balanced, positive, and negative attributions: a

TSpace Research Repository tspace.library.utoronto.ca

Balanced, positive, and negative attributions: A preliminary investigation of a novel

attribution coding system and associated affect and social behavior in children with

disruptive behavior

Hali Kil, Lee Propp, Anthony De Luca, Brendan F. Andrade

Version Post-print/accepted manuscript

Citation (published version)

Kil, H., Propp, L., De Luca, A., & Andrade, B. F. (2020). Balanced, positive, and negative attributions: A preliminary investigation of a novel attribution coding system and associated affect and social behavior in children with disruptive behavior. Social Development, 29(4), 1176-1193. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12452

Publisher’s Statement This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Kil, H., Propp, L., De Luca, A., & Andrade, B. F. (2020). Balanced, positive, and negative attributions: A preliminary investigation of a novel attribution coding system and associated affect and social behavior in children with disruptive behavior. Social Development, 29(4), 1176-1193., which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12452. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.

How to cite TSpace items

Always cite the published version, so the author(s) will receive recognition through services that track citation counts, e.g. Scopus. If you need to cite the page number of the author manuscript from TSpace because you cannot access the published version, then cite the TSpace version in addition to the published

version using the permanent URI (handle) found on the record page.

This article was made openly accessible by U of T Faculty. Please tell us how this access benefits you. Your story matters.

https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12452


PRELIMINARY EVIDENCE FOR BALANCED ATTRIBUTIONS 1

Balanced, positive, and negative attributions: A preliminary investigation of a novel attribution

coding system and associated affect and social behavior in children with disruptive behavior

Hali Kil1,2

Lee Propp1,3

Anthony De Luca4

Brendan F. Andrade1,2

1McCain Centre for Child, Youth and Family Mental Health, Centre for Addiction and Mental

Health, Toronto ON

2Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto ON

3Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development, Ontario Institute for Studies in

Education, University of Toronto, Toronto ON

4Department of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga ON

Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Funding Statement: This study used data collected as part of larger treatment outcome studies

funded by the Ontario Mental Health Foundation (OMHF) and Canadian Institute of Health

Research (CIHR; grant number 142459).

Available in final published form in Social Development. Full reference: Kil, H., Propp, L., De

Luca, A., & Andrade, B. F. (2020). Balanced, positive, and negative attributions: A preliminary

investigation of a novel attribution coding system and associated affect and social behavior in

children with disruptive behavior. Social Development, 29(4), 1176-1193. doi:




Abstract

Research on children’s social information processing (SIP) has mainly focused on

negative attributions in peer provocation and rejection situations. The potential of balanced

attributions—attributing both positive and negative intent—and of positive attributions has not

been explored. We conducted a series of regressions to examine balanced, positive, and negative

attributions and links to affective response and socioemotional functioning in eight- to twelve-

year-olds (M = 10.30; SD = 1.09; N = 111) that were clinic-referred for disruptive behavior.

Children’s responses to hypothetical situations resulting in ambiguous-positive and ambiguous-

negative situations were coded for positive, negative, or balanced attribution or affect.

Caregivers reported on children’s social and emotional functioning. Results indicated that a

proportion of children (21.6%) made at least one balanced attribution in both types of situations.

Affective responses tended to be in line with attribution style, with positive attribution linked to

positive affect, balanced attribution linked to mixed affect, and negative attribution linked to

negative affect. Children making positive attributions in ambiguous-positive situations and

balanced attributions across situations tended to have less negative functioning and more positive

functioning. Reconsideration of attribution coding schemes to include balanced and positive

attributions may guide theoretically-important and novel directions in SIP research.

Keywords: attribution; social cognition; social competence; conduct disorder; methodology


Balanced, positive, and negative attributions: A preliminary investigation of a novel attribution

coding system and associated affect and social behavior in children with disruptive behavior

Social information processing (SIP) theory suggests that children perceive and act on

social information guided by six steps: 1) social cue encoding, 2) interpretation of social

information, 3) clarification of social goals, 4) accessing and generating social responses, 5)

choosing a response, and 6) enacting the chosen response (Dodge & Crick, 1990). Research over

the past 30 years that has used SIP theory as a framework has documented the association

between SIP deficits and children’s externalizing behavior and peer interaction problems (Crick

& Dodge, 1996; Dodge & Coie, 1987; Dodge et al., 2003; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000; van

Reemst, Fischer, & Zwirs, 2016).

Of the 6 SIP steps, the second, interpretation of social information, has been a focus of

much research because of its association with children’s social decision making (Dodge, 2006).

This body of research suggests that children with aggressive and disruptive behavior tend to

display a hostile or negative attribution bias, evidenced by attributing negative and purposeful

intent to peers in ambiguous-negative situations, i.e. ambiguous social situations involving

negative outcomes such as provocation or rejection (Crick, Grotpeter, & Bigbee, 2002; Dodge &

Coie, 1987; Nelson, Mitchell, & Yang, 2008; Runions & Keating, 2010). This negative

attribution style is associated with heightened problem behaviors, including physical and

relational aggression, disruptive and uncooperative classroom behavior, and conduct problems

(Bailey & Ostrov, 2008; Dodge & Pettit, 2003; Dodge, Price, Bachorowski, & Newman, 1990;

Lansford, Malone, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2010). Further, a negative attribution style has been

found to mediate the link between peer rejection and greater aggression in 10- to 13- year olds


(Reijntjes et al., 2011). Children clinic-referred for aggressive behavior have also been found to

show heightened negative attribution style. Orobio de Castro and colleagues (2005) have found

that 7- to 13-year-old boys clinic-referred for aggressive behavior were more likely than a

comparison group to attribute hostile intent and respond more aggressively to hypothetical

ambiguous-negative situations. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis investigating the link between

hostile/negative attributions and problem behaviors in children in 41 studies found a robust

association between this attribution style and aggression, especially in children who display

severe aggressive behavior problems (Orobio de Castro, Veerman, Koops, Bosch, &

Monshouwer, 2002).

In contrast, relatively few studies have focused on children’s positive attributions for

their peers’ behavior. This body of research demonstrates that children who show elevated

prosocial behavior (e.g. comforting distressed peers) and fewer antisocial behaviors (e.g. less

peer conflict) tend to attribute peer intentions in ambiguous-negative situations to uncontrollable,

situational causes (an accident, out of peer’s control; e.g. Garner & Lemerise, 2007; Halligan,

Cooper, Healy, & Murray, 2007). This benign or positive attribution style is associated with

greater positive affect, prosocial responses, and less negative attribution endorsed by children

when interpreting peer behavior in ambiguous-negative social situations (Laible, McGinley,

Carlo, Augustine, & Murphy, 2014; Nelson & Crick, 1999). Chen, McElwain, and Lansford

(2019) found that Grade 4 children who made more negative attributions tended to have more

negative peer interactions, while those making more positive attributions tended to have more

positive peer interactions. Further, Laible and colleagues (2014) found that children’s prosocial

behavior and less aggressive behavior in an earlier grade was related to their benign attribution

style in the following grade, and vice versa, between Grades 3 to 5, suggesting that a tendency to


make positive attributions and prosocial behavior are bidirectionally linked. Positive attributions

have also been demonstrated in clinical samples: Andrade and colleagues (2012) found that

children with ADHD and conduct problems were generally less accurate but more consistent

with situational valence in their interpretation of peer intent in that they made more positive

attributions in positive situations and more negative attributions in negative situations compared

to the control group.

The aforementioned research is foundational; however, methods used in these studies are

limited in a few ways. First, SIP has been primarily characterized by obtaining children’s

interpretation of provocation in two types of ambiguous-negative social scenarios: provocation

or peer rejection situations that are ambiguous with regards to peer intention and have a negative

outcome for the child in the vignette. For example, children imagine they are standing in the

playground and get hit hard in the back with a ball thrown by another student in their class

(Dodge & Frame, 1982; see other examples in Orobio de Castro et al., 2002). Although

understanding children’s SIP in these scenarios is extremely valuable, these scenarios do not

capture the breadth of social situations, notably those that are positive in valence. As such,

relatively little is known about how children interpret peer intentions in social situations that are

ambiguous but have a positive outcome (i.e., ambiguous-positive situations; see Figure 1).

Improved knowledge of children’s attributions of peer intention in situations that include positive

outcomes is important given past work suggesting that negative and positive social situations are

inherently interpreted differently (Berry & Cooper, 2011), with a distinct set of attentional,

motivational, and affective processes underlying information processing in negative versus

positive situations (Alves, Koch, & Unkelbach, 2017; Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1997;

Taylor, 1991). For example, compared to positive or neutral situations, negative situations elicit


more intense affective responses and more causal attributions (Taylor, 1991; see review by

Peeters & Czapinski, 1990). Only a few studies have investigated children’s SIP in positive

social scenarios or in ambiguous social scenarios with a positive outcome for the child (i.e.

positive-ambiguous situations; Andrade et al., 2012). Given that children’s behavior is

influenced both by their experiences and by their perceptions of negative and positive social

information (Buss, 1978; Kelley, 1973), developing a more fulsome understanding of SIP of

children with disruptive behavior in situations with a positive valence appears warranted.

A second potential limitation of existing research on children’s SIP is the method used to

code responses of children’s attribution of peer intention to open-ended questions. Typically,

studies have used a dichotomous coding system in which a negative attribution is coded if the

child ascribes hostile or negative intention to the peer in the scenario, while a benign or positive

attribution is coded in the absence of attributing hostile or negative intent (i.e., non-negative), or

if the child ascribes situational causal factors (e.g. accidents). However, attribution of positive

intent to a peer’s action may be qualitatively different than the absence of negative attribution,

and may have different consequences for children’s social behavior. A handful of studies have

coded children’s attributions of prosocial peer intent as positive attributions (Garner & Lemerise,

2007; Halligan et al., 2007), but in many of these cases, situational causal factors are often not

separated from peer prosocial intent (e.g. peer trying to help). Coding children’s positive

attribution independently of negative attribution may be especially important given theories such

as the Pollyanna principle, which suggests that some individuals have a bias to attend to and

choose more positive experiences, and may feel greater happiness as a result (Matlin & Gawron,

1979). However, we assert that a tendency towards too much positivity even in negative

situations (e.g., believing that someone’s malicious actions could be out of kindness) is not likely


to be adaptive. Indeed, previous studies demonstrate that children who can accurately match

intention attributions to the valence of a situation (i.e. positive attributions in positive situations,

negative attributions in negative situations) may be more likely to demonstrate social

competence (e.g. Dodge & Coie, 1987; Dodge, Murphy, & Buchsbaum, 1984). Understanding

how children differently attribute positive or negative intention in ambiguous situations, which

contain negative and positive outcomes, may provide a more holistic picture of children’s SIP.

This may be especially the case for children with disruptive behavior who tend to experience

heightened interpersonal difficulties (see Loeber, Burke, Lahey, Winters, & Zera, 2000) that may

be impacted by biases in attribution of negative and positive social information. The present

study incorporates a coding system that identifies positive attributions (e.g. “He did that because

he likes me”, “She is being friendly”) as independent from negative attributions (e.g. “He wanted

to hurt me”, “She was mean on purpose”).

A third potential methodological limitation of research on children’s SIP is that many

existing coding systems and analytic approaches assume that children have a single explanation

for the cause of a peer’s behavior, and as such, many studies use forced-choice questions to elicit

children’s causal attributions. If children report both negative and positive intent attribution in a

single scenario, these responses are coded along with nonsense responses as “unclear”, or

typically not included in further analysis. However, there is reason to suggest that children can

generate negative, positive, or negative and positive explanations for the cause of peer behavior

in an ambiguous social scenario (Crick & Dodge, 1994). Drawing from the literature on the

thinking styles of anxious children, and cognitive-behavioral therapeutic approaches, children

who generate a number of alternative interpretations for the cause of emotionally arousing

situations (i.e. cognitive reappraisal) tend to show increased positive affect and decreased


negative affect (Bonanno & Burton, 2013; Gross & John, 2003; Pavani, Le Vigouroux, Kop,

Congard, & Dauvier, 2016), and fewer internalizing problems (e.g. Carthy, Horesh, Apter, Edge,

& Gross, 2010; Davis, Levine, Lench, & Quas, 2010; Compas et al., 2015). For example,

anxious children making both negative and positive attributions are likely to display positive

responses in social situations (e.g. Bell, Luebbe, Swenson, & Allwood, 2009; Marien & Bell,

2004). These findings are in line with existing models on optimism-pessimism that suggest that

cognitive flexibility involves the ability to generate alternative causal explanations, and that the

ability to move beyond habitual, biased causal attributions is associated with greater social

competence (Peterson & Steen, 2002; Shatte, Reivich, Gillham, & Seligman, 1999).

Applying this concept of alternative interpretations to the SIP model, it is possible that

children who consider both the potential negative and positive causes for a peer’s actions—

which we term “balanced” attribution style—may be most realistic in their thinking, and possibly

in their behavior. Social behavior, in particular aggression and negative social responding, has

been exhaustively researched in relation to SIP, demonstrating that a negative attributional

tendency (i.e. hostile attribution bias) is linked to more maladaptive and antisocial behavior

(Orobio de Castro et al., 2002). On the other hand, a positive attributional style appears to be

linked to more adaptive and prosocial behavior (Laible, McGinley, et al., 2014; Wardle, Hunter,

& Warden, 2011; Ziv, 2013). Meanwhile, there has been no thorough investigation of balanced

attributions particularly in children with disruptive behavior problems, although the ability to

generate multiple causal interpretations for peer behavior may indicate cognitive flexibility that

may be associated with competent social behavior. While children with disruptive behavior may

be less flexible in their attributions compared to community samples or those with internalizing

tendencies (Orobio de Castro, 2004), given the aforementioned links between cognitive


reappraisal and less psychopathology and positive social behavior (Laghi, Lonigro, Pallini, &

Baiocco, 2018), the capacity for balanced attributional thinking may dispose some children with

disruptive tendencies to more positive social functioning.

In addition to methodological considerations discussed above, the influence of affect in

children’s SIP has received recent attention. Considering affect along with SIP may be important

for a number of reasons. First, Weiner (1985) suggested that positive or negative emotions

naturally follow from causal interpretation of an event. As such, how children affectively

respond to peer provocation or rejection may be considered integral to the cue interpretation

stage of the SIP. Second, Lemerise and Arsenio (2000) suggested a model of SIP that integrates

affect processes, posing that children’s affective reactions to often-used SIP vignettes, such as

peer provocation and peer rejection situations, are especially likely to be intense due to their

negative valence. For example, children who display heightened aggression have been found to

exhibit both negative attribution style and heightened distress in response to provocation

situations (Crick et al., 2002). Third, previous research suggests that negative affect is often a

correlate of negative attributions (Bell et al., 2009). For example, Burgess and colleagues (2006)

demonstrated that children report feeling more mad if they make negative attributions, and less

mad if they make neutral, self-blaming or situational causal attributions in ambiguous-negative

situations. This finding suggests that the type of attribution made is associated with children’s

affect. Finally, while various studies have supported the integration of affect into an SIP

framework when evaluating children’s attributions to peer intent in ambiguous-negative

situations (e.g. Coccaro, Noblett, & McCloskey, 2009; Gagnon, McDuff, Daelman, & Fournier,

2015; Orobio de Castro et al., 2005), no studies have evaluated children’s affective responses in

relation to balanced attribution, or in relation to processing of positive social information in


ambiguous-positive situations. The present study examined the associations between attribution

styles in ambiguous-positive and ambiguous-negative social situations and corresponding affect.

Overall, the present study investigated children’s negative, positive and balanced

attribution in ambiguous situations with negative and positive outcomes, in a clinic-referred

sample with disruptive behavior. We were especially interested in the uniqueness of balanced

attributions. The specific objectives were: (1) to examine negative, positive and balanced

attributions in children with disruptive behavior about peer intent in ambiguous social vignettes

with negative and positive outcomes; (2) to examine the trends in associations between positive,

negative and balanced attribution and affective responses (positive, negative, mixed); and (3) to

examine the trends in associations between positive, negative and balanced attribution and

children’s social and emotional functioning. We hypothesized that children making more

balanced attributions would trend towards experiencing more positive affect and less negative

affect, and trend towards more positive social and emotional functioning.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were 111 children aged 8 to 12 years and their caregivers. All children were

clinic-referred to a mental health hospital in an urban city in Canada for disruptive behavior

difficulties. Table 1 presents caregiver and child demographics, child social and emotional

functioning, and child medication status. Data were collected from children and caregivers as

part of a clinical-research battery administered to children and caregivers during the initial

assessment as part of a treatment study. Children and caregivers were given a $20 honorarium

for their participation.

Measures


Child Social Situations Questionnaire (CSSQ). The CSSQ is a SIP measure comprised

of 20 vignettes that describes typical childhood activities (e.g., playing sports, classroom

activities; masked), in which the protagonist experiences positive, negative, or neutral outcomes

because of a peer’s behavior that showed clear positive, negative, or ambiguous (not clearly

positive or negative) intent. Vignettes were gender-matched, and children were asked to pretend

that they were the protagonist in each vignette. Administration of the CSSQ was preceded by a

demonstration vignette to ensure that the participant understood task instructions.

Of the 20 vignettes, the present study reports on eight ambiguous intent vignettes. Four

vignettes depicted ambiguous-negative situations, in which the child experienced negative

consequences due to a peer’s action (e.g. “Pretend that you are standing on the playground

playing catch with a kid named Todd. You throw the ball to Todd and he catches it. You turn

around, and the next thing you realize is that Todd has thrown the ball and hit you in the middle

of your back. The ball hits you hard and it hurts a lot.”). Another four vignettes depicted

ambiguous-positive situations, in which the child experienced positive consequences due to a

peer’s action (e.g. “Pretend that you can’t find your favorite pencil but you are sure that you

brought it to school with you. Later that day you see one of the kids in your class named Jesse

walking towards your desk with the pencil. Jesse puts your favorite pencil on your desk.”).

Following each vignette, children were asked to respond to four questions: (Q1) What happened

in the story? (Q2) How can you tell if this was a nice way to act or a mean way to act? (Q3) How

would you feel if this happened to you? (Q4) What could you say or do if this happened to you?

Tell me as many ways as you can. Responses to Q1 served as confirmation that the children

accurately detected a social cue in the story. The present study reports on responses to Q2 and

Q3.


Coding. Two undergraduate students were trained to code children’s responses to the

vignettes from transcriptions. Children’s responses to Q2 were coded for attribution of peer

intent and to Q3 for affective response to the situation in the vignette. For Q2, clear reference to

negative intent was coded as negative attribution (e.g. “he wanted to hurt me”). Clear reference

to positive intent was coded as positive attribution (e.g. “he didn’t mean to”). Clear reference to

both negative and positive intent was coded as balanced attribution (e.g. “he might have wanted

to hurt me, but it could have been an accident”). For Q3, clear mention of positive emotions (e.g.

happy) was coded as positive, negative emotions (e.g. sad, angry) was coded as negative, and

mention of both positive and negative emotions was coded as mixed affective response.

A third (32%) of transcriptions was coded by the two coders and analyzed for interrater

reliability. Intraclass correlation coefficients demonstrated moderate reliability for Q2, ICC =

.695, 95% CI = .614, .758, and excellent reliability for Q3, ICC = .941, 95% CI = .926, .954. In

cases of discrepancy between coders, the final decision was made through discussion with the

senior author (masked) or a postdoctoral fellow in the lab. The remaining data was coded by one

of the undergraduate coders.

Relative frequency. Relative attribution and affective response scores were calculated by

summing each attribution or affective response type across each situation type. For example, if a

child made two positive, one negative, and one balanced attributions across the four positive

situations, the score for Positive Attributions in Positive Situations would be .50, while scores for

Negative Attributions in Positive Situations and Balanced Attributions in Positive Situations

would both be .25.

Behavioral Assessment System for Children, 2nd Edition (BASC-2). Caregivers

completed the BASC-2 (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004), a standardized rating scale that measures


dimensions of children’s behaviors and social and emotional functioning. Depending on child’s

age, 134 to 160 items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = never; 4 = almost always). The

present study used all four Composite and 14 Individual subscales: Externalizing Problems,

Internalizing Problems, Behavioral Symptoms Index, and Adaptive Skills; Hyperactivity,

Aggression, Conduct Problems, Anxiety, Depression, Somatization, Atypicality, Withdrawal,

Attention Problems, Adaptability, Social Skills, Leadership, Activities of Daily Living, and

Functional Communication. Raw scores on each subscale were used to demonstrate general

trends in parent ratings (rather than T-scores). Psychometric properties of the BASC-2 have been

demonstrated in previous work (Reynolds, Kamphaus, & Vannest, 2011), with inter-item

reliabilities of various subscales falling between α = .75-.86 in disruptive samples (August, Egan,

Realmuto, & Hektner, 2003; Lochman, Dishion, Boxmeyer, Powell, & Qu, 2017).

Analysis

First, proportions of children making at least one positive, negative, or balanced

attributions were calculated. Then, multivariate multiple regression was conducted using

multivariate general linear modeling in SPSS to examine the trends in differences between type

of attribution in each situation and, separately, the BASC-2 subscales and children’s affective

responses to ambiguous-positive and ambiguous-negative situations. One child reported no

affective response to any situation, and therefore the analysis of affective response was

conducted with 110 children’s responses. Gender (binary coded, 1 = Male, 2 = Female) and age

were entered into each model. Given issues of multicollinearity and linear dependency in coding

of frequencies, as well as sample size, findings from this preliminary analysis are not reported

using a traditional hypothesis testing format (e.g., p-values). We instead report trends based on

mean values, test statistics, and corresponding confidence intervals.


Because we were especially interested in the uniqueness of balanced attributions, we

further examined whether children making at least one balanced attribution differed from their

counterparts in ambiguous-positive and in ambiguous-negative situations regarding affective

response and social and emotional functioning. We binary coded (0=not balanced; 1=balanced)

the participants into those who gave at least one balanced attribution across the four vignettes

separately for each situation valence. Binary coding resulted in highly discrepant sample sizes

across the balanced and non-balanced groups (n=13 balanced vs. n=98 not balanced in positive,

n=24 balanced vs. n=87 not balanced in negative). We employed post-hoc matching of the

sample between balanced and non-balanced using 1:1 Propensity Score Matching (PSM) for

each situation valence. PSM is used to create paired group assignments with equal sample size

using covariates when the number of participants assigned per group varies, and equalizing the

sample is beyond the researcher’s control (Harder, Stuart, & Anthony, 2010). The method can be

applied to longitudinal, observational, experimental or nonexperimental data (e.g., Haviland,

Nagin, Rosenbaum, & Tremblay, 2008). The present analyses used PSM without replacement,

which ensures that each case from the target, smaller sample group is matched to one case from

the control, larger sample group. MANOVAs were conducted to compare groups on affective

response and social and emotional functioning, and if significant, follow-up pairwise

comparisons were conducted with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptives statistics for attribution styles are depicted in Table 2. Most children made at

least one positive attribution in ambiguous-positive situations, with fewer making at least one

negative attribution in ambiguous-positive situations. Some children made at least one positive

attribution in ambiguous-negative situations, with more making at least one negative attribution


in ambiguous-negative situations. A smaller number of children made at least one balanced

attribution in ambiguous-positive situations, and at least one balanced attribution in ambiguous-

negative situations. Six out of a total of 31 children (19%) made at least one balanced attribution

across both ambiguous-positive and ambiguous-negative situations.

Positive, Negative, and Balanced Attributions

Affective response in social situations. Test statistics, effects, and estimates for

multivariate regression of affective response are depicted in Tables 3 and 4. Positive attributions

in ambiguous-positive situations were associated with more positive affective responses.

Negative attributions in ambiguous-positive situations were associated with more negative and

less positive affective responses. Balanced attributions in ambiguous-positive situations were

associated with more positive and mixed affective responses. Positive attributions in ambiguous-

negative situations were associated with greater negative affect, while balanced attributions in

ambiguous-negative situations were associated with less negative and more mixed affect.

Child social and emotional functioning. Test statistics for multivariate regression of

BASC-2 are depicted in Table 3. For simplicity, Figure 2 presents estimates and confidence

intervals for the BASC-2 scales that demonstrated confidence intervals not crossing zero for at

least one attribution style. All other between-subjects effects and estimates (for which all

confidence intervals included zero) can be found in the Online Supporting Information. For

ambiguous-positive situations, positive attributions were associated with less Internalizing

Problems more generally, and less Somatization more specifically. Positive attributions in

ambiguous-positive situations were also associated with greater Functional Communication.

Balanced attributions in ambiguous-positive situations were associated with less Externalizing

Problems generally, although confidence intervals for each specific subscale included zero. For


attributions in ambiguous-negative situations, balanced attributions were associated with greater

Adaptive Skills more generally, and Social Skills, Leadership and Activities of Daily Living

more specifically. Older age was associated with more Internalizing Problems, Behavioral

Symptoms, Conduct Problems, and Attention Problems, and with less Adaptability, Social Skills,

and fewer Activities of Daily Living. Girls were reported to have more Internalizing Problems

and Somatic Symptoms than boys. Negative attributions in both ambiguous-positive and

ambiguous-negative situations, and positive attributions in ambiguous-negative situations, were

not associated with BASC-2 subscales.

Comparing (At Least One) Balanced and Non-Balanced Children

PSM resulted in matched sample sizes across groups in each situation, with 13

participants in each group for ambiguous-positive and 24 participants in each group for

ambiguous-negative situations. There were no differences in age across balanced and non-

balanced groups for ambiguous-positive situations, t(24)=.072, p=.943 (M=10.58, SD=.76 for

balanced and M=10.61, SD=.82 for non-balanced), or in ambiguous-negative situations, t(46)=-

.005, p=.996 (M=10.31, SD=.96 for balanced and M=10.30, SD=.93 for non-balanced).

Propensity scores for ambiguous-positive situations ranged from .091 to .174 (M=.123,

SD=.022), and for ambiguous-negative situations from .205 to .264 (M=.218, SD=.023). For

ambiguous-positive situations, balanced and non-balanced groups significantly differed in

affective response, F(3,22)=3.738, p=.026, partial η2=.338. Pairwise comparisons demonstrated

that the balanced group, M=.519, SD=.160, experienced less positive affect than the non-

balanced group, M=.731, SD=.239, p=.014, and also experienced more mixed affect, M=.231,

SD=.190, compared to the non-balanced group, M=.058, SD=.150, p=.016. For ambiguous-

negative situations, balanced and non-balanced groups did not differ in affective response,


F(18,7)=1.033, p=.517, partial η2=.727. There was no difference across groups on the BASC-2

subscales, for ambiguous-positive situations, F(3,44)=1.906, p=.143, partial η2=.115, or for

ambiguous-negative situations, F(18,29)=.677, p=.805, partial η2=.296, thus no pairwise

comparisons were examined.

Discussion

The present study was a preliminary investigation of children’s positive, negative, and

balanced attribution and related affect and social and emotional functioning. Our first objective

was to determine the proportion of children who made positive, negative, or balanced

attributions. Similar to previous studies, we found that the majority of children made more

negative or positive attributions in ambiguous social situations, with positive attributions in

ambiguous-positive situations and negative attributions in ambiguous-negative situations most

common in our sample (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge & Coie, 1987; Laible, Murphy, &

Augustine, 2014). However, we identified a subgroup of children who made balanced

attributions by indicating both positive and negative intentions when interpreting the cause of

peer behavior.

Our second and third objectives were to determine the trends in associations between

positive, negative, and balanced attribution styles and affective response and social and

emotional functioning. We discuss below for each attribution style separately the associations to

affective response and social and emotional functioning across ambiguous-positive and

ambiguous-negative situations.

First, children’s positive attributions in ambiguous-positive situations were associated

with greater positive affect and with less internalizing psychopathology and greater positive

communication. In ambiguous-negative situations, positive attributions were associated with less

negative affect. Collectively, these findings provide preliminary evidence that a positive


attribution style may be associated with less psychopathology and with less negative

emotionality, particularly when the outcome of the situation is similarly positive. Further, these

findings are consistent with existing literature in community samples showing that prosocial

children who attribute positive intent to peers in ambiguous situations reported feeling less

negative and favored prosocial responses to provocation, compared to children who are

considered neither prosocial nor aggressive (e.g. Nelson & Crick, 1999).

Second, children’s negative attributions in ambiguous-positive situations were associated

with less positive and more negative affect. However, children’s negative attribution style was

not associated with affect in ambiguous-negative situations, nor was it associated with affect or

functioning in any valence of situations. These results suggest that although children attributing

negative intent to peers in positive outcome situations may experience greater negative and less

positive emotions, there may be limited links other valence of situations or to social and

emotional functioning. These findings are different from existing literature on community and

clinic-referred aggressive children in which negative (hostile) attributions in provocation and

peer rejection situations are linked to greater negative emotions (e.g. anger), externalizing

problems, and aggressive behavior (Crick et al., 2002; Dodge & Crick, 1990; Orobio de Castro et

al., 2005). One possible explanation for these discrepant findings may be provided by examining

the system used to code negative affect in the present study. The present study collapsed across

negative emotions (e.g., anger, disappointment, sadness) and did not include a separate code for

each unique negative emotion (i.e. anger, disappointment, sadness). Orobio de Castro et al.

(2005) found in community and clinic-referred boys that hostile/negative attribution style was

linked with more anger, but not sadness, suggesting that different negative emotions may have

distinct implications for children’s SIP. Further research is needed to ascertain whether a more


refined coding system may have better delineated links between negative attribution and

associated emotions such as anger.

Finally, children’s balanced attributions in ambiguous-positive situations were associated

with less positive and more mixed affect and less externalizing behavior. On the other hand,

children’s balanced attributions in ambiguous-negative situations were associated with less

negative and more mixed affect and more adaptive social skills. Collectively, these findings

suggest that children with disruptive behavior who consider both negative and positive

attributions may also feel more affectively uncertain (i.e., mixed) when faced with ambiguous

social situations, regardless of outcome. However, in line with our hypotheses, it appears that

making balanced attributions in positive situations may be linked to children’s less externalizing

behavior, while making balanced attributions in negative situations may be linked to greater

social competence. These results correspond with models on children’s optimism and research

on cognitive flexibility, which suggest that engaging in flexible, adaptive thinking during

ambiguous social situations may be socially advantageous (Babkirk, Rios, & Dennis, 2015;

Marien & Bell, 2004; Pavani et al., 2016; Peterson & Steen, 2002). It is possible that children

with disruptive behavior who can “see both sides of the same coin”, i.e., hold balanced

attributions, may demonstrate a capacity to interpret events from alternative perspectives,

facilitating more adaptive behaviors during peer interactions. This alternative thinking reflected

in balanced attributions may be especially adaptive during situations in which the peer’s action

results in negative consequences for the child (e.g. being hit by a ball), since aggressive response

tendencies may be attenuated if the child poses alternative casual explanations for the peer’s

action. Indeed, clinical interventions have been successful in reducing aggression in children by


encouraging those with a negative attributional tendency to also become skilled in benign or

positive cue interpretation (e.g. Hudley et al., 1998).

However, these latter findings regarding balanced attributional style must be taken with

caution. The results of our PSM comparisons between those with balanced and non-balanced

attributional styles across situation valences demonstrated few differences between groups. The

only significant difference to emerge was that balanced children were more likely than non-

balanced children to feel more mixed and less positive in response to positive situations, echoing

multivariate regression results. Thus, holding both negative and positive attributions when a

peer’s action results in a positive outcome may be somewhat maladaptive in terms of affect.

Although this result is contrary to our hypothesis, work on children’s interpersonal trust

demonstrates that children who show lack of trust in others are more likely to suffer from

psychopathological symptoms, such as depression (e.g., Sakai, 2010). Children are especially

likely to show lack of trust of others if they have been socialized to distrust caregivers

(Rotenberg, 1995), suggesting that there may be intricate links between trust, attribution, and

emotional dysfunction across development. However, because the present results are preliminary

findings based on small sample sizes and low relative frequency of balanced attributions, further

research is needed to ascertain whether a unique (dis)advantage follows from balanced

attributions in ambiguous-positive situations.

The novel and preliminary findings on balanced attribution style in the present study may

be a basis on which to build in future research. However, some limitations should be noted. First,

in the present study, we collected data from a small convenience sample of children with

disruptive behavior. Further research is needed to ascertain the prevalence of balanced

attributions in larger and more diverse samples, especially community samples. Additionally, the


present results were based on data with sufficient multicollinearity and linear dependency that it

is statistically unreasonable to conclude that any significant associations or differences existed in

our analyses. Given these issues, there is also a possibility that the results reported were found

due to chance. Future studies, particularly research on the effects of balanced attribution training

on children’s SIP and behavior, or better-powered studies that compare children grouped by

attribution style on SIP and behavioral dimensions, would be helpful to confirm the consistency

and replicability of the initial findings from the present study. Especially needed in this regard is

whether there exist in some children a stable, trait-like tendency for balanced attributions, or if

balanced attributions are always state-dependent, depending on the valence of the outcome.

Further, considering models that integrate affect into the SIP pathway (e.g., Lemerise & Arsenio,

2000), a fruitful avenue of future research may be to consider whether negative causal

attributions and negative affective responses interact to inform greater severity of maladaptive

social behavior.

The present study provides preliminary evidence that some children make balanced

attributions in ambiguous situations, whether the situation results in positive or negative

outcomes. Further, the results suggest that there may be a unique advantage for children who

indicate balanced attributions, at least in the present sample of clinic-referred children with

disruptive behavior. Future research on children’s SIP may consider using coding schemes that

include coding of both positive and negative attributions, to account for children’s balanced

attributions.


References

Alves, H., Koch, A., & Unkelbach, C. (2017). Why good is more alike than bad: Processing

implications. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(2), 69-79.

Andrade, B. F., Waschbusch, D. A., Doucet, A., King, S., MacKinnon, M., McGrath, P. J., . . .

Corkum, P. (2012). Social Information Processing of Positive and Negative Hypothetical

Events in Children With ADHD and Conduct Problems and Controls. Journal of

Attention Disorders, 16(6), 491-504. doi: 10.1177/1087054711401346

August, G. J., Egan, E. A., Realmuto, G. M., & Hektner, J. M. (2003). Parceling component

effects of a multifaceted prevention program for disruptive elementary school children.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31(5), 515-527.

Babkirk, S., Rios, V., & Dennis, T. A. (2015). The late positive potential predicts emotion

regulation strategy use in school-aged children concurrently and two years later.

Developmental Science, 18(5), 832-841. doi: 10.1111/desc.12258

Bailey, C. A., & Ostrov, J. M. (2008). Differentiating Forms and Functions of Aggression in

Emerging Adults: Associations with Hostile Attribution Biases and Normative Beliefs. J

Youth Adolesc, 37(6), 713-722. doi: 10.1007/s10964-007-9211-5

Bell, D. J., Luebbe, A. M., Swenson, L. P., & Allwood, M. A. (2009). The children's evaluation

of everyday social encounters questionnaire: Comprehensive assessment of children's

social information processing and its relation to internalizing problems. Journal of

Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38(5), 705-720.

Berry, A., & Cooper, M. (2011). Anxious Children's Ability to Generate Alternative Attributions

for Ambiguous Situations. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 40(1), 89-103. doi:

10.1017/S1352465811000518


Bonanno, G. A., & Burton, C. L. (2013). Regulatory Flexibility:An Individual Differences

Perspective on Coping and Emotion Regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science,

8(6), 591-612. doi: 10.1177/1745691613504116

Burgess, K. B., Wojslawowicz, J. C., Rubin, K. H., Rose‐Krasnor, L., & Booth‐LaForce, C.

(2006). Social information processing and coping strategies of shy/withdrawn and

aggressive children: Does friendship matter? Child Development, 77(2), 371-383.

Buss, A. R. (1978). Causes and reasons in attribution theory: A conceptual critique. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 36(11), 1311.

Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations

and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 1(1), 3-25.

Carthy, T., Horesh, N., Apter, A., Edge, M. D., & Gross, J. J. (2010). Emotional reactivity and

cognitive regulation in anxious children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(5), 384-

393.

Chen, X., McElwain, N. L., & Lansford, J. E. (2019). Interactive Contributions of Attribution

Biases and Emotional Intensity to Child–Friend Interaction Quality During

Preadolescence. Child Development, 90(1), e114-e131. doi: doi:10.1111/cdev.13012

Coccaro, E. F., Noblett, K. L., & McCloskey, M. S. (2009). Attributional and emotional

responses to socially ambiguous cues: Validation of a new assessment of

social/emotional information processing in healthy adults and impulsive aggressive

patients. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43(10), 915-925.

Compas, B. E., Forehand, R., Thigpen, J., Hardcastle, E., Garai, E., McKee, L., . . . Sterba, S.

(2015). Efficacy and moderators of a family group cognitive-behavioral preventive


intervention for children of parents with depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 83(3), 541-553. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039053

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-

processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychol Bull, 115(1), 74-101. doi:

10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social Information-Processing Mechanisms in Reactive

and Proactive Aggression. Child Development, 67(3), 993-1002. doi: doi:10.1111/j.1467-

8624.1996.tb01778.x

Crick, N. R., Grotpeter, J. K., & Bigbee, M. A. (2002). Relationally and physically aggressive

children's intent attributions and feelings of distress for relational and instrumental peer

provocations. Child Development, 73(4), 1134-1142.

Davis, E. L., Levine, L. J., Lench, H. C., & Quas, J. A. (2010). Metacognitive emotion

regulation: Children's awareness that changing thoughts and goals can alleviate negative

emotions. Emotion, 10(4), 498-510. doi: 10.1037/a0018428

Dodge, K. A. (2006). Translational science in action: Hostile attributional style and the

development of aggressive behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology,

18(3), 791-814.

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(6), 1146-1158.

Dodge, K. A., & Crick, N. R. (1990). Social Information-Processing Bases of Aggressive

Behavior in Children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(1), 8-22. doi:

10.1177/0146167290161002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039053


Dodge, K. A., & Frame, C. L. (1982). Social cognitive biases and deficits in aggressive boys.

Child Development, 620-635.

Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Burks, V. S., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Fontaine, R., & Price, J. M.

(2003). Peer rejection and social information-processing factors in the development of

aggressive behavior problems in children. Child Development, 74(2), 374-393.

Dodge, K. A., Murphy, R. R., & Buchsbaum, K. (1984). The Assessment of Intention-Cue

Detection Skills in Children: Implications for Developmental Psychopathology. Child

Development, 55(1), 163-173. doi: 10.2307/1129842

Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic

conduct problems in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 349.

Dodge, K. A., Price, J. M., Bachorowski, J.-A., & Newman, J. P. (1990). Hostile attributional

biases in severely aggressive adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99(4), 385.

Gagnon, J., McDuff, P., Daelman, S., & Fournier, S. (2015). Is hostile attributional bias

associated with negative urgency and impulsive behaviors? A social-cognitive

conceptualization of impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 18-23.

Garner, P. W., & Lemerise, E. A. (2007). The roles of behavioral adjustment and conceptions of

peers and emotions in preschool children's peer victimization. Development and

Psychopathology, 19(1), 57-71.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:

Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 85(2), 348-362. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348


Halligan, S. L., Cooper, P. J., Healy, S. J., & Murray, L. (2007). The attribution of hostile intent

in mothers, fathers and their children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(4), 594-

604.

Harder, V. S., Stuart, E. A., & Anthony, J. C. (2010). Propensity score techniques and the

assessment of measured covariate balance to test causal associations in psychological

research. Psychological methods, 15(3), 234-249.

Haviland, A., Nagin, D. S., Rosenbaum, P. R., & Tremblay, R. E. (2008). Combining group-

based trajectory modeling and propensity score matching for causal inferences in

nonexperimental longitudinal data. Developmental Psychology, 44(2), 422.

Hudley, C., Britsch, B., Wakefield, W. D., Smith, T., Demorat, M., & Cho, S. J. (1998). An

attribution retraining program to reduce aggression in elementary school students.

Psychology in the Schools, 35(3), 271-282.

Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107.

Laghi, F., Lonigro, A., Pallini, S., & Baiocco, R. (2018). Emotion regulation and empathy:

Which relation with social conduct? The Journal of genetic psychology, 179(2), 62-70.

Laible, D., McGinley, M., Carlo, G., Augustine, M., & Murphy, T. (2014). Does engaging in

prosocial behavior make children see the world through rose-colored glasses?

Developmental Psychology, 50(3), 872-880. doi: 10.1037/a0033905

Laible, D., Murphy, T. P., & Augustine, M. (2014). Adolescents’ Aggressive and Prosocial

Behaviors: Links With Social Information Processing, Negative Emotionality, Moral

Affect, and Moral Cognition. The Journal of genetic psychology, 175(3), 270-286. doi:

10.1080/00221325.2014.885878


Lansford, J. E., Malone, P. S., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2010). Developmental

cascades of peer rejection, social information processing biases, and aggression during

middle childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 22(3), 593-602.

Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of emotion processes and

cognition in social information processing. Child Development, 71(1), 107-118.

Lochman, J. E., Dishion, T. J., Boxmeyer, C. L., Powell, N. P., & Qu, L. (2017). Variation in

response to evidence-based group preventive intervention for disruptive behavior

problems: A view from 938 coping power sessions. Journal of Abnormal Child

Psychology, 45(7), 1271-1284.

Loeber, R., Burke, J. D., Lahey, B. B., Winters, A., & Zera, M. (2000). Oppositional defiant and

conduct disorder: a review of the past 10 years, part I. Journal of the American Academy

of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(12), 1468-1484.

Marien, W. E., & Bell, D. J. (2004). Anxiety- and Depression-Related Thoughts in Children:

Development and Evaluation of a Cognition Measure. Journal of Clinical Child &

Adolescent Psychology, 33(4), 717-730. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp3304_7

Matlin, M. W., & Gawron, V. J. (1979). Individual differences in Pollyannaism. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 43(4), 411-412.

Nelson, D. A., & Crick, N. R. (1999). Rose-Colored Glasses:: Examining the Social Information-

Processing of Prosocial Young Adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 19(1),

17-38. doi: 10.1177/0272431699019001002

Nelson, D. A., Mitchell, C., & Yang, C. (2008). Intent Attributions and Aggression: A Study of

Children and their Parents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(6), 793-806. doi:

10.1007/s10802-007-9211-7


Orobio de Castro, B. (2004). The development of social information processing and aggressive

behaviour: Current issues. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1(1), 87-102.

Orobio de Castro, B., Merk, W., Koops, W., Veerman, J. W., & Bosch, J. D. (2005). Emotions in

Social Information Processing and Their Relations With Reactive and Proactive

Aggression in Referred Aggressive Boys. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent

Psychology, 34(1), 105-116. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_10

Orobio de Castro, B., Veerman, J. W., Koops, W., Bosch, J. D., & Monshouwer, H. J. (2002).

Hostile Attribution of Intent and Aggressive Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Child

Development, 73(3), 916-934.

Pavani, J.-B., Le Vigouroux, S., Kop, J.-L., Congard, A., & Dauvier, B. (2016). Affect and

Affect Regulation Strategies Reciprocally Influence Each Other in Daily Life: The Case

of Positive Reappraisal, Problem-Focused Coping, Appreciation and Rumination.

Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(5), 2077-2095. doi: 10.1007/s10902-015-9686-9

Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. (1990). Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction

between affective and informational negativity effects. European review of social

psychology, 1(1), 33-60.

Peterson, C., & Steen, T. A. (2002). Optimistic explanatory style. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 244-256). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Reijntjes, A., Thomaes, S., Kamphuis, J. H., Bushman, B. J., De Castro, B. O., & Telch, M. J.

(2011). Explaining the paradoxical rejection-aggression link: The mediating effects of

hostile intent attributions, anger, and decreases in state self-esteem on peer rejection-

induced aggression in youth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 955-963.


Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). BASC-2 Behavior Assessment for Children

Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Reynolds, C. R., Kamphaus, R. W., & Vannest, K. J. (2011). Behavior Assessment System for

Children (BASC). In J. S. Kreutzer, J. DeLuca & B. Caplan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of

Clinical Neuropsychology (pp. 366-371). New York, NY: Springer New York.

Rotenberg, K. J. (1995). The socialisation of trust: Parents' and children's interpersonal trust.

International Journal of Behavioral Development, 18(4), 713-726.

Runions, K. C., & Keating, D. P. (2010). Anger and inhibitory control as moderators of

children's hostile attributions and aggression. Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology, 31(5), 370-378.

Sakai, A. (2010). Children's sense of trust in significant others: Genetic versus environmental

contributions and buffer to life stressors. In K. J. Rotenberg (Ed.), Interpersonal Trust

during Childhood and Adolescence (pp. 56-84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shatte, A. J., Reivich, K., Gillham, J., & Seligman, M. E. (1999). Learned optimism in children.

In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Coping: The psychology of what works (pp. 165-181). New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: the mobilization-

minimization hypothesis. Psychol Bull, 110(1), 67.

van Reemst, L., Fischer, T. F. C., & Zwirs, B. W. C. (2016). Social Information Processing

Mechanisms and Victimization:A Literature Review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(1),

3-25. doi: 10.1177/1524838014557286


Wardle, G. A., Hunter, S. C., & Warden, D. (2011). Prosocial and antisocial children's

perceptions of peers' motives for prosocial behaviours. British Journal of Developmental

Psychology, 29(3), 396-408.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.

Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

Ziv, Y. (2013). Social information processing patterns, social skills, and school readiness in

preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(2), 306-320. doi:

10.1016/j.jecp.2012.08.009

PRELIMINARY EVIDENCE FOR BALANCED ATTRIBUTIONS

Table 1.

Parent and Child Demographics and Profiles

Note. % do not add up to 100% across demographic characteristics due to missing data.

Difficulties show subscales of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as reported by parents

(Goodman, 1997). Difficulties % column displays the proportion of children who met or

exceeded the clinical cutoff for each SDQ subscale, 5, 4, 8, 4, 6, and 17 for ES, CP, HYP, PP,

PS, and TD, respectively. Medication percentage represents the proportion of children who were

on medication during the period of assessment.

Scale /

Demographic Subscales

% M SD

Parent Age 41.77 7.46

Gender (Female) 88.3

Education Completed high school 10.8 Some post-secondary + 83.8

Marital Status Married or Common Law 50.4

Divorced or Separated 23.4

Single 20.7

Caregiving role Biological Mother 88.3

Biological Father 9.9

Other (e.g., grandparent) .9

Child Age 10.30 1.09

Gender (Female) 18.0

Ethnicity White/Caucasian 55.0

Black or Afro-Caribbean 7.2

Hispanic or Latino 3.6

Asian or Pacific Islander 1.8

Mixed 24.3

Other 2.7

Difficulties Emotional Symptoms (ES) 31.5 3.61 2.52

Conduct Problems (CP) 71.2 4.68 2.02

Hyperactivity (HYP) 55.0 7.21 2.56

Peer Problems (PP) 44.1 3.29 2.05

Prosocial Skills (PS) 66.7 6.55 2.16

Total Difficulties (TD) 58.6 18.71 6.42

Medication 42.3


Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Relative Frequencies of Attribution Styles

Situation Attribution N % M SD Min-Max

Ambiguous-

Positive

Positive 88 79.3 .329 .243 .00-1.00

Negative 35 31.5 .095 .162 .00-1.00

Balanced 13 11.7 .034 .098 .00-.50

Ambiguous-

Negative

Positive 38 34.2 .113 .184 .00-.75

Negative 97 87.4 .446 .285 .00-1.00

Balanced 24 21.6 .079 .175 .00-.75

Note. % column does not add up to 100 due to overlap of sample across attribution types.


Table 3.

Multivariate Regression Test Statistics for All Variables by Situation Valence

Positive Situations Negative Situations

Variable df F Partial

η2 R2

F

Partial

η2 R2

Test of Affect

Attribution 6

Positive 1.073 .063 2.067 .114

Negative 8.712 .353 .411 .025

Mixed 5.355 .251 11.360 .415

Positive Situation 8

Positive 7.668 .378 .329 .523 .040 -.036

Negative 5.656 .309 .255 7.731 .380 .331

Mixed 2.799 .181 .117 8.774 .410 .363

Test of BASC-2

Attribution 18

Positive .939 .536 1.713 .052

Negative 2.162 .010 .683 .819

Mixed 1.295 .212 1.073 .392

BASC-2 Scales 8

Externalizing 1.466 .103 .103

Internalizing 2.429 .160 .160

Behavioral Symptoms 1.508 .106 .106

Adaptive Skills 2.338 .155 .155

Hyperactivity .995 .072 .072

Aggression .952 .069 .069

Conduct Problems 2.283 .152 .152

Anxiety 1.570 .110 .110

Depression 1.797 .124 .124

Somatization 2.816 .181 .181

Atypicality .799 .059 .059

Withdrawal .993 .072 .072

Attention Problems 1.695 .117 .117

Adaptability 1.309 .093 .093

Social Skills 1.994 .135 .135

Leadership 1.877 .128 .128

Activities of Daily Living 2.647 .172 .172

Functional Communication 1.670 .116 .116

Note. BASC-2=Behavioral Assessment Scale for Children. Attribution test statistics are

multivariate tests. Affect and BASC test statistics pertain to between-subjects Corrected Model

and corresponding R squared value.


Table 4.

Between-Subjects Effects and Parameter Estimates for Affective Response by Attribution Style

Positive Attribution Negative Attribution Balanced Attribution

Affect F P.η2 B (SE) CIL CIU

F P.η2 B (SE) CIL CIU F P.η2 B (SE) CIL CIU

Positive Situation

Positive 6.127 .057 .195 (.079) .039 .352 28.012 .217 -.631 (.119) -.868 -.395 13.818 .120 -.717 (.193) -1.100 -.334

Negative 1.569 .015 -.087 (.070) -.226 .051 32.689 .245 .603 (.105) .394 .812 1.270 .012 .192 (.171) -.146 .531

Mixed .707 .007 -.050 (.059) -.167 .067 2.316 .022 .136 (.089) -.041 .313 15.618 .134 .570 (.144) .284 .856

Negative Situation

Positive .171 .002 .008 (.020) -.031 .047 .369 .004 -.008 (.013) -.034 .018 .414 .004 -.013 (.020) -.053 .027

Negative 9.373 .085 -.178 (.058) -.293 -.063 .918 .009 .037 (.039) -.040 .115 32.229 .242 -.337 (.059) -.454 -.219

Mixed 2.591 .025 .066 (.041) -.015 .148 .090 .001 -.008 (.028) -.063 .047 58.900 .368 .323 (.042) .240 .407

Note. P.η2 = Partial eta squared. CIL = 95% Lower Confidence Interval. CIU = 95% Upper Confidence Interval. Degrees of freedom

for Affective Response is 1. Confidence intervals that do not include zero are bolded for ease of interpretation.


Figure 1. Combinations of Attribution and Situational Outcome in SIP. Notations demonstrate

[attribution / situation] pairing: - notation indicates negative, ~ notation indicates balanced, +

notation indicates positive. Cells boxed in solid lines have been the target of most existing

literature. Cells boxed in dotted lines have received less attention. Cells that are shaded have not

been addressed in existing literature.

+

In

ten

t A

ttri

bu

tion

Vale

nce

[+ / -]

Positive Attribution

Ambiguous-Negative Outcome

[+ / +]

Positive Attribution

Ambiguous-Positive Outcome

[~ / -]

Balanced Attribution


[~ / +]

Balanced Attribution


[- / -]

Negative Attribution


[- / +]

Negative Attribution


- Situational Outcome

+


Figure 2. Estimates and confidence intervals for selected Behavioral Assessment Scale for

Children (BASC-2) scales by attribution style. Confidence intervals are 95%.

balanced, positive, and negative attributions: a

Documents