns that increase the likelihood of employing aggressive problem-solving strategies manifesting in aggressive behavior. The expected relationships have largely been supported, and there are also longitudinal studies to support the hypothesized causalities (e.g., Dodge et al., 1995; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997). However, the evidence is still mainly based on correlational studies, and little attention has been directed at the possible reverse causalities (see Crick & Dodge, 1994; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997; Liska et al., 1984). Thus, the social-cognitive information- processing mechanisms explaining aggressive behavior still represent an important area for empirical and theoretical research.
Acknowledgment— The author wishes to thank Professor Liisa Keltikangas-Ja¨ rvinen, Dr. Marjaana Lindeman, Petri Na¨ a¨ ta¨ nen, M. A., Saara Katainen, M. A., and Joni Kettunen, M.A. for their comments on the manuscript.
REFERENCES
Archer, J., & Parker, S. (1994). Social representations of aggression in children. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 101–114. Asarnow, J. R., & Callan, J. W. (1985). Boys with peer adjustment problems: Social cognitive processes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 80–87. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression. A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barrett, P. M., Rapee, R. M., Dadds, M. M., & Ryan, S. M. (1996). Family enhancement of cognitive style in anxious and aggressive children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 187–203. Baumeister, R. F., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). What do men want? Gender differences and two sphere of belong- ingness: Comment on Cross and Madson (1997). Psychological Bulletin, 122, 38–44. Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83–96. Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression. Its causes, consequences, and control. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bickett, L. R., Milich, R., & Brown, R. T. (1996). Attributional styles of aggressive boys and their mothers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 457–472. Bierman, K. L., & Smoot, D. L. (1991). Linking family characteristics with poor peer relations. The mediating role of conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 341–356. Bierman, K. L., Smoot, D. L., & Aumiller, K. (1993). Characteristics of aggressive-rejected, aggressive (nonrejected), and rejected (nonaggressive) boys. Child Development, 64, 139–151. Bjo¨ rkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. J. M., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117–127. Bodenhausen, G. V., Sheppard, L. A., & Kramer, G. P. (1994). Negative affect and social judgment: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 45–62. Boivin, M., & Hymel. S. (1997). Peer experiences and social self-perceptions: A sequential model. Developmental Psychology, 33, 135–145.
486 L. Pakaslahti
Boldizar, J. P., Perry, D. G., & Perry, L. C. (1989). Outcome values and aggression. Child Development, 60, 571–579. Branden-Muller, L., Elias, M. J., Gara, M. A., & Schneider, K. (1992). The development and interrelationship of affective, cognitive, and social-cognitive skills in children: Theoretical implications. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13, 271–291. Bryant, B. K. (1992). Conflict resolution strategies in relation to children’s peer relations. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13, 35–50. Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D., & Garie´ py, J.-L. (1988). Social networks and aggressive behavior: Peer support or peer rejection? Developmental Psychology, 24, 815–823. Campbell, A., Muncer, S., & Coyle, E. (1992). Social representation of aggression as an explanation of gender differences: A preliminary study. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 95–108. Cantor, N. (1990). From thought to behavior: “Having” and “doing” in the study of personality and cognition. American Psychologist, 45, 735–750. Cillessen, A. H. N., van Ijzendoorn, H. W., van Lieshout, C. F. M., & Hartup, W. (1992). Heterogeneity among peer-rejected boys: Subtypes and stabilities. Child Development, 63, 893–905. Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Cappotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557–570. Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Terry, R., & Wright, V. (1991). The role of aggression in peer relations: An analysis of aggression episodes in boys’ play groups. Child Development, 62, 812–826. Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243–267. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722. Crick, N. R., & Ladd, G. W. (1990). Children’s perceptions of the outcomes of social strategies: Do the ends justify being mean? Developmental Psychology, 26, 612–620. Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37. Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., & Griesler, P. C. (1994). Peer adaptations in the development of antisocial behavior. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior. Current perspectives (pp. 61–96). New York: Plenum Press. Dix, T., & Lochman, J. E. (1990). Social cognition and negative reactions to children: A comparison of mothers of aggressive and nonaggressive boys. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 418–438. Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and children’s aggressive behavior. Child Development, 51, 162–170. Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 1386–1399. Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1146–1158. Dodge, K. A., & Crick, N. R. (1990). Social information-processing bases of aggressive behavior in children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 8–22. Dodge, K. A., & Frame, C. L. (1982). Social cognitive biases and deficits in aggressive boys. Child Development, 53, 620–635. Dodge, K. A., & Newman, J. P. (1981). Biases decision-making processes in aggressive boys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 375–379. Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Socialization mediators of the relation between socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Child Development, 65, 649–665. Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Valente, E. (1995). Social information-processing patterns partially mediate the effect of early physical abuse on later conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 632–643. Dodge, K. A., & Price, J. M. (1994). On the relation between social information processing and socially competent behavior in early school-aged children. Child Development, 65, 1385–1397. Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Socialization mediators of the relation between socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Child Development, 65, 649–665. Dodge, K. A., & Tomlin, A. M. (1987). Utilization of self-schemas as a mechanism of interpretational bias in aggressive children. Social Cognition, 5, 280–300. Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Downey, G., & Walker, E. (1989). Social cognition and adjustment in children at risk for psychopathology. Developmental Psychology, 25, 835–845. Dubow, E. F. (1988). Aggressive behavior and peer social status of elementary school children. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 315–324. D’Zurilla, T. J., & Goldfried, M. R. (1971). Problem solving and behavior modification. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 78, 107–126.
