ORI GI NAL ARTI CLE

Emotion Regulation and Aggressive Behavior

in Preschoolers: The Mediating Role of Social
Information Processing
Johanna Helmsen

Ute Koglin

Franz Petermann
Published online: 8 September 2011
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract This study examined whether the relation between maladaptive emotion reg-
ulation and aggression was mediated by deviant social information processing (SIP).
Participants were 193 preschool children. Emotion regulation and aggression were rated by
teachers. Deviant SIP (i.e., attribution of hostile intent, aggressive response generation,
aggressive response evaluation and decision) was measured from childrens responses to
hypothetical social conicts. Findings revealed that the relation between maladaptive
emotion regulation and aggression was direct and not mediated by SIP biases (i.e.,
aggressive response generation, aggressive response evaluation and decision). Results are
discussed from a theoretical and methodological perspective.
Keywords Emotion regulation Social information processing Aggression
Mediation Preschool
Introduction
Epidemiological research has shown that aggressive behavior is one of the most common
types of behavioral problems in preschool children [1, 2]. Children with high, stable levels
of aggressive behavior problems are at increased risk of future adjustment problems,
including juvenile violence, substance abuse, internalizing problems, and educational
difculties [3, 4]. From a phenomenological perspective, aggression is a broad construct
that encompasses a wide variety of behaviors that are intended to hurt or harm others [5].
For example, aggressive behavior can be physical, verbal or relational. While physical and
verbal aggression describe physical harm or insults or threat of such actions (e.g., hitting,
kicking), relational aggression includes behaviors in which damage to relationships (or the
J. Helmsen (&) U. Koglin F. Petermann
Centre of Clinical Psychology and Rehabilitation, University Bremen,
Grazer Strasse 6, 28359 Bremen, Germany
e-mail: helmsen@uni-bremen.de
1 3
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2012) 43:87101
DOI 10.1007/s10578-011-0252-3
threat of relationship damage) serves as the vehicle of harm (e.g., social exclusion,
threatening to end the friendship; [6]). A study done by Crick et al. [7] investigated the
percentage of boys versus girls who could be classied as physically or relationally
aggressive by using a cut-off score of one standard deviation above the mean on teacher
rating scales. Results showed that 3% of the girls and 12% of the boys were identied as
physically aggressive; 26% of the girls and 0% of the boys were identied as relationally
aggressive; 15% of the boys and 7% of the girls were identied as physically plus rela-
tionally aggressive.
Given the high rates and the negative outcomes, there is a strong interest in studying
factors that increase the risk of aggressive behavior. Understanding the mechanisms of
early childhood aggression has important implications for prevention and intervention.
Models of social information processing (SIP) have received a considerable amount of
theoretical and empirical attention in developmental psychology as they contribute sig-
nicantly to the understanding of the development of aggression. According to the SIP
model [8], social behavior occurs as a function of several cognitive steps: (1) encoding and
(2) interpretation of social cues, (3) goal clarication, (4) response access or construction,
and (5) response evaluation and decision. Aggressive behavior is seen as a result of
decient or biased social information processing at every step. Although Crick and Dodge
[8] regard emotions as an important part of each SIP step, they admit that the SIP model
does not sufciently account for emotions. Therefore, Lemerise and Arsenio [9] proposed a
modied version of the SIP model that explicitly integrates emotion processes. In this
model, emotion processes (e.g., emotionality, emotion regulation) inuence each step of
SIP. While emotionality refers to stable individual differences in the tendency to experi-
ence frequent and intense emotions [10], emotion regulation generally refers to childrens
capacity to manage and modify their emotional reactivity and expressivity [10, 11]. For
example, Eisenberg and Spinrad [10] dened emotion regulation (or emotion-related
regulation) as
the process of initiating, avoiding, inhibiting, maintaining, or modulation the
occurrence, form, intensity, or duration of internal feeling states, emotion-related
physiological, attentional processes, motivational states, and/or the behavioral con-
comitants of emotion in the service of accomplishing affect-related biological or
social adaptation or achieving individual goals. (p. 338)
According to Lemerise and Arsenio [9], the inclusion of emotion processes in Crick and
Dodges SIP model leads to a fuller understanding of childrens social behavior. They
hypothesized that emotionality and emotion regulation inuence SIP. Specically, high
emotionality and low emotion regulation should lead to biases in social-cognitive pro-
cessing. For example, children who tend to experience intense anger and who are not able
to regulate their negative emotions may perceive and interpret more hostile cues, pursue
aggressive goals to reduce their arousal and may be too self-focused to generate and
evaluate multiple responses. As a result, they may select and enact an aggressive response
which has a negative effect on further social interactions.
Based on this model, it can be hypothesized that the relation between emotion processes
and aggressive behavior is mediated by deviant SIP. But, past studies which have exam-
ined this hypothesis have shown discrepant ndings. Moreover, no study exists which
focuses on preschool children. Therefore, the present study investigates whether the
relation between maladaptive emotion regulation and aggression would be mediated by
SIP biases in preschool age children.
88 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2012) 43:87101
1 3
Social Information Processing as a Mediator between Emotion Regulation
and Aggressive Behavior
To demonstrate that social-cognitive biases mediate the relation between emotion dys-
regulation and aggression, it is necessary to demonstrate relations between each pair of
constructs [12]. First, from a developmental psychopathology perspective, the acquisition
of emotion regulation skills is one of the key developmental tasks in early childhood and
difculties with adaptive emotion regulation increase the risk of psychopathology [13, 14].
In fact, a number of studies have demonstrated a consistent association between mal-
adaptive emotion regulation and externalizing behavior (i.e., physical and verbal aggres-
sion, oppositional, and rule-breaking behavior) in preschool children. These studies differ
considerably with respect to the operationalization of emotion regulation or dysregulation.
For example, research has shown that parent- or teacher-rated low attentional and inhib-
itory control in preschool (e.g., easily distracted, difculty sitting still) was associated with
more concurrent and future externalizing problems [1517]. Furthermore, another study
found that preschool children for whom parents reported lower soothability in the case of
anger (e.g., problems calming down on his/her own) exhibited more externalizing prob-
lems [18]. Lastly, three-and-a-half-year-old boys who focused their attention on sources of
frustration during a task in which they had to wait for a desired cookie (e.g., looking at,
speaking about, or trying to retrieve the cookie or to end the waiting period)a regulation
strategy which was associated with increased angerwere rated higher on externalizing
behavior at the age of six. Conversely, boys who more often used regulation strategies of
passive waiting or distractionstrategies which were associated with decreased anger
were rated lower on externalizing problems [19]. Together, these results show that mal-
adaptive emotion regulation is one central risk factor for externalizing behavior in
childhood.
Second, research has demonstrated that preschool children with overt aggression show
biased social information processing. For example, overt aggression was associated with
a hypervigilance to hostile cues (i.e., difculty shifting their attention away from
aggressive cues; [20]), attribution of hostile intent in ambiguous situations (hostile
attribution bias; [21, 22]), and aggressive response generation [23, 24]. To assess SIP
steps two through ve, children were presented with hypothetical ambiguous peer
provocation (e.g., being bumped) or problematic social situations (e.g., exclusion from an
activity) via picture or video and then were asked to assess the intent of the target child
and to state how they would response to the situation (e.g., aggressive, passive,
competent).
Third, results from social and personality psychology research indicate that affect
inuences social cognition [25]. But there are also some studies that investigated the
relationship between emotion processes and SIP. For example, anger was associated with
hostile attributions [26] and aggressive response decision [27].
Together, these results demonstrate that all three constructs are signicantly interre-
lated. However, mediation does not exist until SIP accounts for a signicant portion of the
relation between emotion processes and aggressive behavior [12]. Until now, the contri-
bution of emotion regulation and social-cognitive processing explaining aggressive
behavior has rarely been studied. As far as we know, only four studies with older children
or adolescents have examined whether deviant SIP mediates the relation between emotion
processes and aggression.
In the rst study, Orobio de Castro et al. [28] analyzed the relationship between emotion
processes (emotions, emotion regulation), SIP (hostile attribution, aggressive response
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2012) 43:87101 89
1 3
generation and evaluation), both assessed in hypothetical vignettes, and aggressive
behavior via teacher report. Aggressive behavior included overt aggression and a variety of
disruptive behavior problems (e.g., demands attention, argues). The sample included 54
referred aggressive boys and 30 nonreferred boys aged 713 years. They found that anger
positively predicted aggressive response evaluation and that adaptive emotion regulation
(e.g., problem solving, distraction) negatively predicted aggressive response generation
and aggressive behavior. The indirect (mediated) effect of emotion processes on aggressive
behavior via SIP (i.e., aggressive response evaluation) was not signicant. A recent study
with a sample of 130 children aged 1014 with mild intellectual disabilities and borderline
intelligence came to the same conclusion [29]. Low impulse control as assessed via teacher
report and aggressive response generation had unique effects on aggressive behavior,
which included overt aggression and a wide range of disruptive behavior problems.
However, aggressive response generation did not mediate the relation between low impulse
control and aggressive behavior. Thus, in both studies emotion processes directly led to
aggression.
In the third study with a sample of 778 fourth through sixth graders, Musher-Eizenman
et al. [30] found that the relation between anger control and physical aggression was
mediated by latent structures of SIP (aggressive fantasizing, retaliation approval). Latent
knowledge structures are distinct from on-line SIP in that latent mental structures (i.e.,
beliefs, attitudes, scripts, schemas) contain information about past experiences and affect
each step of on-line, or real-time, decision processes [8].
In the fourth study, Crozier et al. [31] conducted a longitudinal study with adolescents
in grades 1012. Structural equation modeling revealed that deviant SIP (i.e., hostile
attribution of intent, aggressive response generation, and positive evaluation of aggression)
mediated the effect of high heart rate reactivity to provocation on antisocial behavior (e.g.,
physical aggression, violence) for both male and female adolescents.
In sum, the rst two studies argued against and the last two studies for a mediational
model. The reasons for the discrepant ndings are still unclear, but may be due to the
different samples (clinical vs. community sample, different age groups) and to the different
measurements of emotion processes, SIP, and aggressive behavior. Possibly, Musher-
Eizenman et al. [30] found an indirect effect because they assessed latent structures of SIP
instead of on-line SIP. The operationalization of emotion processes also differed consid-
erably. One study assessed emotion regulation in the context of SIP [28], while two other
studies used general measures of emotion regulation disposition [29, 30]. Crozier et al. [31]
in turn used a physiological indicator of affective processes. Together, these discrepant
empirical data show that a great deal of research is still needed to clarify the association
between emotion processes, SIP, and aggression.
The Present Study
Until now, only a few studies exist which have examined the mediating role of social
information processing in the relation between emotion regulation and aggressive behav-
ior. However, this research question is of great theoretical as well as practical importance
since emotional and social cognitive processes are the central explanatory mechanisms of
aggression.
The present study seeks to contribute to the current literature by investigating childrens
aggressive behavior using a broader construct of aggression including physical as well as
relational aggression. This will provide a greater opportunity to examine aggression among
90 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2012) 43:87101
1 3
both girls and boys since, unlike physical aggression, relational aggression is at least as
common in girls as it is in boys [32, 33]. This fact suggests that this form of aggression
should also be taken into account.
Second, we included a sample of preschool-age children. The preschool age is char-
acterized by a number of challenges as preschoolers have to integrate into the peer group,
follow rules, tolerate separation from the parents and to deal with frustration and disap-
pointments in service of goals for afliation with peers. At the same time, early childhood
is a period of tremendous growth in cognitive, social, and emotional development, making
it an important period for research. For example, preschoolers acquire a growing reper-
toire of emotion regulation strategies and they have an increasing understanding of mental
constructs such as beliefs, desires, and intentions [34]. Until now, all previous studies have
examined the relation between emotion processes, social information processing, and
aggression in middle childhood or adolescence.
Method
Participants
The sample included 193 German preschool children (98 boys and 95 girls), with a
mean age of 55 months (range: 4267 months). Participants attended 16 child day-care
centers in different rural and urban areas of West and Northern Germany. Children
came from a variety of family backgrounds representative of the general German
population. Thirty one percent of the children had a migration background (they had at
least one foreign-born parent). According to the micro census 2007 by the Federal
Statistical Ofce, almost one third of all German preschool children have a migration
background [35].
Of the mothers, 15.8% had no professional education, 45.3% had completed an
apprenticeship, 6.3% had attended universities for applied sciences, 26.3% had attended a
university, and 6.3% had passed through some other form of vocational training. Of the
fathers, 11.1% had no professional education, 38.8% had completed an apprenticeship,
15.6% had attended universities for applied sciences, 25.6% had attended university, and
8.9% had passed through some other form of vocational training.
