Advertisement

Social Information Processing and Aggression in Understanding School Violence: An Application of Crick and Dodge's Model

  • Amy Nigoff

The current chapter will review a theory of how children interpret and process social situations and how these processes can be biased in a way that leads the child to aggression. Children are in school for 8 h of their day. Most of their social interactions occur there, when they are in classrooms or on the playground with other children. Mistakes and biases in the social information processing steps often manifest at school. By possessing an understanding of these steps, one would be in a better position to prevent aggression from happening. The current examination will consist of a review of a theory of social information processing and research connecting biases in processing to aggression. Finally, we will present a scenario exploring how social information processing theories can be used to treat and prevent school violence.

Keywords

Reactive Aggression Proactive Aggression Social Information Processing Aggressive Response School Violence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andreou, E. & Metallidou, P. (2004). The relationship of academic and social cognition to behaviour in bullying situations among Greek primary school children. Educational Psychology, 24(1), 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: A Social Psychological Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  5. Berkowitz, L. (1977). Situational and personal conditions governing reaction to aggressive cues. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endier (Eds.), Personality at the Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression. American Psychologist, 45, 494–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and Communication. New York: Pergamon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crick, N. R. & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms on reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67, 993–1002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeVoe, J. F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Ruddy, S. A., Miller, A. K., Planty, M., Snyder, T. D., Duhart, D. T., & Rand, M. R. (2002). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2002. Washington, DC.: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, NCES 2003–009/NCJ 196753.Google Scholar
  11. Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of social competence in children. Minnesota Symposium in Child Psychology, 18, 77–125.Google Scholar
  12. Dodge, K. A. (1991). The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 201–218). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dodge, K. A. & Newman, J. P. (1981). Biased decision-making processes in aggressive boys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 375–379.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and Aggression. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erdley, C. A. & Asher, S. R. (1996). Children’s social goals and self-efficacy perceptions as influences on their responses to ambiguous provocation. Child Development, 67, 1329–1344.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., & Simons-Morton, B. (2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder, L. O. (1984). Stability of aggression over time and generations. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1120–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lemerise, E. A. & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in social information processing. Child Development, 71, 107–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Milich, R. & Dodge, K. A. (1984). Social information processing in child psychiatric populations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12, 471–490.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mynard, H. & Joseph, S. (2000). Development of the multidimensional peer-victimization scale. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nelson, D. A. & Crick, R. (1999). Rose-colored glasses: Examining the social information-processing of prosocial young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. National Children’s Home (2004). Is it true that children can be bullied online and via mobiles? In Internet safety FAQ. Retrieved May 21, 2005, from http://www.nch.org.uk/information/index.php?i=134.
  27. Orobio de Castro, B., Slot, N. W., Bosch, J. D., Koops, W., & Veerman, J. W. (2003). Negative feelings exacerbate hostile attributions of intent in highly aggressive boys. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 56–65.Google Scholar
  28. Orobio de Castro, B., Merk, W., Koops, W., Veerman, J. W., and Bosch, J. D. (2005). Emotions in social information processing and their relations with reactive and proactive aggression in referred aggressive boys. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Slaby, R. G. & Guerra, N. G. (1988). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders: 1. Assessment. Developmental Psychology, 24, 580–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Nieuwenhuijzen, M., de Castro, B. O., van der Valk, I., Wijnroks, L., Vermeer, A., & Matthys, W. (2006). Do social information-processing models explain aggressive behaviour by children with mild intellectual disabilities in residential care? Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50, 801–812.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. VanOostrum, N. & Horvath, P. (1997). The effects of hostile attribution on adolescents’ aggressive responses to social situations. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 13, 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vernberg, E. M., Jacobs, A. K., & Hershberger, S. L. (1999). Peer victimization and attitudes about violence during early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 386–395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy Nigoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinical PsychologyOhio UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations