Journals / Türk Psikoloji Dergisi / 2005 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 55

Hostile Attributional Bias in Aggressive and Nonaggressive Children

Saldırgan Olan ve Olmayan Çocuklarda Düşmanca Niyet Yükleme Yanlılığının Cinsiyete Bağlı Olarak İncelenmesi

Pages
57–59
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results indicated that aggressive children attributed more personal causality, negative intentions to the ambiguous negative outcomes represented in the pictures than to the nonaggressive children.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of the present study was to examine the hostile attributional biases of aggressive and nonaggressive boys and girls among primary school children.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The status of aggressiveness was assessed with a peer nomination instrument for a sample of 529 (230 girls and 293 boys) fifth grade children.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results indicated that aggressive children attributed more personal causality, negative intentions to the ambiguous negative outcomes represented in the pictures than to the nonaggressive children.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to examine the hostile attributional biases of aggressive and nonaggressive boys and girls among primary school children. The status of aggressiveness was assessed with a peer nomination instrument for a sample of 529 (230 girls and 293 boys) fifth grade children. Participants were presented with 11 ambiguous pictures with negative outcomes. For each picture a questionnaire with multiple choice answers was administered to measure the child's tendency to attribute personal/impersonal causality, positive/negative intentions and hostile attributional bias. A 2 (aggressive/nonaggressive) x 2 (sex) ANOVA was used to analyse the data. Results indicated that aggressive children attributed more personal causality, negative intentions to the ambiguous negative outcomes represented in the pictures than to the nonaggressive children. In relation to different forms of aggression such as physical, passive and the verbal, the findings showed some variability. Physically aggressive children displayed more hostile attribution than the nonaggressive ones. On the other hand, the form of passive aggressiveness was not significant in relation to the aggressiveness / nonaggressiveness status. On verbal aggression form, aggressive children indicated a propensity toward hostile attribution when compared to the nonaggressive types. A main effect of sex was obtained; boys attributed more personal causality, more negative intention and hostile attributional bias when compared to girls. All of the results were in line with literature.

Özet

Bu çalışmada olumsuz niyet yükleme eğiliminin çocukların sosyal ilişkilerinde saldırgan olup olmamalarına ve cinsiyetlerine göre değişip değişmediği incelenmiştir. Ayrıca, bu çalışmada fiziksel, pasif ve sözel saldırganlık türlerinde düşmanca yüklemede bulunma açısından saldırganlık düzeyi ve cinsiyete göre bir farklılık gözlenip gözlenmeyeceği de araştırılmıştır. Bu amaçla, ilköğretim 5. sınıfta okuyan 236 kız ve 293 erkek öğrenciye sosyometrik bir saldırganlık ölçeği ve 11 resimden oluşan bir resim anketi uygulanmıştır. Verilere 2 (saldırganlık düzeyi: saldırgan-saldırgan değil) x 2 (cinsiyet: kız-erkek) faktörlü araştırma desenine uygun varyans analizleri uygulanmıştır. Bulgular, sosyal ilişkileri açısından saldırgan olarak tanınan çocukların olumsuz tepkileri içeren davranış seçeneklerini (kişisel nedenlere ve olumsuz niyete yapılan yüklemeler) saldırgan olmayan çocuklara kıyasla daha fazla seçtiklerini göstermiştir. Bu bulgu daha önce yapılan çalışmalardan elde edilen bulgularla da uyuşmaktadır. Saldırganlığın alt boyutları açısından bakıldığında ise sadece fiziksel saldırganlık gösteren çocuklar, fiziksel saldırganlık göstermeyen çocuklara kıyasla daha fazla olumsuz yüklemelerde bulunmuşlardır. Dolayısıyla bu çalışmada aktif yönelimli saldırganlığın da tepkisel saldırganlık gibi düşmanca yükleme yanlılığıyla ilişkili olabileceği yönünde bir bulgu elde edilmiştir. Araştırmada düşmanca niyet yükleme eğiliminde cinsiyet temel etkisi de gözlenmiştir. Sosyal ilişkileri açısından genel olarak saldırgan tanınan erkekler, saldırgan tanınan kızlardan daha fazla düşmanca niyet yüklemesinde bulunma eğilimi göstermişlerdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKTAŞ, V., ŞAHİN, D., AYDIN, O. (2005). Hostile Attributional Bias in Aggressive and Nonaggressive Children. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 55, 57–59. https://ajindex.com/articles/357642

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Aydın, O. (1977). The description of peers and the perception of intentions by popular and unpopular children. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Scolland:University of Stirling. Aydın, O., & Markova. I. (1979). Attribution tendencies of popular and unpopular children. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 1S, 291 -298. Bettencourt, B.A., & Miller. N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function ofprovocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422-447.
  2. Buss, A. H. & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63. 452-459.
  3. Coie, J.D., & Dodge, K.A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. W. Damon, (Ed.). Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development (5thEd.). (s.779-862). New York:Wiley. Crick. N.R., Bigbee, M.A., & Howes, C. (1996). Gender differences in children's normative beliefs about aggression: How dohurt thee? Let me count the ways. Child Development. 67, 1003-1014.
  4. Crick. N.R., Casas, J.F., & Mosher, M. (1997). Relational and overt aggression in preschool. Developmental Psychology. 33. 579-588.
  5. 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.
  6. Crick, N.R., & Dodge, K.A. (19%). Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development. 67, 993-1002.
  7. Crick, N.R., & Grotpeter. J.K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development. 66, 710-722.
  8. Dodge, K.A. (1980). Social cognition and children's aggressive behavior. Child Development, 51, 162-170. 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.
  9. Dodge, K.A. Coie, J.D., Pettit, G.S., & Price, J.M. (iy90). Peer status and aggression in boys groups: Development and contextual anayses. Child Development. 61, 1289-1309.
  10. Dodge, K.A. & Frame. C.L. (1982). Social cognitive biases and deficits in aggressive boys. Child Development. 53, 630-635.
  11. Dodge, K. A., Murphy, R. R. & Buchsbaum, K. (1984). The assessment of intention-cue detection skills in children: Implications for developmental psychopafhology. Child Development. 55, 163-173 Dodge. K.A., & Newman, J.P. (1981). Biased decision-making process in aggressive boys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology