4.0 part ii: effect of social-cognitive...
TRANSCRIPT
100
4.0 PART II: EFFECT OF SOCIAL-COGNITIVE INTERVENTION ON
HOSTILE ATTRIBUTION OF INTENT, AGGRESSION,
IRRITABILITY, IMPULSIVITY, EMOTIONAL SUSCEPTIBILITY
AND NARCISSISM
Individuals differ in their way of processing information in social situations. The
manner, in which individuals evaluate social situation, is a strong predictor of ones’ reactions to
that situation. In this vein, Crick and Dodge’s (1994) social information processing model is
one of the most generative models in understanding individual differences in such reactivity
process. This model maintains that appropriate reaction to a social situation depends on the
accuracy of social information processing. For appropriate response in any situation, social
information has to be encoded and interpreted correctly. Inaccurate encoding and interpretation
may lead to aggressive behaviour. Social information processing biases are well established
correlates of aggression. Aggressive individuals tend to have distorted interpretations of the
relevant social interactions especially in negative ambiguous situations. They believe that such
aversive situations are caused intentionally by others. This assumption of aggressive
individuals leads them to further behave aggressively. Besides, it instigates more problematic
interactions and thereby limits pro-social behaviour. Thus, hostile attribution of intent is
considered a key element in the development and maintenance of aggressive behaviour.
Therefore, aggressive individuals should be trained to interpret negative ambiguous situations
without any biases. They can be trained to replace attribution of hostile intent with benign
intent. By reducing hostile attribution of intent, behavioural problems of aggressive individuals
can be prevented and interpersonal relationships and adjustment can be enhanced.
101
The present study was thus carried out with a purpose of reducing hostile attribution of
intent and aggressive tendencies by applying social cognitive intervention. Social cognitive
intervention was devised following the guidelines from Social information processing model
(Crick & Dodge, 1994) and General Aggression Model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). The
primary purpose of this research work was to assess the efficacy of social cognitive
intervention on subsequent levels of hostile attribution of intent and aggression. In addition to
hostile attribution of intent and aggression, the effect of social cognitive intervention was also
assessed for other significant predictors of aggression namely, irritability, impulsivity,
emotional susceptibility and narcissism.
4.1 Objectives
The primary objectives were to study the effect of SCI on;
1. Hostile attribution of intent
2. Aggression
3. Irritability
4. Impulsivity
5. Emotional susceptibility
6. Narcissistic features
7. Aggression, hostile attribution of intent, impulsivity, narcissistic features, irritability
& emotional susceptibility for both males and females separately
4.2 Hypotheses
On the basis of review of literature, following hypotheses were formulated.
1. Individuals in experimental group would exhibit less hostile attribution of intent as
compared to individuals in control group
102
2. Individuals in experimental group would exhibit less aggression as compared to
individuals in control group.
3. Post-intervention scores on hostile attribution of intent and aggression among
individuals in experimental group would be significantly less than their pre-intervention
scores.
4. Individuals in experimental group would show less irritability as compared to
individuals in control group.
5. There would be less impulsivity among individuals in experimental group as compared
to individuals in control group.
6. Individuals in experimental group would score less on emotionally susceptibility as
compared to individuals in control group.
7. Individuals in experimental group would show less narcissistic features as compared to
individuals in control group
8. Social cognitive intervention would be effective for both males and females.
4.3 Method
4.3.1 Design
Experimental-control group design was used to examine the effect of SCI on hostile
attribution of intent (HAI), aggression, irritability, impulsivity, narcissism, and emotional
susceptibility. However, pre-post intervention scores on aggression and hostile attribution of
intent were also compared with the help of one way ANOVA. One way Multivariate Analysis
Of Variance (MANOVA) was applied to analyze the significance of difference between
experimental and control group collectively on hostile attribution of intent, aggression,
103
irritability, impulsivity, emotional susceptibility & narcissistic features. Further a series of
univariate ANOVAs with 2 levels of Intervention (experimental and control group) was applied
to analyze the significance of difference between experimental and control group on
aggression, hostile attribution of intent, impulsivity, narcissistic features, irritability &
emotional susceptibility for combined sample. Separate one way ANOVAs for both males and
females were also applied to assess the effect of social cognitive intervention on both males and
females.
4.3.2 Sample
The sample for Part II of the study mostly comprised of those individuals who were
placed in ‘high on aggression’ group with the help of Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry,
1992) and teachers’ classification in first part of the study. From 125 individuals (65 males and
60 females) in ‘high on aggression’ group, five females did not turn up to participate in the
intervention. However, this did not affect the sample size as five males and one female were
referred by school authorities to take part in the social cognitive intervention. Their scores on
Aggression Questionnaire and Hostile Attribution of Intent Explorer were taken before giving
intervention. These participants were found to have high score on both the scales. Thus, sample
in Part II comprised of 126 aggressive individuals (70 males & 56 females) having mean age of
13.40 (SD=0.86). These 126 individuals were then randomly assigned to experimental and
control groups. This assignment was done with the help of slips representing each aggressive
individual. All aggressive individuals were divided into two halves by drawing those slips
randomly and putting them into two blind boxes. After this, one of these boxes was labeled as
experimental group and other one as control group. These two groups were compared on
aggression and hostile attribution of intent scores which were obtained while screening
104
aggressive individuals in Part I of the study and no significant differences were found between
the two groups (Table 2.2). This was done in order to make both groups comparable. There
were 38 males and 25 females in control group and 32 males and 31 females in experimental
group. Demographic characteristics of sample used in Part II are given in Table 2.1
Table 2.1 Number of participants bifurcated into various categories and their mean age
Group Gender Specification
Numbers of individuals
Mean Age (In Years)
SDa (In Years)
Control group Males 38 13.51 0.87
Females 25 13.24 0.66 Total 63 13.40 0.802
Experimental group
Males 32 13.50 0.97 Females 31 13.29 0.86
Total 63 13.39 0.92
Total Sample Males 70 13.51 0.92
Females 56 13.26 0.77 Total 126 13.40 0.86
a- Standard Deviation Table 2.2 Pre-intervention comparison for means scores on aggression and hostile attribution of intent among individuals in control and experimental group
Variables Means scores t-ratio
Groups
Control Experimental
Anger 23.25 25.00 -2.31*
Physical aggression 31.08 31.46 -0.37(ns)
Hostility 30.73 30.76 -0.03(ns)
Verbal aggression 18.22 19.19 -1.78(ns)
Total Aggression 103.29 106.41 -1.52(ns)
Hostile Attribution of Intent 60.79 61.06 -0.14(ns)
* p<.05 ns- Non-significant
105
4.3.3 Dependent Measures
4.3.3.1 Hostile Attribution of Intent
Hostile attribution of intent scores were obtained with the help of the same instrument
as used in Part I of the study.
4.3.3.2 Aggression
As done in Part I of the study, aggression was assessed using Aggression Questionnaire
(Buss & Perry, 1992).
4.3.3.3 Irritability
Irritability of the subjects was measured with the help of Irritability Scale (Caprara &
Renzi, 1981). The final version of the Irritability scale consists of 30 items. Respondents have
to respond to each item on 6- point likert type scale ranging from ‘Completely True for me’ to
‘Completely False for me’. ‘Completely true for me’ is given a score of six and ‘Completely
false for me’ is given a score of one. Item no. 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 17,19,21,27 are controlled
items that need to be scored reversely. Total score of an individual is calculated by adding these
scores on all the items. Thus higher score represents more irritability. As reported by Caprara et
al. (1983), internal consistency, test-retest reliability and split-half reliability have been
examined and found satisfactory for the scale. Coefficient alpha for the Irritability scale is 0.81
(p<0.001). The test-retest correlation has been found to be 0.83 (p<0.001). The reliability
coefficient by the Spearman-Brown method for the two halves, including the even and the odd
items, is 0.90 (p< 0.001) for the Irritability scale.
4.3.3.4 Impulsivity
Impulsivity was measured with the help of Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11,
Patton et al., 1995). It consists of 30 statements of personal characteristics. Respondents are
106
asked to indicate the extent to which the statements apply to them using a four-point scale
ranging from ‘rarely/never’ to ‘always/almost always’. Each item is rated on 1 (rarely/never) to
4 (always/almost always) scale. The scoring on items no. 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 20, 23, 29
and 30 is done in reverse order i.e. 4 (rarely/never) to 1 (always/almost always). The raw
impulsiveness measure is the sum of the scores of these responses (the larger the sum, the more
impulsive is the respondent). The BIS-11 has been used with a variety of populations (Crean et
al., 2000; Kirby et al., 1999) and has demonstrated good reliability and validity (Fossati et al.,
2002; Patton et al., 1995). Internal consistency coefficients for the BIS-11 total score have been
reported (Patton et al., 1995) to range from 0.79 to 0.83.
4.3.3.5 Emotional Susceptibility
Emotional Susceptibility Scale (Caprara, et al., 1985) was used in present research
work to assess emotional susceptibility of the individuals. For constructing this scale, authors
analyzed the Buss and Durkee’s inventory for an investigation of the possible connections
between offensive components and defensive components of the aggressive reactions. The final
version of the Emotional Susceptibility scale consists of 40 items. Respondents have to respond
to each item on 6- point likert type scale ranging from “Completely True for me” to
“Completely False for me”. ‘Completely true for me’ is given a score of 6 and ‘Completely
false for me’ is given one score. Items no. 2, 6, 8, 14, 15, 20, 26, 29, 33 and 37 are scored in
reverse order. The total score of an individual is calculated by adding these scores on all the
items. Thus higher score represents more emotional susceptibility. As reported by Caprara et al.
(1983), internal consistency, test-retest reliability and split-half reliability have been examined
and found satisfactory for the scale. Coefficient alpha for the Emotional Susceptibility scale has
been found to be 0.88 (p < 0.001). The test-retest correlation has been found to be 0.84 (p<
107
0.001). The reliability coefficient by the Spearman-Brown method for the two halves, including
the even and the odd items, is 0.94 (p < 0.001) for the Emotional Susceptibility scale.
4.3.3.6 Narcissism
The Revised Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI, Raskin & Terry, 1988) was
used to assess narcissistic features in present research work. The NPI is the most common
measure used by social and personality researchers to assess narcissism in normal populations.
The most recent review on narcissism, for example, focused almost exclusively on empirical
data collected with the NPI (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). The Revised Narcissistic Personality
Inventory (NPI) is a 40- item forced choice self-report questionnaire. Each item has two
optional statements. The respondents have to select one statement, which is true about them or
which they feel more suitable to themselves. The inventory evolved through a 54-item, four-
factor version to its current 40-item, seven-factor version. It has demonstrated ample reliability
and construct validity (e.g., Emmons, 1987; Raskin & Terry, 1988). The NPI correlates with
observer rating of narcissistic acts as well as inflated self-beliefs compared to accurate criteria
(e.g., John & Robins, 1994). The 40- item NPI has been shown to have good validity in the
sense that NPI scores have been found to be positively correlated with the use of first-person-
singular pronouns (Raskin, 1981; Raskin & Terry, 1988). The internal consistency estimate for
the revised total scale has been found to be 0.83 (Raskin and Terry 1988). The reliability, when
tested for alternate forms eight weeks apart, has been found to be 0.72 (Raskin & Hall, 1981).
In present research work, only total scores were calculated to assess the extent of narcissistic
features in participants. Total score comprised of the total number of narcissism-loaded items
selected by participants.
108
4.3.4 Procedure
Social Cognitive Intervention was applied on 63 ‘high on aggression’ individuals. The
126 individuals were randomly assigned to experimental and control group with the procedure
mentioned above in Sample section. Experimental group was given a 6-session social cognitive
intervention designed specifically to reduce aggression, hostile attribution of intent and other
aggressive tendencies. Social-Cognitive intervention would be described in detail in the
following separate section. These sessions were conducted in the school premises after
obtaining permission from the respective Principals. All the sessions were conducted in a
separate classroom of each school in which chairs were arranged in a semi-circular manner so
that each participant could easily look at others as well as at the experimenter. With this seating
arrangement, activities could be done easily in the middle space. A standard curriculum
(described in the next section) of social cognitive intervention was applied to all the
participants in experimental groups in each school. There were 10 to 12 participants in each
group. Each session was conducted once a week with duration of 70 to 75 minutes. Since the
intervention sessions were planned according to the availability of participants, no absentees in
any of the sessions were recorded. This whole exercise for one group took around 50 days. To
avoid unethical practice, neutral or unrelated issues like study habits, time management &
career selection were discussed with the participants in control group. After six sessions of
social cognitive intervention, all the aggressive individuals, both in experimental and control
groups were administered seven questionnaires, six of dependent measures namely, aggression,
hostile attribution of intent, irritability, impulsivity, emotional susceptibility & narcissism and
one Post experimental questionnaire. Scores on aggression and hostile attribution of intent of
participants were available from Part I of the study. Pre-Post intervention comparison for both
109
the variables was also done for both control and experimental group using one way ANOVA.
However, for other four dependent variables, experimental and control groups were compared
by applying one way MANOVAs and a series of univariate ANOVAs with two levels of
Intervention i.e. intervention (experimental group) and no intervention (control group).
Separate analysis for both males and females was done using same statistics.
4.3.5 Social Cognitive intervention
A six session Social-Cognitive Intervention was designed specifically for the present
research work with material and activities appropriate for the age group of 12-15 years. After
reviewing the related literature, a standard curriculum for all six sessions of the social cognitive
intervention was developed. The detailed session-wise curriculum of intervention is presented
below.
Session I
First session of the intervention started with the rapport building. The researcher
introduced himself and a round of general introduction of all the participants was carried out.
The participants were instructed as follows:
“Before we start with the exercises and activities, I would request each of you to
introduce yourself. Also tell everyone about your hobbies and general likes and dislikes. This is
being done so that we all are comfortable and at ease with each other”.
The rapport building session proceeded with a general introduction of the purpose,
procedure and benefits of the intervention program. The participants were made positively
oriented towards the intervention as follows:
110
“This programs aims at helping you all develop a healthy personality which would be
further beneficial for your future success. As session proceeds with the activities, you are
requested to maintain proper decorum. If you find anything at any step of the program unclear,
you should ask it there and then. This is because if you continue doing some exercises or
activities with a doubt in your mind, the whole program can prove to be a futile exercise.”
These instructions were followed by discussion of:
• Ellis’s ABC model of behaviour. The significance of an individual’s beliefs and
thoughts in his behaviour was highlighted.
• the role of perception in subsequent behaviour. It was ensured that each
participant understood as to how one’s perception can guide as well as misguide
one’s subsequent behaviour. This was done with the help of examples from day
to day life with which the participants could identify.
It was vital that the participants understood how accurate perception of one’s own as
well as others’ behaviour could enhance interpersonal relationships. On contrary to this, how
inaccurate perception could hamper interpersonal relationships.
The above mentioned detailed discussion on the role of perception was followed by an
activity named “Attitude Matters” wherein each participant had to quote an incident from
his/her life to confirm the role of perception and attitude in behaviour. With such incidents
participants were made aware of the self fulfilling prophecy of the attitudes.
The session was concluded with a general discussion where every participant got a
chance to speak his/her mind. In the end, a home assignment was given to the participants as
part of which they had to collect instances of inappropriate behaviour created by inaccurate
perception of a social situation.
111
Session II
The purpose of second session was to make the participants understand the negative
consequences of aggressive behaviour. This was followed by the role of cognitions in initiating
and maintaining aggressive behaviour. The session began with discussion of home assignment
wherein instances of inappropriate behaviour were explained and described as a function of
inaccurate processing of social information. A brief overview about aggression, its causes &
consequences was done. An emphasis was given in its role in intrapersonal and interpersonal
relationship and its negative influences on success. By this, participants were motivated to feel
importance and urgency to reduce their tendencies to behave aggressively.
The activity of this session was related to the role of cognitions in aggressive behaviour.
For this the participants were instructed as follows:
“Now that you all have an idea about the negative effect of misperception on behaviour,
I would like you to think of a situation of inappropriate retaliation and aggression caused by
an individual who behaved aggressively without understanding the context or by incorrectly
attributing harmful intent to a peer”.
The activity was followed by the introduction of the concept of intent. Participants were
made aware of the difference between accidental, pro-social and hostile intent. The session was
concluded with a discussion on what kind of mistakes people make in negative social
encounters e.g. wrongly attributing negative intent to others’ behaviour with no clear evidence
of the same. The causes of such mistakes were also discussed in which role of ambiguous
situation and inattention to relevant social cues present at the time of encounter was primarily
highlighted.
112
The participants were given home assignment to keep a log of instances where
misattributions in their as well as others’ behaviour were noticed.
Session III
In third session, concept of ambiguous situation was discussed in detail with main
emphasis on informing that negative ambiguous situation may be an accidental one. The idea
that ambiguous situations are difficult to understand and inadequate understanding of such
situations can be detrimental for an individual’s adjustment was also focused upon. Discussion
about the role of uncontrolled and unintentional situational factors in negative social ambiguous
situation was also the primary concern of the session.
For the activity of the third session, the participants were instructed as follows:
“From your own lives, think of some negative social situation in which you retaliated
inappropriately and why you did so”. In most of the instances, the participants were not clear
about the situations and thought that other might have done it intentionally. Thus with the help
of this activity, the participants were trained to consider ambiguous situation (in which cues are
inadequate to infer causal intent) as accidental, unintended and uncontrollable.
The activity was followed by a discussion on the concept of ‘Thinking Time’ . The
participants were trained to take appropriate time in analyzing different social situations
especially negative ones.
The importance of understanding the role of one’s own feeling in behaviour was
discussed in the end of the session. This was done by showing vicious cycle depicting
relationship between negative feelings and maladaptive behaviour (Figure D). Participants were
trained to differentiate between feeling and thinking about the social situation.
113
As a home assignment, the participants were given negative outcome scenarios and they had to
complete unfinished sentences to:
• identify their own feelings
• determine, on the basis of description, what they actually know about the actor’s
intent.
Session IV
Fourth session was basically related to responses after attribution and what should be
kept in mind while reacting to negative ambiguous social situation. The session started with the
discussion on three kinds of intent introduced in second session. The effects of each type of
intent on one’s subsequent reactions in social situation were discussed with the help of
examples from day to day life.
The activity in this session aimed at training the participants as to how to decide upon
an appropriate response in ambiguous situations. For the purpose following instructions were
given to them:
• Think about whether you have enough information to classify the situation and
try to collect the same including non-verbal cues and the situational context.
• In an ambiguous situation, choose a verbal response that seems to fit & describe
the situation, ask yourself quickly a question regarding what should be done in
that situation.
• Remember to use a calm tone of voice.
• Try several responses for a single situation.
• Don’t start your conversation with “Did you” but with “why, what, how etc. to
understand others’ understanding of the same situation.
• Don’t jump to conclusion at once
• Try to be relaxed while responding to any kind of situation.
• Always be objective in all situations to respond appropriately.
114
• Remember that your aroused state of mind would lead you to irrational and
inappropriate understanding of the situation. Thus make a clear distinction
between your feeling and knowledge about the situation.
For the home assignment, the participants were instructed as follows:
“Record three instances of peer interaction when things did not turn out the way you
wanted. Describe what the peer & you did”.
Session V
In fifth session, other factors that predispose individual to misattribute intentions and
behave aggressively were discussed. Hypothetical scenarios were used to practice all the steps
that were taught to them in previous sessions i.e. from negative encounter to appropriate
response in which getting information about situation, attributing intent & finally choosing
appropriate responses were included. A detailed discussion on the following factors affecting
responses in social situations was carried out
• Frustration
• Anger
• Irritability
• Impulsivity
• Emotional susceptibility
• Narcissism.
• Modelling
As a part of activity the participants were to discuss the issues of deciding upon an
appropriate course of action when responding to ambiguous situation. For this purpose, the
researcher read a story depicting a negative social situation and asked for alternative courses of
action in that situation. Participants were to provide three alternatives with pros and cons of
each and choose the best alternative. The reasons of choosing that particular alternative were
also discussed.
115
Participants were instructed to keep following things in mind while responding in a
social situation:
• Situational context
• Knowledge about the person
• Feelings at that time
• Non-verbal cues
• Tone of voice
For the home assignment, the participants were instructed as follows:
“Write one situation which really happens between you and a peer in the coming days
when something happens that you don’t like much. Try the skills discussed here. How did it
work? What else did you do? How did the situation finally end up? What were your feelings?”
Session VI
The last session started with discussion about home assignment wherein feedback
regarding application of skills learned, problems faced while practically applying and
effectiveness of skills were sought. This was followed by review of all the skills discussed in
the whole program. Session was concluded with the administration of all dependent measures.
In the end all participants were thanked and some refreshment was also arranged for them.
The standard procedure mentioned above was followed for each group in all schools.
Besides home assignments, participants were asked to perform certain relaxation exercises for
which they were trained briefly during each session. After fifteen days of last session, one
session of general interaction was scheduled with the participants. The purpose of this session
was to get feedback from them. The feedback provided by the participants was very
satisfactory.
116
4.4 Results
Findings of Part II of the present study are presented in Table 2.1 to 2.21 and graphical
representation of the same is depicted in Figure 2.1 to 2.7. In Part II of the study, Social
Cognitive Intervention (SCI) was conducted to reduce hostile attribution of intent, aggression
and other aggression tendencies namely, irritability, emotional susceptibility, impulsivity and
narcissism among adolescents. Results show that SCI was effective in reducing hostile
attribution of intent, aggression, irritability, emotional susceptibility, impulsivity and
narcissism among aggressive adolescents.
After fifteen days of the intervention, all the participants were asked some questions in
the form of Post-Experimental Questionnaire (PEQ) to assess their perception of change
directly at cognitive and behavioural levels. Participants had to rate the extent of change they
experienced in themselves on some aspects depicted in seven questions on a 5 point rating scale
ranging from “Not at all” to “Very Much”. “Not al all” response was given a score of one and
“Very Much” was given a score of five. Thus, higher score on PEQ represented more
perception of change. After scoring, control and experimental group were compared on PEQ to
assess the effect of intervention on their perception of change. Results of PEQ are mentioned in
Table 2.3 to Table 2.5. Table 2.3 is showing means and SDs for Question no. 1 (Q1) to
Question no. 7 (Q7) & total scores of PEQ obtained by individuals in control & experimental
groups. Summaries of ANOVA and MANOVA for the effect of Intervention (Experimental &
Control Group) on seven questions of Post-Experimental Questionnaire are presented in Table
2.4 and Table 2.5 respectively.
When asked “to what extent you believe that now you think about other possible
reasons for negative encounters than blaming other person directly”(Q1), participants in the
117
control group showed less extent of change they experienced (M=1.84, SD= 1.00) as compared
to participants in experimental group (M=3.20, SD= 1.28). Both groups differed significantly
on Q1 {F (1,124) = 44.18, p<.001}. After intervention, individuals in experimental group
believed that they considered other possible reasons for negative encounters than blaming other
person directly. While responding to second question(Q2) i.e. “To what extent you believe that
now you have more realistic viewpoint of your self than before” participants in experimental
group showed significantly greater change (M=3.25, SD= 1.19) as compared to those in control
group (M=1.90, SD= 1.07). Difference between both group was found to be highly significant
on this question {F (1,124) = 44.61, p<.001}. On third question (Q3), (To what extent you
believe that now you take more time before reacting in most social encounters than before)
individuals in control group scored significantly less (M=1.85, SD= 0.94) than those in
experimental group (M=3.46, SD= 1.26). Highly significant difference was found for this
question between control and experimental group {F (1,124) = 64.61, p<.001}. “To what extent
you believe that you have more tolerance than before” was the fourth question (Q4) and
intervention was effective to make the participants in experimental group score higher
(M=3.09, SD=1.11) as compared to those in control group (M=1.71, SD=0.81). Significant
difference was observed between both groups {F (1,124) = 62.97, p<.001}. In response to
question number five (Q5) which asked “To what extent you believe that trivial issues bother
you less than before”, control group participants showed less extent of change (M=1.77, SD=
0.94) as compared to experimental group participants (M=3.14, SD= 1.26) and difference
between the two was found to be statistically significant {F (1,124) = 47.07, p<.001}.
Experimental group participants showed more scores (M=3.25, SD= 1.21) on question number
six (Q6) which asked “To what extent you believe that you are more relaxed than before” as
118
compared to control group participants (M=1.68, SD= 0.91). Significant difference was
observed between both the groups {F (1,124) = 67.17, p<.001}. On the last question, in which
both the groups were asked directly “To what extent you believe that now you behave less
aggressively than before” individuals in experimental group showed greater extent of change as
they scored more (M=3.04, SD= 1.26) than individuals in control group (M=1.68, SD= 0.87).
Intervention might have made individuals in experimental group behave less aggressively as
the difference between both groups on last question was found to be statistically significant {F
(1,124) = 49.68, p<.001}. MANOVA results also support the findings obtained by univariate
analysis. Significant difference between experimental and control groups was observed {F
(MANOVA; 7,118) = 16.358 (exact statistic), p<.01; Table 2.5} for all the questions of PEQ.
Comparison between control group and experimental group on total scores of PEQ
reveals that experimental group participants showed more extent of change (M=22.46, SD=
5.95) as compared to control group participants (M=12.46, SD= 4.23). This difference was
statistically significant {F (1,124) = 117.96, p<.001}
Table 2.6 shows comparison between control & experimental group on hostile
attribution of intent, aggression, irritability, impulsivity, emotional susceptibility and
narcissism. As evident, individuals in control group scored higher on all the aggressive
tendencies i.e. hostile attribution of intent, aggression, irritability, impulsivity, emotional
susceptibility and narcissism, as compared to those in experimental group. The difference
between control group and experimental group on all the variables has been found to be
statistically significant {F (MANOVA; 6,119) = 28.511(exact statistic), p<.01}. The obtained
values of all the tests, F-statistics and MANOVA summary are presented in Table 2.8. Values
for Pillai’s trace test, Wilks’ Lambda, Hotelling’s Trace and Roy’s Largest Root test are found
119
to be 0.545, 0.455, 1.199 and 1.199 respectively. All these values are found to be statistically
significant, proving the efficiency of social Cognitive intervention. After significant multiple
analysis of variance (MANOVA), a series of univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
applied to assess the effectiveness of SCI on each dependent measure separately. Findings of
the same are presented in Table 2.6 and summary of the one way ANOVAs is given in Table
2.7.
As shown in Table 2.6, individuals in experimental group showed less hostile
attribution of intent (M=50.84, SD=11.98) as compared to those who did not receive any such
treatment i.e. individuals in control group (M=61.5, SD=9.08). Significant difference was
observed between the two groups {F (1,124) = 31.707, p<.01}.
The scores of aggression are also presented in Table 2.6. Individuals in experimental
group showed less aggression (M=88.55, SD=12.22) as compared to individuals in control
group (M=101.73, SD=15.24). Significant difference was observed between both the groups {F
(1,124) = 28.63, p<.01}.
More irritability (M=96.67, SD=13.34) was observed among individuals in control
group as compared to individuals in experimental group (M=64.73, SD=16.94). For irritability,
both the groups differed significantly {F (1,124) = 138.078, p<.01}. The same trend was
observed for impulsivity scores. Control group participants scored higher (M=75.14,
SD=10.22) on impulsivity as compared to experimental group participants (M=62.25,
SD=12.47). The effect of intervention was found to be significant for impulsivity as the
difference between experimental and control group came out to be statistically significant {F
(1,124) = 40.239, p<.01}. For emotional susceptibility also, individuals in experimental group
scored less (M=86.78, SD=23.9) after receiving intervention, whereas individuals in control
120
group scored higher on the same (M=120.95, SD=14.84) and significant difference was
observed between the two groups on emotional susceptibility {F (1,124) = 92.932, p<.01}. On
narcissistic features, individuals in experimental group scored lower (M=16.55, SD=5.26) than
those in control group (M=20.60, SD=4.61) and the difference between these two group
reached the significance level {F (1,124) = 7.680, p<.01}.
Thus it can be stated that all the proposed hypotheses proved to be true in the present
study. Social cognitive intervention was found to be effective in reducing all the aggressive
tendencies measured in the form of six dependent variables i.e. hostile attribution of intent,
aggression, irritability, impulsivity, emotional susceptibility and narcissism.
As the individuals who participated in Intervention program, were screened in with the
help of Aggression Questionnaire and Hostile Attribution of Intent questionnaire, their pre-
intervention scores on these two variables were available which were then compared with post
intervention scores. This analysis was done in order to enhance the efficacy of intervention.
Finding of this Pre-Post comparison is presented in Table 2.9. It can be observed that in control
group no significant difference was observed between pre and post scores on aggression and
hostile attribution of intent. However, Post intervention scores in experimental group showed
marked decline for aggression scores (M=88.56) as compared to pre intervention scores
(M=106.41) and this difference was found to be highly significant {t (62) = 8.78, p<.01}.
Similar findings were observed for sub-dimensions of Aggression namely, anger, physical
aggression, hostility and verbal aggression. Same trend was observed for hostile attribution of
intent. When pre intervention scores were compared with post intervention scores, the
difference was found to be statistically {t (62) = 5.56, p<.01}. Before intervention, Individuals
were higher on hostile attribution of intent (M=61.06) than post intervention (M=50.84). It can
121
be stated that intervention significantly reduced participants’ tendency to attribute hostile intent
in negative social encounter.
Scores on all dependent variables obtained by control group and experimental group
were also analyzed for males and females separately to examine the significance of intervention
for both the genders.
The results are shown in Table 2.10 to Table 2.15. Males in experimental group differed
significantly from males in control group on all the dependent variables {F (MANOVA; 6, 63)
= 16.617(exact statistic), p<.01}. Females in experimental group also differ significantly from
females in control group on all the dependent variable except narcissism. However MANOVA
results came out be significant for females {F (MANOVA; 6, 49) = 13.368 (exact statistic),
p<.01}.
Data from Tables 2.10 and 2.13 were combined in Tables 2.16 to 2.21 that are
presenting mean scores of all dependent variables bifurcated for each gender in both control
and experimental group. The graphical representation of the same has been given in Figures 2.2
to 2.7.
As shown in Table 2.16, Aggression scores have been much higher in control group for
both males and females {M (males) =105.18; M (females) =96.48} as compared to those in
experimental group {M (males) =91.71; M (females) =85.29}. Significant difference has been
observed on aggression in control group and experimental group for both males {F (1, 68) =
17.76, p<.01, Table 2.10} and females {F (1, 54) = 9.52, p<.01, Table 2.13}. As shown,
aggressive behaviours were reduced among aggressive males and females adolescents after
intervention.
122
It can be observed from Table 2.17 that both males and females scored higher on hostile
attribution of intent {M (males) =62.36 & M (females) =60.20} in control group as compared
to those in experimental group {M (males) =51.06; M (females) =50.61}. The social cognitive
intervention given to experimental group has been found effective in reducing hostile
attribution of intent among both males and females but it showed greater change among males
{F (1, 68) = 24.74, p<.01, Table 2.10} as compared to females {F (1, 54) = 8.76, p<.01; Table
2.13}, however the difference between control and experimental group was large enough
among both males and females to reach to the significance level.
For irritability also, both males and females in control group scored higher {M (males)
=97.63; M (females) =95.2} than those in experimental group {M (males) =64.87; M (females)
=64.58} (Table 2.18). Significant difference has been found between control group and
experimental group for both males {F (1, 68) = 74.64, p<.01, Table 2.10} and females {F (1,
54) = 59.48, p<.01, Table 2.13}. It shows that intervention given to experimental group was
effective to reduce this aggressive tendency i.e. irritability, in both males and female aggressive
adolescents. Same trend has been observed for other four variables for both males and females.
Table 2.19 shows that impulsivity scores are much higher in control group for both
males and females {M (males) =76.55; M (females) =73.00} as compared to those in
experimental group {M (males) =63.28; M (females) =61.19}. Significant difference has been
observed on impulsivity between control group and experimental group for both males {F (1,
68) = 19.11, p<.01, Table 2.10} and females {F (1, 54) = 20.91, p<.01, Table 2.13}. After
intervention, impulsivity scores were reduced among both aggressive males and females
adolescents.
123
It can be observed from Table 2.20 that individuals in experimental group, both males
and females showed less emotional susceptibility {M (males) =83.63; M (females) =90.03} as
compared to those in control group {M (males) =118.31; M (females) =124.96}. The effect of
intervention on emotional susceptibility has also been found to be statistically significant for
both males {F (1, 68) = 46.39, p<.01, Table 2.10} and females {F (1, 54) = 53.21, p<.01; Table
2.13}.
The intervention proved to be effective for males as there was significant difference {F
(1, 68) = 13.41, p<.01, Table 2.10} between narcissism levels of males in experimental group
(M=16.93) and control group (M=21.44) (Table 2.21). Same trend has been there for females
also as they scored less in experimental group (M=16.16) as compared to those in control group
(M=19.32), however the difference between both groups did not reach the significance level {F
(1, 54) = 3.062, p=.082}.
It can be concluded here that social cognitive intervention proved to be effective in
reducing aggressive tendencies among both aggressive males and aggressive females.
Aggressive adolescents, both males and females who were given social cognitive intervention
showed significant reduction in aggressive tendencies measured by six dependent variables i.e.
hostile attribution of intent, aggression, irritability, impulsivity, emotional susceptibility, and
narcissism (only males).
124
Table 2.3 Post Experimental Questionnaire (PEQ)
Questions of Post Experimental Questionnaire
Control Group
Experimental Group F
(ANOVA) F
(MANOVA) N Means SD N Means SD
To what extent you believe that now you think about other possible reasons for negative encounters than blaming other person directly? (Q1)
63 1.84 1.00 63 3.20 1.28 44.18*
16.358*
To what extent you believe that now you have more realistic viewpoint of your self than before. (Q2)
63 1.90 1.07 63 3.25 1.19 44.61*
To what extent you believe that now you take more time before reacting in most social encounters than before. (Q3)
63 1.85 0.94 63 3.46 1.26 64.61*
To what extent you believe that you have more tolerance than before. (Q4)
63 1.71 0.81 63 3.09 1.11 62.97*
To what extent you believe that trivial issues bother you less than before. (Q5)
63 1.77 0.94 63 3.14 1.26 47.07*
To what extent you believe that you are more relaxed than before. (Q6)
63 1.68 0.91 63 3.25 1.21 67.17*
To what extent you believe that now you behave less aggressively than before. (Q7)
63 1.68 0.87 63 3.04 1.26 49.68*
TOTAL 63 12.46 4.23 63 22.46 5.95 117.96*
*p<.01
125
PEQ SCORES OF CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7
Q1 Q2Q3
Q4 Q5 Q6Q7
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7PEQ QUESTIONS
PE
Q S
CO
RE
S
MEAN CON
MEAN EXP
Figure 2.1
Control & Experimental group comparison for mean scores on Post Experimental Questionnaire (PEQ)
Table 2.4
ANOVA Summary for the effect of Intervention (Experimental & Control Group) on scores of Post-Experimental Questionnaire
Variables SS
Effect
df
Effect
MS
Effect
SS
Error
df
Error
MS
Error F-ratios
Q1 58.70 1.00 58.70 164.73 124.00 1.33 44.19*
Q2 57.34 1.00 57.34 159.37 124.00 1.29 44.62*
Q3 80.96 1.00 80.96 155.37 124.00 1.25 64.62*
Q4 60.07 1.00 60.07 118.29 124.00 0.95 62.97*
Q5 58.70 1.00 58.70 154.60 124.00 1.25 47.08*
Q6 77.79 1.00 77.79 143.59 124.00 1.16 67.17*
Q7 58.70 1.00 58.70 146.51 124.00 1.18 49.68*
Total PEQ 3150.00 1.00 3150.00 3311.30 124.00 26.70 117.960*
*p<.01 SS-Sum of Square
Df-Degree of Freedom MS-Mean Square
126
Table 2.5
MANOVA Summary for the effect of Intervention (Experimental & Control Group) on scores of Post-Experimental Questionnaire
Effect Test Value F Hypothesis df Error df
Intervention
Pillai's Trace .492 16.358a 7 118
Wilks' Lambda .508 16.358a 7 118
Hotelling's Trace .970 16.358a 7 118
Roy's Largest Root .970 16.358a 7 118
a- exact statistics & p<.01
Table 2.6
Control & Experimental group comparison on Hostile Attribution of Intent, Aggression, Irritability, Impulsivity, Emotional Susceptibility and Narcissism
Variables Control Group Experimental Group F
(ANOVA) F
(MANOVA) Means SD N Means SD N Hostile Attribution of Intent
61.5 9.08 63 50.84 11.98 63 31.707*
28.511*
Aggression 101.73 15.24 63 88.555 12.22 63 28.638*
Irritability 96.67 13.34 63 64.73 16.94 63 138.078*
Impulsivity 75.14 10.22 63 62.25 12.47 63 40.239* Emotional Susceptibility
120.95 14.84 63 86.78 23.9 63 92.932*
Narcissism 20.6 4.61 63 16.55 5.26 63 7.680* *p<.01
127
Table 2.7
ANOVA Summary for the effect of Intervention (Experimental & Control Group) on Hostile Attribution of Intent, Aggression, Irritability, Impulsivity, Emotional Susceptibility and Narcissism
Variables Source of variance Sum of Squares df Mean Square F
Hostile Attribution of
Intent
Between Groups 3584.00 1 3584.00
31.707* Within Groups 14016.16 124 113.03
Total 17600.16 125
Aggression
Between Groups 5467.46 1 5467.46
28.638* Within Groups 23673.97 124 190.92
Total 29141.43 125
Irritability
Between Groups 32128.13 1 32128.13
138.078* Within Groups 28852.4 124 232.68
Total 60980.54 125
Impulsivity
Between Groups 5232.89 1 5232.89
40.239* Within Groups 16125.65 124 130.05
Total 21358.54 125
Emotional Susceptibility
Between Groups 36482.03 1 36482.03
92.302* Within Groups 49010.60 124 395.25
Total 85492.64 125
Narcissism
Between Groups 1176.39 1 1176.39
7.680* Within Groups 18993.56 124 153.17
Total 20169.94 125 *p<.01
Table 2.8
MANOVA Summary for the effect of Intervention (Experimental & Control Group) on Hostile Attribution of Intent, Aggression, Irritability, Impulsivity, Emotional Susceptibility and Narcissism
Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df
Intervention
Pillai's Trace .590 28.511a 6 119
Wilks' Lambda .410 28.511a 6 119
Hotelling's Trace 1.438 28.511a 6 119
Roy's Largest Root 1.438 28.511a 6 119 a. Exact statistic & p<0.01
128
Table 2.9
Pre and Post intervention mean scores on aggression and hostile attribution of intent for control and experimental group
Groups Variables Means scores t-ratio
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
Control Group
Anger 23.25 22.76 0.58(ns)
Physical aggression 31.08 31.95 0.79(ns)
Hostility 30.73 29.62 1.10(ns)
Verbal aggression 18.22 17.40 1.44(ns)
Total Aggression 103.29 101.73 0.63(ns) Hostile Attribution of
Intent 60.79 61.51 0.37(ns)
Experimental Group
Anger 25.00 20.06 5.97**
Physical aggression 31.46 25.33 5.64**
Hostility 30.76 28.37 2.31*
Verbal aggression 19.19 14.79 6.79**
Total Aggression 106.41 88.56 8.78** Hostile Attribution of
Intent 61.06 50.84 5.56**
* p<0.05 **p<0.01
ns- Non-significant Table 2.10
Control & Experimental group comparison on Hostile Attribution of Intent, Aggression, Irritability, Impulsivity, Emotional Susceptibility and Narcissism for males
Variables Control Group
Experimental Group F
(ANOVA) F
(MANOVA) N Means (SD) N Means (SD)
Hostile Attribution of Intent
38 62.36 9.59 32 51.06 9.32 24.74*
16.617*
Aggression 38 105.18 14.53 32 91.71 11.69 17.76*
Irritability 38 97.63 14.23 32 64.87 17.49 74.64*
Impulsivity 38 76.55 11.02 32 63.28 14.35 19.11* Emotional
Susceptibility 38 118.31 14.26 32 83.63 27.3 45.36*
Narcissism 38 21.44 4.37 32 16.93 5.91 13.41* *p<.01
129
Table 2.11
ANOVA Summary for the effect of Intervention (Experimental & Control Group) on Hostile Attribution of Intent, Aggression, Irritability, Impulsivity, Emotional Susceptibility and Narcissism for males
Variables Source of variance
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F
Hostile Attribution of
Intent
Between Groups 2220.48 1 2220.483
24.742* Within Groups 6102.72 68 89.746
Total 8323.20 69
Aggression
Between Groups 3149.76 1 3149.764
17.760* Within Groups 12060.178 68 177.356
Total 15209.94 69
Irritability
Between Groups 18639.43 1 18639.429
74.635* Within Groups 16982.34 68 249.740
Total 35621.77 69
Impulsivity
Between Groups 3059.62 1 3059.622
19.116* Within Groups 10883.86 68 160.057
Total 13943.49 69
Emotional Susceptibility
Between Groups 20307.37 1 20307.375
45.369* Within Groups 30437.21 68 447.606
Total 50744.59 69
Narcissism
Between Groups 353.32 1 353.316
13.413* Within Groups 1791.27 68 26.342
Total 2144.59 69 *p<.01
Table 2.12
MANOVA Summary for the effect of Intervention (Experimental & Control Group) on Hostile Attribution of Intent, Aggression, Irritability, Impulsivity, Emotional Susceptibility and Narcissism for males
Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df
Intervention
Pillai's Trace .613 16.617a 6 63
Wilks' Lambda .387 16.617a 6 63
Hotelling's Trace 1.583 16.617a 6 63
Roy's Largest Root 1.583 16.617a 6 63 a. Exact statistic & p<0.01
130
Table 2.13
Control & Experimental group comparison on Hostile Attribution of Intent, Aggression, Irritability, Impulsivity, Emotional Susceptibility and Narcissism for females
Variables Control Group Experimental Group F
(ANOVA) F
(MANOVA) N Means SD N Means SD Hostile
Attribution of Intent
25 60.20 8.24 31 50.61 14.38 8.76*
13.368*
Aggression 25 96.48 15.06 31 85.29 12.07 9.52*
Irritability 25 95.20 12.00 31 64.58 16.65 59.48*
Impulsivity 25 73.00 8.65 31 61.19 10.30 20.91* Emotional
Susceptibility 25 124.96 15.09 31 90.03 19.71 53.21*
Narcissism 25 19.32 4.77 31 16.16 4.56 3.062(ns) *p<.01
ns- non-significant
131
Table 2.14
ANOVA Summary for the effect of Intervention (Experimental & Control Group) on of Hostile Attribution of Intent, Aggression, Irritability, Impulsivity, Emotional Susceptibility and Narcissism for females
Variables Source of variance
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F
Hostile Attribution of
Intent
Between Groups 1272.00 1 1272.002
8.762* Within Groups 7839.35 54 145.173
Total 9111.36 55
Aggression
Between Groups 1732.80 1 1732.801
9.528* Within Groups 9820.63 54 181.863
Total 11553.43 55
Irritability
Between Groups 12974.95 1 12974.952
59.480* Within Groups 11779.55 54 218.140
Total 24754.50 55
Impulsivity
Between Groups 1929.09 1 1929.090
20.906* Within Groups 4982.84 54 92.275
Total 6911.93 55
Emotional Susceptibility
Between Groups 17272.11 1 17272.112
54.643* Within Groups 17068.73 54 316.088
Total 34340.84 55
Narcissism
Between Groups 966.92 1 966.924
3.062(ns) Within Groups 17050.43 54 315.749
Total 18017.36 55 *p<0.01
ns- non-significant Table 2.15
MANOVA Summary for the effect of Intervention (Experimental & Control Group) on of Hostile Attribution of Intent, Aggression, Irritability, Impulsivity, Emotional Susceptibility and Narcissism for females
Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Intervention Pillai's Trace .621 13.368a 6.000 49.000
Wilks' Lambda .379 13.368a 6.000 49.000
Hotelling's Trace 1.637 13.368a 6.000 49.000
Roy's Largest Root 1.637 13.368a 6.000 49.000 a. Exact statistic & p<0.01
132
Table 2.16
Mean scores of Aggression bifurcated for gender in both control and experimental group
Intervention
Control Group Experimental Group
Gender Males 105.18 91.71
Females 96.48 85.29
Intervention X Gender
105.18
91.7196.48
85.29
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Control Group Experimental Group
Intervention
Ag
gre
ssio
n S
core
s
Males
Females
Figure 2.2 Comparison of mean aggression scores bifurcated for gender in both control and experimental group Table 2.17
Mean scores of Hostile Attribution of Intent bifurcated for gender in both control and experimental group
Intervention
Control Group Experimental Group
Gender Males 62.36 51.06
Females 60.2 50.61
133
Intervention X Gender
62.36
51.06
60.2
50.61
40
45
50
55
60
65
Control Group Experimental GroupIntervention
Ho
stile
Att
rib
uti
on
of
Inte
nt Males
Females
Figure 2.3
Comparison of mean scores on hostile attribution of intent bifurcated for gender in both control and experimental group
Table 2.18
Mean scores of Irritability bifurcated for gender in both control and experimental group
Intervention
Control Group Experimental Group
Gender Males 97.63 64.87
Females 95.2 64.58
134
Intervention X Gender
97.63
64.87
95.2
64.58
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Control Group Experimental Group
Intervention
Irri
tab
ility
Sco
res
Males
Females
Figure 2.4 Comparison of mean irritability scores bifurcated for gender in both control and experimental group Table 2.19
Mean scores of Impulsivity bifurcated for gender in both control and experimental group
Intervention
Control Group Experimental Group
Gender Males 76.55 63.28
Females 73 61.19
Intervention X Gender
76.55
63.28
73
61.19
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Control Group Experimental Group
Intervention
Imp
uls
ivit
y S
core
s
Males
Females
Figure 2.5 Comparison of mean impulsivity scores bifurcated for gender in both control and experimental group
135
Table 2.20
Mean scores of Emotional Susceptibility bifurcated for gender in both control and experimental group
Intervention
Control Group Experimental Group
Gender Males 118.32 83.63
Females 124.96 90.03
Intervention X Gender
118.32
83.63
124.96
90.03
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Control Group Experimental Group
Intervention
Em
oti
on
al S
usc
epti
bili
ty
Sco
res
Males
Females
Figure 2.6
Comparison of mean scores on emotional susceptibility bifurcated for gender in both control and experimental group
Table 2.21
Mean scores of Narcissism bifurcated for gender in both control and experimental group
Intervention
Control Group Experimental Group
Gender Males 21.44 16.93
Females 19.32 16.16
136
Intervention X Gender
21.44
16.93
19.32
16.16
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Control Group Experimental Group
Intervention
Nar
ciss
ism
Sco
res
Males
Females
Figure 2.7
Comparison of mean scores on narcissism bifurcated for gender in both control and experimental group
137
4.5 Discussion
Part II of the present study followed the basic tenants of social information processing
model (Crick and Dodge, 1994) and general aggression model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002)
in providing social cognitive intervention to aggressive adolescents. The central assumption of
these models is that deficits like encoding social cues and interpreting the intention of others
increase the risk for aggressive retaliation. Empirical research has demonstrated that highly-
aggressive individuals are more likely to interpret others’ intent as hostile in negative
ambiguous situation. Therefore, in social cognition intervention, aggressive adolescents were
trained to process social situation accurately and implement learned skills in non-threatening
group setting which further can enhance their confidence in applying new skills in real negative
social encounters. Findings of the study highlighted the success and significance of social
cognitive intervention in dealing with aggression and other aggressive tendencies namely
irritability, impulsivity, emotional susceptibility, and narcissism by reducing hostile attribution
of intent. All the major hypotheses of the study were proved. The differences between
participants in control and experimental group on all the dependent variables has been found to
be statistically significant {f (MANOVA; 6,119) = 28.511(exact statistic), p<.01).
The major hypothesis of the study that social cognitive intervention would reduce
hostile attribution of intent has been proved. As depicted in Table 2.6, aggressive adolescents in
experimental group showed significantly less hostile attribution of intent as compared to those
in control group{F (1,124) = 31.707, p<.01,}. Post-intervention scores on hostile attribution of
intent among aggressive adolescents in experimental group were also found to be significantly
less {F (1,124) = 30.88, p<.01, Table 2.9) than their pre-intervention scores. The findings can
be explained within the framework of social information processing model (Crick & Dodge,
138
1994). The social cognitive intervention used in this study trained the aggressive participants in
processing social information accurately. Such individuals, in negative ambiguous situation,
tend to process social information inaccurately and infer that the situation is caused
intentionally by other individuals present in the situation (Crick & Dodge, 1994). However they
do not have any evidence as there are no clear social cues depicting causal relationship of
malicious intent and negative social situation. The focus of the intervention was thus to train
the aggressive adolescents to process social information in a biased free manner.
Since social information processing deficits like encoding social cues and interpreting
the intention of others increase the risk for aggressive retaliation (Gifford-Smith & Rabiner,
2004; Hanish et al., 2004), it was ensured in the intervention to correct the mistakes aggressive
adolescents make at these stages of social information processing. The participants were trained
to consider all available information present in the situation that can help in its better
understanding. The exercises and activities enabled the participants in experimental group to
overcome the deficits at the stage of encoding social cues which if not taken care of can
increase aggressive tendencies (Dodge, 2003). For instance, efforts were made to incorporate
among aggressive adolescents the concept of ‘thinking time’ that is to be taken before
responding in negative situation. This exercise enabled aggressive adolescents to reappraise
entire situation which may help them find some non-hostile, unintentional and uncontrolled
factors that may further prevent their aggressive response. Participants were also helped to
understand how by perceiving and encoding all possible causes of a negative situation can
affect an individuals’ evaluation of that situation can be affected and how by focusing on
partial or irrelevant information, the evaluation of that situation can be faulty. The participants
were further sensitized that the faulty evaluation of a negative social situation can lead to
139
maladaptive behavioural patterns or inappropriate expression of behaviour which can even be
detrimental for social relationships.
Another explanation for the present findings is that the interpretational style of the
participants that has been significantly accounted for aggressive behaviour was corrected.
Interpretation of social information is an important predictor of one’s’ reaction in social
situation because misinterpretation or hostile interpretation of social situation increases the
probability that the individual would behave aggressively (Lengua, 2003). Therefore the
participants in the experimental group were trained to apply appropriate social skills which
helped them to modify hostile interpretation style. The hostile attribution of intent of the
participants reduced after intervention as they were informed about the general mistakes people
make in negative social encounter i.e. wrongly interpreting or attributing hostile intent to
other’s behaviour, even with no clear evidence of the same. The concept of intent was also
reviewed with special emphasis on distinguishing between accidental, pro-social & hostile
intent. Besides, discussion about characteristics of ambiguous situation, and the reactions to
ambiguous situation might have changed their approach to interpret the situation, resulting in
less hostile attribution of intent.
The findings can also be explained on the basis of assertions made by Bierman (2004)
and Leve et al., (2002). Social cognitive intervention might have enhanced the participants’
ability to navigate social situations. The exercises focused on helping the participants to
reappraise entire situation which they thought hostile and to choose appropriate responses
accordingly. Thus, intervention in the present study helped the subjects to master the cognitive
skills and enhanced their ability to differentiate hostile intent from benign intent.
140
Support for the present findings come from other researches (Guerra and Slaby, 1990:
CPPRG, 2002a; 2002b, Sukhodolsky, Golub, Stone, and Orban, 2005, Bugental et al., 2002)
that have reported positive effects of social cognitive interventions in reducing hostile
attributional biases among aggressive individuals.
To sum up, the difference between experimental and control group on hostile attribution
of intent can be attributed to specific intervention in which aggressive adolescents were trained
in processing social information correctly. The intervention mainly focused on modifying
cognitions and information processing style of aggressive adolescents in social situation
specifically in negative ambiguous one and with this modification their hostile attribution of
intent was reduced. Therefore, for adolescents at risk, social cognitive intervention may hold a
promise to change information processing patterns and aggressive tendencies.
The next major hypothesis of the present study was that individuals in intervention
group would exhibit less aggression as compared to individuals in control group (Table 2.6).
Findings support this hypothesis as experimental group showed significantly less aggression as
compared to control group{F (1,124) = 28.63, p<.01}. Besides, while comparing pre-post
intervention scores, significant reduction in aggression level was also observed in post
intervention scores of participants in experimental group{F (1,124) = 77.03, p<.01, Table 2.9}.
These findings can be explained with the assertions made by attribution and appraisal
theories (e.g., Weiner, 1985, 1986; Lazarus, 1991), Social information processing model (Crick
& Dodge, 1994), and the General aggression model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). The present
finding i.e. remarkable reduction in aggression as an outcome of modified tendency to attribute
other’s intent as benign or accidental is in line with attributions theories (e.g. Weiner’s 1985,
1986) which state that attribution precedes emotions and emotions further guide our behaviour.
141
By modifying faulty attributional style, social cognitive intervention might have reduced
aggression among adolescents. The content of the intervention was aimed at making
attributional patterns of the aggressive participants more functional as aggressive individuals
have a dysfunctional attributional style (Dodge, 1980, 1986; Weiner, 1986). Attributions which
aggressive individuals make for different events in their lives may serve to justify and
perpetuate their aggression (Bell-Dolan & Anderson, 1999), and thus need to be rectified.
Therefore, by making use of structured activities, the participants in the experimental group
were trained not to over-interpret hostility and to attribute non-hostile intent in negative
ambiguous social situation. Because their attributional biases were rectified, the participants in
the experimental group thus showed less aggression after intervention. Other support for the
findings comes from appraisal theories (e.g. Lazarus, 1991). The training provided in the
intervention might have enabled them to look for all available reasons that might have caused
the negative situation. Appropriate appraisal of the situation might be the reason for reduced
aggression among aggressive adolescents.
The finding can also be explained on the basis of social information processing models
(Dodge, 1986; Crick & Dodge, 1994) which state that inappropriate processing at the
interpretation step may lead to maladaptive behaviour like aggression (Gifford-Smith &
Rabiner, 2004). Because hostile intent of attribution predispose an individual to behave
aggressively (e.g., Beck, 1999; Beck & Fernandez, 1998; Deffenbacher, Dahlen, Lynch,
Morris, & Gowensmith, 2000), it was all the more important to train participants with
appropriate activities to interpret social information in objective and accurate manner. This
could be the reason that aggression level of the participants in experimental group reduced after
social cognitive intervention.
142
Another important explanation of the findings come from the general aggression model
(GAM; Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Anderson & Carnagey, 2004) in which the relationship
between social cognitions and aggression has been highlighted. The intervention in the present
study focused on altering social cognition of the participants in the experimental group. An
attempt was made to modify Hostile thoughts and aggressive scripts of the aggressive
participants with the help of different exercises. This had a significant effect on participants’
aggression level. Since cognitions, affect and behaviour are related (Anderson & Bushman,
2002), modifying faulty cognitions probably led to a change in subsequent inappropriate affect,
arousal and the participants’ level of aggression.
Aggression in the present intervention was targeted with a social cognitive intervention
as the social-psychological (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Berkowitz, 1990) and
developmental (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1994) frameworks for understanding aggression have
primarily adopted a cognitive perspective and it is maintained that if the social cognitive
mechanism can be modified, aggression level can also be reduced (Dodge & Frame, 1982;
Orobio de Castro, Veerman, Koops, Bosch, & Monshouwer, 2002).
Support for the present findings is provided by previous researches carried out with
similar objectives. For example, Guerra and Slaby (1990) designed a treatment program to
correct a variety of cognitive biases linked to aggression, including the hostile attribution bias
that successfully reduced aggression. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
(Thornton, Craft, Dahlberg, Lynch, & Baer, 2000) identified social-cognitive interventions as
best-practice strategies for reducing and preventing aggressive behaviour in youth.
Another purpose of the present research work was to see whether social cognitive
intervention is equally effective for both males and females. It was hypothesized that both
143
males and females would benefit equally from the intervention because females who have
social information processing biases are at a comparable risk for the same overt aggressive
outcome as their male counterparts (Dodge et al., 2003). The findings reveal (Table 2.10 &
2.13) that both males and females in experimental group showed significantly reduced hostile
attribution of intent, aggression and other aggressive tendencies namely, irritability,
impulsivity, emotional susceptibility and narcissism(only males). Same findings are graphically
presented in Figure 2.2 to 2.7. The finding is in line with previous researches (Fraser et al.,
2005; Lansford et al., 2006; Zelli et al., 1999) which have found that faulty social cognitive
patterns are amenable to change among both males and females. Thus, results are supporting
the applicability of social cognitive intervention to both males and females.
Social cognitive intervention has also been proved to reduce other aggressive tendencies
namely, irritability, impulsivity, emotional susceptibility and narcissism.
Since irritability as a key in the manifestation of aggression, it needs intervention
(Caprara et al., 2007), and hence was targeted for change in the present study. As for other
affective and behavioural responses, irritability may also be the outcome of irrational cognitive
processes. Due to potential link between faulty cognitions and irritability, it was hypothesized
that when faulty cognitions would be modified in social cognitive intervention, the irritability
of aggressive individuals would also be reduced. Findings support this hypothesis as
individuals in experimental group showed significantly less irritability {F (1,124) = 138.078,
p<.01} as compared to those in control group (Table 2.6). Aggressive individuals due to their
irrational cognitions misinterpret social situation as provocative and threatening even in the
absence of any clear cues. This misperception and misinterpretation was when corrected in the
intervention provided might have led aggressive participants in experimental group to start
144
evaluating negative social situation accurately rather than misinterpreting it as provocative.
This transition might be the reason for reduced irritability among aggressive individuals.
This finding can also be explained within the framework of cognitive neo-
associationistic model (Berkowitz, 1993). The intervention focused on rectifying maladaptive
cognitions which are further linked to the affective states of the individuals including irritability
which leads to aggression. This modification at cognitive level might have changed
participants’ affective response resulting in less irritability. As the experience of negative affect
(i.e., irritability) further activates aggression-related memories, emotions, physiological
responses, and motor patterns, thus, it predisposes an individual toward an aggressive response
to perceived provocation (Berkowitz, 1993). In the present social cognitive intervention,
training was provided to aggressive participants to control the initial experience of negative
affect by perceiving ambiguous social situation accurately and non-provocative, which further
prevented activation of other negative associations that leads to aggressive behaviours. With
such training irritability level of aggressive participants reduced. By reducing irritability, the
tendency of aggressive adolescents to retaliate aggressively can also be expected to diminish as
irritability and aggression have been found to be significantly related to each other (Bettencourt
et al., 2006; Caprara et al., 2007).
The intervention had a significant effect on the impulsivity of aggressive participants in
the experimental group. The difference between the impulsivity of the participants in
experimental and control group was statistically significant {F (1,124) = 40.239, p<.01, Table
2.6}. Impulsivity has been described as the tendency to act without thinking or to respond
quickly to a given stimulus, without deliberation or evaluation of consequences (White et al.,
1994). Since impulsive individuals are characterized as thinking less of future consequences
145
before responding to the situation, they end up acting aggressively. Therefore, impulsivity has
been considered a target in this intervention.
Social information processing patterns (Crick & dodge, 1994) also provide explanations
for the findings on impulsivity. Aggressive individuals are less likely to integrate peripheral
social information and do not consider long-term future consequences of their actions in a
particular social situation. Thus when faced with a potentially conflictual situation in real life,
individuals who are impulsive are not likely to consider the unique elements of the social
situation at hand and deliberate on the future consequences of their aggressive retaliation. The
tendency of aggressive individuals to act without considering the unique elements of a social
situation could be due to their default, biased or non-objective way of processing and
responding. Furthermore, once the impulsive adolescent has enacted a response, he may not
possess the effortful control skills necessary to reevaluate or change a response once it has been
enacted (Newman and Wallace, 1993). The present intervention equipped the participants in the
experimental group with appropriate skills to evaluate responses and their consequences and
not to have predetermined mental set while responding in negative encounter and have non-
impulsive and fresh appraisal of the situation. Such kinds of strategies have been proved to
lower down the impulsiveness of aggressive individual in experimental group supporting
assumed hypothesis that individuals in experimental group would score less on impulsivity as
compared to individuals in control group.
