Cognition and Emotion
ISSN: 0269-9931 (Print) 1464-0600 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pcem20
Anger and effortful control moderate aggressogenic thought–behaviour associations Sanna Roos, Ernest V. E. Hodges, Kätlin Peets & Christina Salmivalli To cite this article: Sanna Roos, Ernest V. E. Hodges, Kätlin Peets & Christina Salmivalli (2015): Anger and effortful control moderate aggressogenic thought–behaviour associations, Cognition and Emotion, DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2015.1037721 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1037721
Published online: 04 Jun 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 29
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pcem20 Download by: [Dalhousie University]
Date: 12 November 2015, At: 21:57
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1037721
BRIEF REPORT Anger and effortful control moderate aggressogenic thought–behaviour associations Sanna Roos1,2, Ernest V. E. Hodges2,3, Kätlin Peets4,5, and Christina Salmivalli2 1
Turku Institute for Child and Youth Research, University of Turku, Turku, Finland Department of Psychology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland 3 Department of Psychology, St. John’s University, New York, NY, USA 4 Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands 5 Institute of Psychology, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 21:57 12 November 2015
2
(Received 2 June 2014; accepted 31 March 2015)
The effects of anger and effortful control on aggressogenic thought–behaviour associations were investigated among a total of 311 Finnish fifth and sixth graders (mean age = 11.9 years). Selfreported aggressive cognitions (i.e., normative- and self-efficacy beliefs about aggression) were expected to be associated with higher peer-reported aggressive behaviour. Teacher reported anger and effortful control were hypothesised, and found, to moderate the effects of aggressive cognitions on aggression, such that the effects were strongest for children who were high in anger and low in effortful control, as compared to other conditions. Furthermore, under the conditions of high anger and high effortful control, self-efficacy was negatively related to aggression. Thus, aggression is a result of a complex, hierarchically organised motivational system, being jointly influenced by aggressive cognitions, anger and effortful control. The findings support the importance of examining cognitive and emotional structures jointly when predicting children’s aggressive behaviour. Keywords: Anger; Effortful control; Aggressive cognitions; Aggressive behaviour.
Aggressive behaviour is harmful for both aggressors’ and victims’ long-term adjustment and incurs great economic costs to society (e.g., Copeland, Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013; Foster, Jones, & The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 2005). Social-cognitive and social information-processing theories (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Crick & Dodge, 1996) and the research
they have spurred have contributed to a richer understanding of the proximal social-cognitive mechanisms (e.g., normative- and self-efficacy beliefs about aggression) that motivate children to engage in aggressive behaviour approach-related emotions such as anger (e.g., de Castro, Merk, Koops, Veerman, & Bosch, 2005; Harmon-Jones, Peterson, Gable, & Harmon-Jones, 2008) and
Correspondence should be addressed to: Sanna Roos, Turku Institute for Child and Youth Research, University of Turku, Turku FIN-20014, Finland. E-mail: [email protected] © 2015 Taylor & Francis
1
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 21:57 12 November 2015
ROOS ET AL.
children’s capacities for self-regulation (Eisenberg, Fabes, Nyman, Bernzweig, & Pinuelas, 1994) have also been implicated in the expression and inhibition of aggression. Although theoretical accounts have recently begun to incorporate aspects of social cognition, emotion and regulatory control (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003; Read et al., 2010), rarely do empirical studies simultaneously evaluate all three in a single study (for exceptions, see de Castro et al., 2005; Runions & Keating, 2010). According to Read et al. (2010), personality is both structured and dynamic, such that two levels of motivation, as well as one overarching control system, interactively work together to influence behaviour. In this three-level hierarchical system, a complex interplay between a domain-specific motivational system (i.e., aggressive cognitions), an approach–avoidance system (i.e., anger) and the system of effortful control results in trait behaviours such as aggression. At the lowest levels of the motivational system are beliefs, goals and plans, similar to social-cognitive and social information-processing mechanisms (e.g., Bandura, 1986). These cognitions are specific to a behavioural domain, and they play a major role in influencing behaviour (Bandura, 1986). In this study, we focus on normative-and self-efficacy beliefs for aggression (Runions & Keating, 2010, focused on attributions of hostile intent) as separate indicators of aggressogenic thought processes, which support or encourage aggressive behaviour (Peets, Hodges, & Salmivalli, 2011). Normative beliefs about aggression are cognitive standards concerning perceived acceptability of aggressive behaviour (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997), whereas self-efficacy for aggressive behaviour reflects children’s beliefs about their ability and confidence to engage in aggression (Bandura, 1986; Egan, Monson, & Perry, 1998). Children with higher scores on aggressive cognitions are known to engage in higher levels of aggressive behaviour (e.g., Davis-Kean et al., 2008; Egan et al., 1998; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997; Peets et al., 2011). However, these cognition–behaviour associations are not strong,
2
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015
and indicate that other factors are likely to alter the behavioural expression of aggressogenic thought. One level up in the hierarchically organised personality structure is the approach–avoidance system which, when activated, can alter the course of whether aggressogenic cognitions are expressed (Keltner et al., 2003; Read et al., 2010; see also Frijda, 1986). Emotions are thought to play a key role in activating the approach–avoidance system (Frijda, 1986). In particular, for aggressive behaviour, the approach system should be activated for aggressogenic thought to be most likely to be ex‐ pressed. Irritability, frustration and anger are emotions that are particularly relevant for the domain of aggression and should activate the approach system. Evidence in support of the moderating role of anger on aggressogenic thought–behaviour associations comes from Runions and Keating (2010)— attributions of hostile intent were related to higher levels of aggression only when children were prone to anger. The degree to which anger moderates other social information-processing mechanisms such as normative- and self-efficacy beliefs about aggression is unknown. A general inhibitory control system is further theorised to moderate the interactions among lower-level motivational systems (Read et al., 2010). In this study, we utilised the construct of effortful control which incorporates temperamentally based individual differences in inhibitory control and attention that allow for modification of one’s own behaviour and mood, as well as enhancement of resistance to temptation (Baumeister & Vohs, 2003; Eisenberg et al., 1994, 2005). The inhibitory control system functions as the basis for the voluntarily suppression of aggressive responding (Frijda, 1986), whereas attentional control protects the child against anger-related problems by allowing more effective use of coping strategies and influencing the quality of social interactions (Derryberry & Reed, 2008; Eisenberg et al., 2005). Indeed, children prone to externalising problems have low levels of effortful control (Eisenberg et al., 2005). Only one study (again, Runions & Keating, 2010) has tested, and found support for a three-way interaction between aggressive cognition, the approach system and
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 21:57 12 November 2015
MODERATORS OF AGGRESSIVE COGNITIONS
the inhibitory control system—in this correlational study, attributions of hostile intent were most strongly related to aggression when (1) anger was high and (2) inhibitory control was low. We provide a second test of the complex interplay among aggressogenic thought, anger and effortful control. Our study extends Runions and Keating (2010) by evaluating the generality of the expected three-way interaction to two additional aggressogenic social cognitions, namely, normative- and self-efficacy beliefs about aggression. We studied children in early adolescence because this is the time when main effect belief– behaviour associations emerge (Davis-Kean et al., 2008). In addition, early adolescence is a period when children become more concerned over establishing social status and dominance and often use aggressive behaviour to achieve these ends (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Identifying the conditions under which children act on their aggression-supporting thought should lead to increasingly targeted and efficient interventions designed to reduce aggression in the schools and, in turn, to alleviate the suffering of victims. In line with theorising (Read et al., 2010) and results from the single study to test the interaction among all three motivational levels (Runions & Keating, 2010), we expected that normative- and selfefficacy beliefs for aggression would most strongly relate to aggression when children were prone to anger and were low in effortful control.
three of the teachers did not participate and thus all children in their classrooms did not have data for anger and effortful control. The final sample was equal to 311 students (143 in the fifth grade, 168 in the sixth grade; 176 girls, 135 boys) with a mean age of 11.9 years (143 months, SD = 8). Fifteen students (4.8%) had at least one parent born abroad. The participants filled in a computerised questionnaire with logically grouped sections, such that the order of the questions within each section was randomised. The participants were encouraged to respond according to their own thoughts and feelings, and the confidentiality of their responses was assured.
METHOD
Self-efficacy for aggressive behavior
Participants and procedure We report below how we determined our sample size, as well as all data exclusions and measures used in this correlational study. The sample was part of a larger study on moral emotions and children’s social behaviours. Participants were recruited with active parental consent from five elementary schools in a neighbourhood of Turku in south-west Finland. In this study, only respondents with complete data on all study variables were included with the participation rate being 71%—this rate was largely due to the fact that
Measures Normative beliefs about aggression Children responded to six items tapping normative beliefs about aggression [e.g., “It is OK to take it out on someone you’re mad at by making up a mean rumor about the person” (reversed), “In general, it is wrong to push or shove other people around” (adapted from Huesmann & Guerra, 1997)]. Items were rated on a 4-point scale (1 = strongly agree, 2 = somewhat agree, 3 = somewhat disagree and 4 = strongly disagree). Scale items were scored and averaged so that higher scores represent greater aggression encouraging thought. The internal consistency for the scale was low but acceptable (α = .63).
Children also completed questions concerning self-efficacy for aggressive behaviour (adapted from Egan et al., 1998). The scale consisted of five items, such as “A kid won’t let you play with a game you want to. Hitting the kid and grabbing the game is easy for some kids, but other kids would find it difficult to hit the kid and grab the game”, and “For some kids it is easy to intentionally leave another kid outside of the peer group, but other kids would find it difficult to leave the kid outside”. Children responded on the easiness or difficulty of the behaviour described on a 4-point scale (1 = very easy, 2 = easy, 3 = difficult COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015
3
ROOS ET AL.
and 4 = very difficult). Scale items were reverse coded and averaged so that higher scores represent greater aggression encouraging thought. The internal consistency of the scale was good (α = .83).
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 21:57 12 November 2015
Anger and effortful control In order to assess each child’s anger and effortful control, teachers completed the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire-Revised (EATQ-R; Ellis & Rothbart, 1999). Anger was measured by six items (e.g., “Gets very irritated when someone criticizes her/him”, “Hates it when people don’t agree with him/her”). Effortful control was measured by 11 items that tapped inhibitory control and attention [e.g., “Has a hard time waiting his/ her turn to speak when excited” (reversed), “Finds it really easy to concentrate on a problem”]. Items were rated on a 3-point scale (0 = almost never, 1 = sometimes and 2 = often). Scale items were averaged, and the internal consistencies for anger and effortful control were good (α = .79 and .82, respectively). Peer reports of aggressive behavior Children’s aggressive behaviour was measured by peer nominations. Children were asked to check off the names of their classmates (same- and crosssex peers) who manifested the behaviour described in each of three items [“Uses force to dominate”, “Gets others to gang up on a peer” and “Threatens others” (Dodge & Coie, 1987)]. The proportion of classmates that nominated each child for each item was computed by dividing the total number of nominations received by all possible nominations. Scales were then computed by averaging the item proportion scores. The aggression scale evidenced good reliability (α = .86).
RESULTS In order to evaluate gender and grade differences, a series of t-tests were conducted. Boys were more likely to endorse normative- (M = 1.97, SD = .66), t = 2.87, p = .004 and self-efficacy (M = 2.07, SD = .66), t = 5.88, p < .001 beliefs for aggression, as compared to girls (M = 1.77, SD = .60 and M =
4
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015
1.67, SD = .49, respectively). Boys were also significantly more angry (M = .29, SD = .38), t = 3.98, p < .001 and aggressive (M = .06, SD = .09), t = 3.12, p = .002, than girls (M = .14, SD = .28 and M = .04, SD = .06, respectively). In contrast, girls were higher in effortful control (M = 1.69, SD = .30), t = −8.53, p < .001, than boys (M = 1.35, SD = .39). Fifth graders were significantly more angry (M = .25, SD = .37), t = 2.28, p = .023, and evidenced less effortful control (M = 1.49, SD = .36), t = −2.10, p = .036, than sixth graders (M = .17, SD = .29 and M = 1.58, SD = .40, respectively). These various gender and grade differences indicated the need to control for them in subsequent analyses. Partial correlations, controlling for gender and grade, indicated that aggressive cognitions were positively related to peer-reported aggression (normative beliefs about aggression: r = .19, p = .001; self-efficacy for aggressive behaviour: r = .24, p < .001). Teacher reported anger was positively, whereas effortful control was negatively, linked to aggression (r = .43, p < .001 and r = −.40, p < .001, respectively). Furthermore, normative-and self-efficacy beliefs were positively correlated with each other and with anger (r = .35, p < .001, r = .14, p = .017 and r = .25, p < .001, respectively). Finally, negative correlations emerged between effortful control and self-efficacy for aggressive behaviour (r = −.18, p = .002), as well as between effortful control and anger (r = −.42, p < .001). No significant correlation emerged between effortful control and normative beliefs about aggression (r = −.08, p = .19). Two hierarchical multiple regression analyses (one for each of the two cognitions) were conducted with peer-nominated aggression as the criterion variable with effortful control and anger tested as moderators of the cognition-behaviour association. All variables were centred through standardisation prior to computing the product terms. In the first step of each analysis, gender and grade were entered as control variables, followed by the main effects of one cognition and both moderators in the second step. In the third step of the analyses, the 3 two-way interactions derived from the main effects entered in the second step
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 21:57 12 November 2015
MODERATORS OF AGGRESSIVE COGNITIONS
were evaluated (e.g., normative beliefs about aggression × anger, normative beliefs about aggression × effortful control, and anger × effortful control). In the final fourth step, the three-way interaction of the predictor and the moderators was added (e.g., normative beliefs about aggression × anger × effortful control). Both of the possible three-way interactions were significant indicating that the associations of the cognitive constructs of this study with aggression depend on both anger and effortful control (see Table 1). Simple slope analyses (Aiken & West, 1991) were conducted using Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS module to evaluate the links between cognitions and aggression at different combinations of anger and effortful control (high: +1 SD and low: −1 SD; because −1 SD was not observed for anger in our data, we set low levels of anger at the lowest observable value at −.62 SD). As expected, results indicated that normative beliefs about aggression were significantly and positively related to aggression for children who were high in anger and low in effortful control (see the slope for normative beliefs; β = .23, p = .003 in the top panel of Figure 1). Similarly, self-efficacy for aggression
was also significantly and positively related to aggression for children who were high in anger and low in effortful control (see the slope for selfefficacy beliefs; β = .20, p = .007 in the bottom panel of Figure 1). Two additional significant slopes also emerged. First, self-efficacy for aggression appears to be somewhat more strongly associated with aggression (see the slope for selfefficacy beliefs: β = .31, p < .001 in the bottom panel of Figure 1) when children were low (as opposed to high) in anger and low in effortful control. However, these two simple slopes did not vary from each other as indicated by a nonsignificant conditional anger by self-efficacy interaction at low levels of effortful control. This suggests that self-efficacy for aggression guides aggressive behaviour when children’s effortful control is low, regardless of level of anger. It is also important to point out that the combinations most conducive to aggressive behaviour for both cognitions included the presence of aggressogenic thought, high levels of anger and low levels of effortful control. Second, under the condition of high anger and high effortful control, self-efficacy was significantly but negatively related to
Table 1. Summary of hierarchical regression analyses for aggressive cognitions (N = 311)
Normative beliefs Variable Step 1 Sex Grade ΔR2 Step 2 Cognition Anger Effortful control ΔR2 Step 3 Cognition × Anger Cognition × Effortful control Anger × Effortful control ΔR2 Step 4 Cognition × Anger × Effortful control ΔR2
β −.37** −.04 .04
Self-efficacy beliefs
ΔF 5.52**
β
35.42*** .13* .30*** −.28*** .25
9.04*** .09 −.10 −.11* .06 −.09* .01
5.52**
−.37** −.04 .04
35.80*** .12* .18** −.28*** .25
ΔF
5.94*
−.04 −.23*** −.09 .07
11.38***
−.11** .02
7.89**
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015
5
ROOS ET AL. 0,8 0,6 = .23**
Aggression
0,4 Low effortful control High anger
0,2 = .12 = .12
0
Low effortful control Low anger High effortful control High anger
= =-.13 -.13
High effortful control Low anger
-0,2 -0,4 = .04 Low
Normative beliefs
High
0,8 0,6 = .20** 0,4
Aggression
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 21:57 12 November 2015
-0,6
Low effortful control High anger
0,2 = .31*** 0
Low effortful control Low anger High effortful control Low anger High effortful control High anger
-0,2 -0,4 = .01 -0,6
Low
Self-efficacy beliefs
= -.44* High
Figure 1. Conditional effects of normative and self-efficacy beliefs about aggression on aggression at different values of anger and effortful control. *p < .01; **p < .001.
aggression (see the slope for self-efficacy β = −.44, p = .002 in the bottom panel of Figure 1). That is, greater confidence in the use of aggression was related to lower levels of aggression when both anger and effortful control were high. Neither gender nor age further moderated the 2 three-way interactions.
DISCUSSION In this study, children’s aggressive cognitions were expected, and found, to predict aggressive behaviour, such that normative- and self-efficacy beliefs for aggression would most strongly relate to
6
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015
aggression when children were prone to anger and low in effortful control. Our results are consistent with Read et al.’s (2010) theorising and highlight that children’s expression of aggressive cognitions into behaviour is highly dependent on their effortful control capabilities and their tendencies to experience anger. The results of our study qualify prior findings on direct links between aggressive cognitions and aggressive behaviour (Davis-Kean et al., 2008), by specifying the conditions under which aggressogenic thought is most and least likely to be associated with aggressive behaviour depending on joint moderating effects of anger and effortful control. Our results were highly similar to, and support the findings of Runions and Keating (2010), that children’s attributions of hostile intent are most strongly related to their aggressive behaviour, when proneness to experience anger is combined with low inhibitory control. In particular, the same conditions conducive to the most aggression found by Runions and Keating (2010) were also present in our results for normative- and self-efficacy beliefs. It appears that the relative absence of effortful control free children to act on approach tendencies (i.e., anger) and beliefs supportive of aggressive behaviour. However, it is important to note that self-efficacy beliefs also predicted greater use of aggression when effortful control was low, even when anger was low. Thus, for self-efficacy beliefs, a lack of effortful control allows for greater aggression regardless of levels of anger. When children were proficient in their effortful control, there was not a single instance (i.e., at either high or low levels of anger) in which aggressogenic thought was associated with higher levels of aggression. In fact, our study revealed an inhibitory effect of self-efficacy under one combination of anger and effortful control. In the simple slope analyses, under the conditions of high anger and high effortful control, self-efficacy is associated with less aggression. That is, even among highly anger-prone children, effortful control appears to completely override the normally aggression-supporting effect of high self-efficacy resulting in aggression to comparable levels as to
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 21:57 12 November 2015
MODERATORS OF AGGRESSIVE COGNITIONS
when effortful control is high and anger is low (i.e., the conditions least conducive to aggressive behaviour). This was also the strongest effect, although negative, of aggressogenic thought–behaviour associations found under the different conditions of effortful control and anger. Thus, high effortful appears to become particularly active when both lower-level systems (rather than when either are present alone) are conducive to aggressive behaviour. As highlighted by Runions and Keating (2010), individual differences in children’s effortful control abilities appear to be particularly important for understanding whether aggressive cognitions might lead to more (or less) aggression and should, therefore, be integrated in future studies on children’s aggressive behaviour. The hierarchical system of domain-specific thought, anger and inhibitory control seems to have strong potential in helping to understand the conditions most, and least, conducive to aggressive behaviour in children. Some strengths and limitations of this study are noteworthy. Our study with early adolescents is highly consistent with, and extends, the only prior study (conducted with 6 year olds) that has evaluated the degree to which the expression of aggressogenic thought is moderated by both anger and inhibitory control (Runions & Keating, 2010). Furthermore, our effects were produced by utilising two different indexes of aggressive cognitions, which have not been previously evaluated. Finally, shared method variance did not account for our findings, as aggression was assessed by peers, whereas effortful control and anger were assessed by teachers, and aggressive cognitions were reported by children. Although both studies appear to support the theorising of Read et al. (2010) across two different age groups, generalisation of our findings to younger and older populations will require similar tests with such samples. In addition, in both the Runions and Keating’s (2010) study and our study, data were correlational and inferences regarding direction of effects await longitudinal tests. In particular, stronger support for our model would come from a longitudinal test in which Time-2
aggression is predicted from the Time-1 three-way interaction between a cognition, anger and effortful control (with Time-1 aggression and constituent main effects and two-way interactions controlled). We would expect that the strongest simple slopes between the initial cognition and subsequent changes in aggression would occur under high levels of anger and low levels of effortful control. In our study, effortful control was measured by both inhibitory control and attention, whereas Runions and Keating used the subscale of inhibitory control. Although both attention and inhibitory control are measures of voluntary regulation (see, e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2005), the slightly different index of effortful control used in our study, as compared to the study by Runions and Keating, yielded highly similar results. In this study, only proactive aggression items were utilised because items tapping reactive aggression partially overlapped with our assessment of anger (e.g., “Overreacts angrily to accidents”; Dodge & Coie, 1987). In addition, proactive aggression is more strongly related to cognitions about one’s own capabilities, especially self-efficacy, whereas reactive aggression is more strongly linked to attributions about others, particularly attributions of hostile intent (for a review, see Card & Little, 2005). Future work will need to evaluate the degree to which effortful control and anger operate similarly (or differently) to alter the expression of cognitions into function-specific aggression. Finally, although previous studies have indicated that cognition–aggression links are context-specific (Peets et al., 2011), we did not take relationships, or other possible aggression-supporting contexts (e.g., Egan et al., 1998) into account in our study. Thus, for example, it will be important for future researchers to test whether our observed three-way interactions occur when cognitions are assessed within multiple relationship types (e.g., friends vs. enemies). All in all, our results highlight how aggressive cognitions work in conjunction with anger and effortful control to guide children’s aggressive behaviour and emphasise the need to properly understand the conditionality of children’s expression of aggressogenic thought. COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015
7
ROOS ET AL.
Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding This study was supported by the Academy of Finland [grant number 134843] awarded to Christina Salmivalli.
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 21:57 12 November 2015
REFERENCES Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Self-regulation and the executive function of the self. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 197–217). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2005). Proactive and reactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: A metaanalysis of differential relations with psychosocial adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 466–480. doi:10.1177/0165025406071904 Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75(1), 147–163. doi:10. 1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00660.x Copeland, W. E., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (2013). Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry, 70, 419–426. doi:10.1001/ jamapsychiatry.2013.504 Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms on reactive and proactive aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 67, 993–1002. doi:10.2307/1131875 Davis-Kean, P. E., Huesmann, L. R., Jager, J., Collins, W. A., Bates, J. E., & Lansford, J. E. (2008). Changes in the relation of self-efficacy beliefs and behaviors across development. Child Development, 79, 1257–1269. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01187.x de Castro, O., Merk, W., Koops, W., Veerman, J. W., & Bosch, J. D. (2005). Emotions in social information processing and their relations with reactive and proactive aggression in referred aggressive boys.
8
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 105–116. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_10 Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. (2008). Motivational and attentional components of personality. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 461–474). New York, NY: Psychology Press. 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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1146 Egan, S. K., Monson, T. C., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Social-cognitive influences on change in aggression over time. Developmental Psychology, 34, 996–1006. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.5.996 Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Nyman, M., Bernzweig, J., & Pinuelas, A. (1994). The relations of emotionality and regulation to children’s anger-related reactions. Child Development, 65(1), 109–128. doi:10.2307/1131369 Eisenberg, N., Sadovsky, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Losoya, S. H., Valiente, C., …Shepard, S. A. (2005). The relations of problem behavior status to children’s negative emotionality, effortful control, and impulsivity: Concurrent relations and prediction of change. Developmental Psychology, 41, 193–211. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.193 Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (1999). Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire Revised Parent Report. Unpublished document. Foster, E. M., Jones, D. E., & The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2005). The high costs of aggression: Public expenditures resulting from conduct disorder. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 1767–1772. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.061424 Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harmon-Jones, E., Peterson, C., Gable, P. A., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2008). Anger and approachavoidance motivation. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 399–413). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Hayes, A. F. (2013). PROCESS module for SPSS (Version 2.11) [Computer software]. Retrieved March 19, 2014, from http://www.afhayes.com/ Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 408–419. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.408 Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
MODERATORS OF AGGRESSIVE COGNITIONS
network model of the structure and dynamics of human personality. Psychological Review, 117(1), 61–92. doi:10.1037/a0018131 Runions, K. C., & Keating, D. P. (2010). Anger and inhibitory control as moderators of children’s hostile attributions and aggression. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 370–378. doi:10.1016/j. appdev.2010.05.006
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 21:57 12 November 2015
Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in social information processing. Child Development, 71(1), 107–118. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00124 Peets, K., Hodges, E. V. E., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). Relationship specificity of aggressogenic thoughtbehavior processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 386–400. doi:10.1037/a0023662 Read, S. J., Monroe, B. M., Brownstein, A. L., Yang, Y., Chopra, G., & Miller, L. C. (2010). A neural
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015
9
ISSN: 0269-9931 (Print) 1464-0600 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pcem20
Anger and effortful control moderate aggressogenic thought–behaviour associations Sanna Roos, Ernest V. E. Hodges, Kätlin Peets & Christina Salmivalli To cite this article: Sanna Roos, Ernest V. E. Hodges, Kätlin Peets & Christina Salmivalli (2015): Anger and effortful control moderate aggressogenic thought–behaviour associations, Cognition and Emotion, DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2015.1037721 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1037721
Published online: 04 Jun 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 29
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pcem20 Download by: [Dalhousie University]
Date: 12 November 2015, At: 21:57
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1037721
BRIEF REPORT Anger and effortful control moderate aggressogenic thought–behaviour associations Sanna Roos1,2, Ernest V. E. Hodges2,3, Kätlin Peets4,5, and Christina Salmivalli2 1
Turku Institute for Child and Youth Research, University of Turku, Turku, Finland Department of Psychology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland 3 Department of Psychology, St. John’s University, New York, NY, USA 4 Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands 5 Institute of Psychology, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 21:57 12 November 2015
2
(Received 2 June 2014; accepted 31 March 2015)
The effects of anger and effortful control on aggressogenic thought–behaviour associations were investigated among a total of 311 Finnish fifth and sixth graders (mean age = 11.9 years). Selfreported aggressive cognitions (i.e., normative- and self-efficacy beliefs about aggression) were expected to be associated with higher peer-reported aggressive behaviour. Teacher reported anger and effortful control were hypothesised, and found, to moderate the effects of aggressive cognitions on aggression, such that the effects were strongest for children who were high in anger and low in effortful control, as compared to other conditions. Furthermore, under the conditions of high anger and high effortful control, self-efficacy was negatively related to aggression. Thus, aggression is a result of a complex, hierarchically organised motivational system, being jointly influenced by aggressive cognitions, anger and effortful control. The findings support the importance of examining cognitive and emotional structures jointly when predicting children’s aggressive behaviour. Keywords: Anger; Effortful control; Aggressive cognitions; Aggressive behaviour.
Aggressive behaviour is harmful for both aggressors’ and victims’ long-term adjustment and incurs great economic costs to society (e.g., Copeland, Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013; Foster, Jones, & The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 2005). Social-cognitive and social information-processing theories (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Crick & Dodge, 1996) and the research
they have spurred have contributed to a richer understanding of the proximal social-cognitive mechanisms (e.g., normative- and self-efficacy beliefs about aggression) that motivate children to engage in aggressive behaviour approach-related emotions such as anger (e.g., de Castro, Merk, Koops, Veerman, & Bosch, 2005; Harmon-Jones, Peterson, Gable, & Harmon-Jones, 2008) and
Correspondence should be addressed to: Sanna Roos, Turku Institute for Child and Youth Research, University of Turku, Turku FIN-20014, Finland. E-mail: [email protected] © 2015 Taylor & Francis
1
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 21:57 12 November 2015
ROOS ET AL.
children’s capacities for self-regulation (Eisenberg, Fabes, Nyman, Bernzweig, & Pinuelas, 1994) have also been implicated in the expression and inhibition of aggression. Although theoretical accounts have recently begun to incorporate aspects of social cognition, emotion and regulatory control (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003; Read et al., 2010), rarely do empirical studies simultaneously evaluate all three in a single study (for exceptions, see de Castro et al., 2005; Runions & Keating, 2010). According to Read et al. (2010), personality is both structured and dynamic, such that two levels of motivation, as well as one overarching control system, interactively work together to influence behaviour. In this three-level hierarchical system, a complex interplay between a domain-specific motivational system (i.e., aggressive cognitions), an approach–avoidance system (i.e., anger) and the system of effortful control results in trait behaviours such as aggression. At the lowest levels of the motivational system are beliefs, goals and plans, similar to social-cognitive and social information-processing mechanisms (e.g., Bandura, 1986). These cognitions are specific to a behavioural domain, and they play a major role in influencing behaviour (Bandura, 1986). In this study, we focus on normative-and self-efficacy beliefs for aggression (Runions & Keating, 2010, focused on attributions of hostile intent) as separate indicators of aggressogenic thought processes, which support or encourage aggressive behaviour (Peets, Hodges, & Salmivalli, 2011). Normative beliefs about aggression are cognitive standards concerning perceived acceptability of aggressive behaviour (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997), whereas self-efficacy for aggressive behaviour reflects children’s beliefs about their ability and confidence to engage in aggression (Bandura, 1986; Egan, Monson, & Perry, 1998). Children with higher scores on aggressive cognitions are known to engage in higher levels of aggressive behaviour (e.g., Davis-Kean et al., 2008; Egan et al., 1998; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997; Peets et al., 2011). However, these cognition–behaviour associations are not strong,
2
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015
and indicate that other factors are likely to alter the behavioural expression of aggressogenic thought. One level up in the hierarchically organised personality structure is the approach–avoidance system which, when activated, can alter the course of whether aggressogenic cognitions are expressed (Keltner et al., 2003; Read et al., 2010; see also Frijda, 1986). Emotions are thought to play a key role in activating the approach–avoidance system (Frijda, 1986). In particular, for aggressive behaviour, the approach system should be activated for aggressogenic thought to be most likely to be ex‐ pressed. Irritability, frustration and anger are emotions that are particularly relevant for the domain of aggression and should activate the approach system. Evidence in support of the moderating role of anger on aggressogenic thought–behaviour associations comes from Runions and Keating (2010)— attributions of hostile intent were related to higher levels of aggression only when children were prone to anger. The degree to which anger moderates other social information-processing mechanisms such as normative- and self-efficacy beliefs about aggression is unknown. A general inhibitory control system is further theorised to moderate the interactions among lower-level motivational systems (Read et al., 2010). In this study, we utilised the construct of effortful control which incorporates temperamentally based individual differences in inhibitory control and attention that allow for modification of one’s own behaviour and mood, as well as enhancement of resistance to temptation (Baumeister & Vohs, 2003; Eisenberg et al., 1994, 2005). The inhibitory control system functions as the basis for the voluntarily suppression of aggressive responding (Frijda, 1986), whereas attentional control protects the child against anger-related problems by allowing more effective use of coping strategies and influencing the quality of social interactions (Derryberry & Reed, 2008; Eisenberg et al., 2005). Indeed, children prone to externalising problems have low levels of effortful control (Eisenberg et al., 2005). Only one study (again, Runions & Keating, 2010) has tested, and found support for a three-way interaction between aggressive cognition, the approach system and
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 21:57 12 November 2015
MODERATORS OF AGGRESSIVE COGNITIONS
the inhibitory control system—in this correlational study, attributions of hostile intent were most strongly related to aggression when (1) anger was high and (2) inhibitory control was low. We provide a second test of the complex interplay among aggressogenic thought, anger and effortful control. Our study extends Runions and Keating (2010) by evaluating the generality of the expected three-way interaction to two additional aggressogenic social cognitions, namely, normative- and self-efficacy beliefs about aggression. We studied children in early adolescence because this is the time when main effect belief– behaviour associations emerge (Davis-Kean et al., 2008). In addition, early adolescence is a period when children become more concerned over establishing social status and dominance and often use aggressive behaviour to achieve these ends (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Identifying the conditions under which children act on their aggression-supporting thought should lead to increasingly targeted and efficient interventions designed to reduce aggression in the schools and, in turn, to alleviate the suffering of victims. In line with theorising (Read et al., 2010) and results from the single study to test the interaction among all three motivational levels (Runions & Keating, 2010), we expected that normative- and selfefficacy beliefs for aggression would most strongly relate to aggression when children were prone to anger and were low in effortful control.
three of the teachers did not participate and thus all children in their classrooms did not have data for anger and effortful control. The final sample was equal to 311 students (143 in the fifth grade, 168 in the sixth grade; 176 girls, 135 boys) with a mean age of 11.9 years (143 months, SD = 8). Fifteen students (4.8%) had at least one parent born abroad. The participants filled in a computerised questionnaire with logically grouped sections, such that the order of the questions within each section was randomised. The participants were encouraged to respond according to their own thoughts and feelings, and the confidentiality of their responses was assured.
METHOD
Self-efficacy for aggressive behavior
Participants and procedure We report below how we determined our sample size, as well as all data exclusions and measures used in this correlational study. The sample was part of a larger study on moral emotions and children’s social behaviours. Participants were recruited with active parental consent from five elementary schools in a neighbourhood of Turku in south-west Finland. In this study, only respondents with complete data on all study variables were included with the participation rate being 71%—this rate was largely due to the fact that
Measures Normative beliefs about aggression Children responded to six items tapping normative beliefs about aggression [e.g., “It is OK to take it out on someone you’re mad at by making up a mean rumor about the person” (reversed), “In general, it is wrong to push or shove other people around” (adapted from Huesmann & Guerra, 1997)]. Items were rated on a 4-point scale (1 = strongly agree, 2 = somewhat agree, 3 = somewhat disagree and 4 = strongly disagree). Scale items were scored and averaged so that higher scores represent greater aggression encouraging thought. The internal consistency for the scale was low but acceptable (α = .63).
Children also completed questions concerning self-efficacy for aggressive behaviour (adapted from Egan et al., 1998). The scale consisted of five items, such as “A kid won’t let you play with a game you want to. Hitting the kid and grabbing the game is easy for some kids, but other kids would find it difficult to hit the kid and grab the game”, and “For some kids it is easy to intentionally leave another kid outside of the peer group, but other kids would find it difficult to leave the kid outside”. Children responded on the easiness or difficulty of the behaviour described on a 4-point scale (1 = very easy, 2 = easy, 3 = difficult COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015
3
ROOS ET AL.
and 4 = very difficult). Scale items were reverse coded and averaged so that higher scores represent greater aggression encouraging thought. The internal consistency of the scale was good (α = .83).
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 21:57 12 November 2015
Anger and effortful control In order to assess each child’s anger and effortful control, teachers completed the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire-Revised (EATQ-R; Ellis & Rothbart, 1999). Anger was measured by six items (e.g., “Gets very irritated when someone criticizes her/him”, “Hates it when people don’t agree with him/her”). Effortful control was measured by 11 items that tapped inhibitory control and attention [e.g., “Has a hard time waiting his/ her turn to speak when excited” (reversed), “Finds it really easy to concentrate on a problem”]. Items were rated on a 3-point scale (0 = almost never, 1 = sometimes and 2 = often). Scale items were averaged, and the internal consistencies for anger and effortful control were good (α = .79 and .82, respectively). Peer reports of aggressive behavior Children’s aggressive behaviour was measured by peer nominations. Children were asked to check off the names of their classmates (same- and crosssex peers) who manifested the behaviour described in each of three items [“Uses force to dominate”, “Gets others to gang up on a peer” and “Threatens others” (Dodge & Coie, 1987)]. The proportion of classmates that nominated each child for each item was computed by dividing the total number of nominations received by all possible nominations. Scales were then computed by averaging the item proportion scores. The aggression scale evidenced good reliability (α = .86).
RESULTS In order to evaluate gender and grade differences, a series of t-tests were conducted. Boys were more likely to endorse normative- (M = 1.97, SD = .66), t = 2.87, p = .004 and self-efficacy (M = 2.07, SD = .66), t = 5.88, p < .001 beliefs for aggression, as compared to girls (M = 1.77, SD = .60 and M =
4
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015
1.67, SD = .49, respectively). Boys were also significantly more angry (M = .29, SD = .38), t = 3.98, p < .001 and aggressive (M = .06, SD = .09), t = 3.12, p = .002, than girls (M = .14, SD = .28 and M = .04, SD = .06, respectively). In contrast, girls were higher in effortful control (M = 1.69, SD = .30), t = −8.53, p < .001, than boys (M = 1.35, SD = .39). Fifth graders were significantly more angry (M = .25, SD = .37), t = 2.28, p = .023, and evidenced less effortful control (M = 1.49, SD = .36), t = −2.10, p = .036, than sixth graders (M = .17, SD = .29 and M = 1.58, SD = .40, respectively). These various gender and grade differences indicated the need to control for them in subsequent analyses. Partial correlations, controlling for gender and grade, indicated that aggressive cognitions were positively related to peer-reported aggression (normative beliefs about aggression: r = .19, p = .001; self-efficacy for aggressive behaviour: r = .24, p < .001). Teacher reported anger was positively, whereas effortful control was negatively, linked to aggression (r = .43, p < .001 and r = −.40, p < .001, respectively). Furthermore, normative-and self-efficacy beliefs were positively correlated with each other and with anger (r = .35, p < .001, r = .14, p = .017 and r = .25, p < .001, respectively). Finally, negative correlations emerged between effortful control and self-efficacy for aggressive behaviour (r = −.18, p = .002), as well as between effortful control and anger (r = −.42, p < .001). No significant correlation emerged between effortful control and normative beliefs about aggression (r = −.08, p = .19). Two hierarchical multiple regression analyses (one for each of the two cognitions) were conducted with peer-nominated aggression as the criterion variable with effortful control and anger tested as moderators of the cognition-behaviour association. All variables were centred through standardisation prior to computing the product terms. In the first step of each analysis, gender and grade were entered as control variables, followed by the main effects of one cognition and both moderators in the second step. In the third step of the analyses, the 3 two-way interactions derived from the main effects entered in the second step
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 21:57 12 November 2015
MODERATORS OF AGGRESSIVE COGNITIONS
were evaluated (e.g., normative beliefs about aggression × anger, normative beliefs about aggression × effortful control, and anger × effortful control). In the final fourth step, the three-way interaction of the predictor and the moderators was added (e.g., normative beliefs about aggression × anger × effortful control). Both of the possible three-way interactions were significant indicating that the associations of the cognitive constructs of this study with aggression depend on both anger and effortful control (see Table 1). Simple slope analyses (Aiken & West, 1991) were conducted using Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS module to evaluate the links between cognitions and aggression at different combinations of anger and effortful control (high: +1 SD and low: −1 SD; because −1 SD was not observed for anger in our data, we set low levels of anger at the lowest observable value at −.62 SD). As expected, results indicated that normative beliefs about aggression were significantly and positively related to aggression for children who were high in anger and low in effortful control (see the slope for normative beliefs; β = .23, p = .003 in the top panel of Figure 1). Similarly, self-efficacy for aggression
was also significantly and positively related to aggression for children who were high in anger and low in effortful control (see the slope for selfefficacy beliefs; β = .20, p = .007 in the bottom panel of Figure 1). Two additional significant slopes also emerged. First, self-efficacy for aggression appears to be somewhat more strongly associated with aggression (see the slope for selfefficacy beliefs: β = .31, p < .001 in the bottom panel of Figure 1) when children were low (as opposed to high) in anger and low in effortful control. However, these two simple slopes did not vary from each other as indicated by a nonsignificant conditional anger by self-efficacy interaction at low levels of effortful control. This suggests that self-efficacy for aggression guides aggressive behaviour when children’s effortful control is low, regardless of level of anger. It is also important to point out that the combinations most conducive to aggressive behaviour for both cognitions included the presence of aggressogenic thought, high levels of anger and low levels of effortful control. Second, under the condition of high anger and high effortful control, self-efficacy was significantly but negatively related to
Table 1. Summary of hierarchical regression analyses for aggressive cognitions (N = 311)
Normative beliefs Variable Step 1 Sex Grade ΔR2 Step 2 Cognition Anger Effortful control ΔR2 Step 3 Cognition × Anger Cognition × Effortful control Anger × Effortful control ΔR2 Step 4 Cognition × Anger × Effortful control ΔR2
β −.37** −.04 .04
Self-efficacy beliefs
ΔF 5.52**
β
35.42*** .13* .30*** −.28*** .25
9.04*** .09 −.10 −.11* .06 −.09* .01
5.52**
−.37** −.04 .04
35.80*** .12* .18** −.28*** .25
ΔF
5.94*
−.04 −.23*** −.09 .07
11.38***
−.11** .02
7.89**
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015
5
ROOS ET AL. 0,8 0,6 = .23**
Aggression
0,4 Low effortful control High anger
0,2 = .12 = .12
0
Low effortful control Low anger High effortful control High anger
= =-.13 -.13
High effortful control Low anger
-0,2 -0,4 = .04 Low
Normative beliefs
High
0,8 0,6 = .20** 0,4
Aggression
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 21:57 12 November 2015
-0,6
Low effortful control High anger
0,2 = .31*** 0
Low effortful control Low anger High effortful control Low anger High effortful control High anger
-0,2 -0,4 = .01 -0,6
Low
Self-efficacy beliefs
= -.44* High
Figure 1. Conditional effects of normative and self-efficacy beliefs about aggression on aggression at different values of anger and effortful control. *p < .01; **p < .001.
aggression (see the slope for self-efficacy β = −.44, p = .002 in the bottom panel of Figure 1). That is, greater confidence in the use of aggression was related to lower levels of aggression when both anger and effortful control were high. Neither gender nor age further moderated the 2 three-way interactions.
DISCUSSION In this study, children’s aggressive cognitions were expected, and found, to predict aggressive behaviour, such that normative- and self-efficacy beliefs for aggression would most strongly relate to
6
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015
aggression when children were prone to anger and low in effortful control. Our results are consistent with Read et al.’s (2010) theorising and highlight that children’s expression of aggressive cognitions into behaviour is highly dependent on their effortful control capabilities and their tendencies to experience anger. The results of our study qualify prior findings on direct links between aggressive cognitions and aggressive behaviour (Davis-Kean et al., 2008), by specifying the conditions under which aggressogenic thought is most and least likely to be associated with aggressive behaviour depending on joint moderating effects of anger and effortful control. Our results were highly similar to, and support the findings of Runions and Keating (2010), that children’s attributions of hostile intent are most strongly related to their aggressive behaviour, when proneness to experience anger is combined with low inhibitory control. In particular, the same conditions conducive to the most aggression found by Runions and Keating (2010) were also present in our results for normative- and self-efficacy beliefs. It appears that the relative absence of effortful control free children to act on approach tendencies (i.e., anger) and beliefs supportive of aggressive behaviour. However, it is important to note that self-efficacy beliefs also predicted greater use of aggression when effortful control was low, even when anger was low. Thus, for self-efficacy beliefs, a lack of effortful control allows for greater aggression regardless of levels of anger. When children were proficient in their effortful control, there was not a single instance (i.e., at either high or low levels of anger) in which aggressogenic thought was associated with higher levels of aggression. In fact, our study revealed an inhibitory effect of self-efficacy under one combination of anger and effortful control. In the simple slope analyses, under the conditions of high anger and high effortful control, self-efficacy is associated with less aggression. That is, even among highly anger-prone children, effortful control appears to completely override the normally aggression-supporting effect of high self-efficacy resulting in aggression to comparable levels as to
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 21:57 12 November 2015
MODERATORS OF AGGRESSIVE COGNITIONS
when effortful control is high and anger is low (i.e., the conditions least conducive to aggressive behaviour). This was also the strongest effect, although negative, of aggressogenic thought–behaviour associations found under the different conditions of effortful control and anger. Thus, high effortful appears to become particularly active when both lower-level systems (rather than when either are present alone) are conducive to aggressive behaviour. As highlighted by Runions and Keating (2010), individual differences in children’s effortful control abilities appear to be particularly important for understanding whether aggressive cognitions might lead to more (or less) aggression and should, therefore, be integrated in future studies on children’s aggressive behaviour. The hierarchical system of domain-specific thought, anger and inhibitory control seems to have strong potential in helping to understand the conditions most, and least, conducive to aggressive behaviour in children. Some strengths and limitations of this study are noteworthy. Our study with early adolescents is highly consistent with, and extends, the only prior study (conducted with 6 year olds) that has evaluated the degree to which the expression of aggressogenic thought is moderated by both anger and inhibitory control (Runions & Keating, 2010). Furthermore, our effects were produced by utilising two different indexes of aggressive cognitions, which have not been previously evaluated. Finally, shared method variance did not account for our findings, as aggression was assessed by peers, whereas effortful control and anger were assessed by teachers, and aggressive cognitions were reported by children. Although both studies appear to support the theorising of Read et al. (2010) across two different age groups, generalisation of our findings to younger and older populations will require similar tests with such samples. In addition, in both the Runions and Keating’s (2010) study and our study, data were correlational and inferences regarding direction of effects await longitudinal tests. In particular, stronger support for our model would come from a longitudinal test in which Time-2
aggression is predicted from the Time-1 three-way interaction between a cognition, anger and effortful control (with Time-1 aggression and constituent main effects and two-way interactions controlled). We would expect that the strongest simple slopes between the initial cognition and subsequent changes in aggression would occur under high levels of anger and low levels of effortful control. In our study, effortful control was measured by both inhibitory control and attention, whereas Runions and Keating used the subscale of inhibitory control. Although both attention and inhibitory control are measures of voluntary regulation (see, e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2005), the slightly different index of effortful control used in our study, as compared to the study by Runions and Keating, yielded highly similar results. In this study, only proactive aggression items were utilised because items tapping reactive aggression partially overlapped with our assessment of anger (e.g., “Overreacts angrily to accidents”; Dodge & Coie, 1987). In addition, proactive aggression is more strongly related to cognitions about one’s own capabilities, especially self-efficacy, whereas reactive aggression is more strongly linked to attributions about others, particularly attributions of hostile intent (for a review, see Card & Little, 2005). Future work will need to evaluate the degree to which effortful control and anger operate similarly (or differently) to alter the expression of cognitions into function-specific aggression. Finally, although previous studies have indicated that cognition–aggression links are context-specific (Peets et al., 2011), we did not take relationships, or other possible aggression-supporting contexts (e.g., Egan et al., 1998) into account in our study. Thus, for example, it will be important for future researchers to test whether our observed three-way interactions occur when cognitions are assessed within multiple relationship types (e.g., friends vs. enemies). All in all, our results highlight how aggressive cognitions work in conjunction with anger and effortful control to guide children’s aggressive behaviour and emphasise the need to properly understand the conditionality of children’s expression of aggressogenic thought. COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015
7
ROOS ET AL.
Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding This study was supported by the Academy of Finland [grant number 134843] awarded to Christina Salmivalli.
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 21:57 12 November 2015
REFERENCES Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Self-regulation and the executive function of the self. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 197–217). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2005). Proactive and reactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: A metaanalysis of differential relations with psychosocial adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 466–480. doi:10.1177/0165025406071904 Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75(1), 147–163. doi:10. 1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00660.x Copeland, W. E., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (2013). Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry, 70, 419–426. doi:10.1001/ jamapsychiatry.2013.504 Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms on reactive and proactive aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 67, 993–1002. doi:10.2307/1131875 Davis-Kean, P. E., Huesmann, L. R., Jager, J., Collins, W. A., Bates, J. E., & Lansford, J. E. (2008). Changes in the relation of self-efficacy beliefs and behaviors across development. Child Development, 79, 1257–1269. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01187.x de Castro, O., Merk, W., Koops, W., Veerman, J. W., & Bosch, J. D. (2005). Emotions in social information processing and their relations with reactive and proactive aggression in referred aggressive boys.
8
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 105–116. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_10 Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. (2008). Motivational and attentional components of personality. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 461–474). New York, NY: Psychology Press. 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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1146 Egan, S. K., Monson, T. C., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Social-cognitive influences on change in aggression over time. Developmental Psychology, 34, 996–1006. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.5.996 Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Nyman, M., Bernzweig, J., & Pinuelas, A. (1994). The relations of emotionality and regulation to children’s anger-related reactions. Child Development, 65(1), 109–128. doi:10.2307/1131369 Eisenberg, N., Sadovsky, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Losoya, S. H., Valiente, C., …Shepard, S. A. (2005). The relations of problem behavior status to children’s negative emotionality, effortful control, and impulsivity: Concurrent relations and prediction of change. Developmental Psychology, 41, 193–211. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.193 Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (1999). Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire Revised Parent Report. Unpublished document. Foster, E. M., Jones, D. E., & The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2005). The high costs of aggression: Public expenditures resulting from conduct disorder. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 1767–1772. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.061424 Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harmon-Jones, E., Peterson, C., Gable, P. A., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2008). Anger and approachavoidance motivation. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 399–413). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Hayes, A. F. (2013). PROCESS module for SPSS (Version 2.11) [Computer software]. Retrieved March 19, 2014, from http://www.afhayes.com/ Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 408–419. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.408 Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
MODERATORS OF AGGRESSIVE COGNITIONS
network model of the structure and dynamics of human personality. Psychological Review, 117(1), 61–92. doi:10.1037/a0018131 Runions, K. C., & Keating, D. P. (2010). Anger and inhibitory control as moderators of children’s hostile attributions and aggression. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 370–378. doi:10.1016/j. appdev.2010.05.006
Downloaded by [Dalhousie University] at 21:57 12 November 2015
Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in social information processing. Child Development, 71(1), 107–118. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00124 Peets, K., Hodges, E. V. E., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). Relationship specificity of aggressogenic thoughtbehavior processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 386–400. doi:10.1037/a0023662 Read, S. J., Monroe, B. M., Brownstein, A. L., Yang, Y., Chopra, G., & Miller, L. C. (2010). A neural
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015
9