The finding can also be explained within the framework of research by Dodge and
Newman (1981) that has high highlighted the role of speed of decision-making in the
association between hostile attribution and aggression. They maintained that aggressive boys
who respond quickly attribute hostile behaviours to others in unwarranted circumstances and
146
aggressive boys who do not respond quickly make decisions that are not biased or different
from those of non-aggressive boys. The irrational quickness and deficit in paying attention to
future consequences was corrected in present intervention at the response evaluation step of
social information processing model, in which participants were trained to consider both
immediate and long-term future consequences of an action while responding in a social
situation specifically in the negative one. Such kind of the training may be the reason for
reduced impulsivity among aggressive adolescents in experimental group. Reduction in
impulsivity may further help aggressive adolescents in controlling their aggressive behaviour.
Emotional susceptibility was also taken as one the dependant measures as it has been
found to be significantly associated with aggression. Emotional susceptibility is the inclination
to experience negative affect and a tendency to become upset and defensive when confronted
with personal attacks and insults, to experience states of sadness, anxiety, frustration, and
anger. If it can somehow be reduced, subsequent reduction in aggressive behaviour may also be
expected (Shoal & Giancola 2003). As irritability, this tendency to experience negative affect
and easily become upset may be related to ones’ maladaptive social information processing as
this internal state is the interaction between cognitions, affect, and arousal (Anderson and
Bushman, 2002). With this assertion, it was hypothesized that individuals in social cognitive
intervention group would score less on emotionally susceptibility as compared to individuals in
control group and the hypothesis was proved{F (1,124) = 92.932, p<.01, Table 2.6}.
Important explanation for reduced emotional susceptibility comes from research by
Graham et al., (1992) in which they maintained that cognitions influence ones’ tendency and
intensity to feel negative emotions, particularly anger which mediates the link between
interpretational biases and aggression. In present research work, participants were informed
147
about their own limitation in negative social situation which may lead to negative behavioural
outcome including aggression. They were trained that it is ones’ sensitivity to provocation and
not always the real provocation that makes some issues either too big or trivial. Sometimes the
negative encounter is not very significant in ones’ life but he/she tend to perceive it otherwise
resulting in negative affective responses, which once activated determine related subsequent
interactions (Berkowitz, 1993; Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Thus, besides altering faulty cognition
of the participants in experimental group, they were made to understand the role of negative
affects or anger in developing and maintaining aggressive behaviour as discussed in Figure D.
such exercises and discussions might have led to reduced emotional susceptibility.
The finding can also be explained with Huesmann’s (1997) argument that negative
affect results from the cognitive evaluation that an external stimulus is provocative and that
emotional susceptibility, marked by the propensity to experience negative affect or to perceive
situations as provoking is associated with higher levels of aggressive behaviour. However, in
the present study, when aggressive individuals’ tendency to evaluate negative social situation
inaccurately was modified, their level of emotional susceptibility reduced that might have
further led to less inclination to behave aggressively(Shoal & Giancola 2003). Thus, social
cognitive intervention has the potential to alter ones pattern of evaluating stimuli present in
negative social situations (Huesmann, 1997).
The last dependent measure assessed in the present study was narcissism. It was
hypothesized that participants in experimental group would show less narcissistic features as
compared to individuals in control group. As depicted in Table 2.6, aggressive individuals in
experimental group demonstrated significant less narcissistic features as compared to their
counterparts in control group{F (1,124) = 7.680, p<.01}. The intervention used in the present
148
study helped the participants to have an accurate evaluation of the self, thus altering their
biases in self perceptions. For instance, in one session, with the help of related activities,
adolescents were trained to be objective in evaluating the situation as well as their self and
informed that if they were biased about their self, had irrational beliefs about certain situations
and the self, their behaviour was bound to be biased and maladaptive. Such kind of training
might have resulted in less narcissistic features among aggressive individuals after the
intervention.
The findings can be explained on the basis of various researches (Mohan et al., 2009;
Garrison, Earls, and Kindlon, 1983; Patterson et al., 1990; David & Kistner, 2000; Baumeister
et al., 1996). Individuals classified as positively biased in their self-perceptions of acceptance
and competences are rated by clinicians and teachers as exhibiting more behaviour problems
(e.g., aggression) than individuals with accurate or negatively biased self-view. If their
inaccurate evaluation of the self are left unattended, individuals’ tendency to have more
narcissistic features and aggressive behaviour increases. Thus, the intervention in the present
study aimed at making these self perceptions more accurate. When the aggressive individuals’
inflated but unstable self-esteem was modified by changing their self evaluation style in social
cognition intervention, it resulted in decreased narcissistic features. As individual’s
relationships with others depend on their abilities to both understand themselves and interpret
the perspectives of others’ accurately (Crick and Dodge, 1996; Ladd & Troop-Gordon, 2003;
Moretti et al., 2001), certain activities were conducted in the present research work, in which
how to interpret the social situation specially negative ambiguous one and how to think
objectively about the self, was discussed. As mentioned earlier, these positive exercises might
have decreased the inflated self esteem of aggressive adolescents in experimental group as
149
proposed in the hypothesis. Reduced narcissistic features may further lessen their tendency to
behave aggressively in negative social situation. This finding can be attributed to the assertion
followed in this intervention that if one wishes to improve his/her social interactions and be
successful in interpersonal relationship, one has to evaluate oneself objectively and modify
ones’ biases in processing information about the social situation and the self.
Aggressive individuals with high narcissism become more aggressive when they are
criticized or rejected by others (e.g., Bushman & Baumeister, 2002; Campbell, et al., 2004;
Stucke & Sporer, 2002). Their tendency to get easily upset in negative social situation, in which
one is criticized or rejected, was reduced as mentioned above. This might have led to reduced
level of narcissism further resulting in less aggression.
In this intervention, guidelines by Kohut (1972) were also followed. Participants’ sense
of grandiosity was first affirmed then they were then guided gently and supportively toward an
acceptance of their limitations and realistic self worth. With this inclusion, the efficacy of
social cognitive intervention in reducing narcissistic features among aggressive adolescents has
been proved.
Hughes et al., (1997) and Webster-Stratton & Lindsay (1999) supported the notion of
considering narcissism in any intervention designed to reduce aggression. They stated that an
unrealistic and inflated view of one's competence and support is a liability rather than an asset
because it may reflect distorted social reasoning processes that interfere with the ability to learn
from past experiences or the motivation to change maladaptive behaviour. Rather than serving
a protective function, unrealistic and inflated self-perceptions increase the risk status for
aggressive children. Therefore, it needs to be incorporated in the intervention meant for
reducing aggression.
150
The findings of the present study were strengthened by the administration of post
experimental questionnaire. The subjects in the experimental group were interviewed after 15
days of termination of the intervention and administered a Post Experimental Questionnaire to
assess the change in perception about their aggressive tendencies. In post experimental
questionnaire, participants in experimental group perceived more change in their approach to
process social information as compared to participants in control group (Table 2.3). For
example, participants in experimental group believed that after intervention, they considered
other possible reasons for negative encounters than blaming other person directly, had realistic
viewpoint of their self, and were more tolerant than before. They verbally reported that the
exercises that were a part of intervention helped them to see things in a new perspective. It
helped them to be relaxed, re-focused & to re-think on certain important issues of social
interactions in general and negative ones in specific. They felt changed. When asked, school
authorities and teacher also reported positive changes in participants’ behaviour. Change in
their perception about their aggressiveness can be attributed to the intervention as in control
group no such change was observed. In the present intervention, providing the participants with
knowledge about aggression and its correlates, role of cognitions in behaviours especially
aggression, concept of intent and ambiguous situation, role of uncontrolled and unintentional
situational factors in negative social ambiguous situation etc. was found to be effective in
changing aggressive adolescents’ perception about aggressive behaviour which reduced their
aggressive behaviour also.
Thus, success of the present social cognitive intervention might be due to close fit
between the content of the intervention and the social deficiencies of the intervention sample
(Coie, 1985).
151
Researchers have been paying attention to develop effective strategies for reducing
excessive displays of aggression in school settings. One familiar strategy used for reducing
aggression in school is to simply suspend or expel highly aggressive students (Reed, 1988).
Although removing troubled and troubling students may provide symptomatic relief for
schools, tragically, such strategies ignore the root causes of aggressive behaviour and banish
those students who are in most need of the benefit of a strong academic foundation, a caring
school environment, and positive peer relations. Thus some sort of in-school intervention is the
need of the hour and the present intervention provides an alternative to traditional solution of
aggressive behaviour problems.
The present research has implications for adolescents’ adaptive social functioning and
adjustment. Humans can train themselves to change or eliminate their faulty cognitions. It has
been said that people have vast untapped resources for actualizing their personal and social
destiny, but because of their dysfunctional social information processing, aggressive
individuals are not able to assess different situations accurately resulting in personal and social
maladjustment. However, by altering this faulty social information processing with the help of
social cognitive intervention, aggressive individuals can be helped to have better adjustment
and healthy interpersonal relationship. To conclude social cognitive intervention used in the
present research resulted in reduced hostile attribution of intent and aggressive tendencies
among aggressive adolescents.