Procedure
After receiving permission from the participating day-care centers to conduct the study,
parents were also informed about the study. All parents provided informed consent and
the children provided their assent. A questionnaire was sent to parents that assessed
sociodemographic characteristics. Teachers who knew the child best completed a
questionnaire to assess childrens emotion regulation, and aggression. All of the
questionnaires were translated into German by a native English speaker following the
forward and backward translation method. Data on childrens SIP were collected during
individual interviews conducted in a quiet area of the day-care center by a trained
interviewer. In this interview, the children were presented with hypothetical social
conicts and then they were asked different standardized questions concerning SIP
steps. Each scenario was read to the children as they were looking at associated line
drawings.
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2012) 43:87101 91
1 3
Measures
Emotion Regulation
Childrens emotion regulation was measured with a combination of two scales from the
Childrens Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ) Short Form [36], inhibitory control and anger/
frustration, which have both six items. Although high levels of negative emotionality (e.g.,
anger/frustration) do not always reect maladaptive emotion regulation, negative emo-
tionality often has been used as an indirect index of emotion regulation [14, 17].
The inhibitory control scale measures the capacity to plan and suppress inappropriate
approach responses (e.g., Can easily stop an activity when told no, Prepares for trips
and outings by planning things s/he will need), the anger/frustration scale measures
negative affect related to interruption of ongoing tasks or goal blocking (e.g., Has temper
tantrums when s/he doesnt get what s/he wants, Gets angry when called in from play
before s/he is ready to quit). Two items (Gets angry when told s/he has to go to bed,
Rarely gets upset when told s/he has to go to bed) were removed from the anger/
frustration scale because they could not be rated by teachers. On a seven-point scale
teachers rated how true the childs descriptive behaviors have been within the past
6 months. Based on the developers guidelines, average scale scores were calculated. Items
marked as not applicable were not included. One reversed-scored item of the inhibitory
control scale was recoded (Has trouble sitting still when s/he is told to). Internal con-
sistency estimates for the CBQ Short Form scales have been found to range from 0.61 to
0.85 [36]. In the present study, Cronbachs alphas were 0.86 (inhibitory control) and 0.81
(anger/frustration). The intercorrelation between the two scales was r = -0.56, p \0.001.
Before summing scores from the two scales to form one measure of emotion regulation,
inhibitory control scores were reversed and both scales were standardized [17, 37]. A high
value denoted that the child was high in anger/frustration and low in inhibitory control
(hereinafter referred to as maladaptive emotion regulation).
Social Information Processing
Social information processing was assessed using a German-speaking interview measure
developed by Petermann et al. [38].
This interview is based on measures created by Dodge et al. [39] and takes the limi-
tations of young childrens social-cognitive functioning and verbal abilities into account
(e.g., brief and easily formulated questions appropriate for preschool age). The pictorial
interview is an established method for preschoolers [40]. Furthermore, Wellman et al. [34]
meta-analysis show that already at the age of three, children can answer theory of mind
tasks correctly.
The rst part of the interview consists of six vignettes in which a bad thing happened to
a child due to the actions of another child. Half of the vignettes depict ambiguous
instrumental provocations (i.e., the cues did not clearly indicate whether a child deliber-
ately caused the negative outcome) and half of them depict provocations with hostile
intents (physically aggressive or instrumental). The three ambiguous provocation situations
were (a) being hit in the back by a ball, (b) being bumped so that ice cream is dropped, and
(c) having water spilled on the childs painted picture while being out of the room. The
three hostile provocation situations were (a) being punched, (b) the childs ball is being
removed, and (c) being shoved from the swing. Following each vignette, the child had to
interpret the others intent (Did the other child/ren want this or not?) which corresponds
92 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2012) 43:87101
1 3
with the second step of Crick and Dodges SIP model. The response was scored as benign
(coded 0) or hostile (coded 1). For attribution of hostile intent, only the three ambiguous
vignettes were considered (Cronbachs alpha = 0.73). Subsequent analyses were con-
ducted using a dichotomized hostile attribution of intent variable with one group reporting
only nonhostile attributions of intent (score = 0) and the other reporting at least one hostile
intent (score = 1).
To assess aggressive response decision, the child was then asked to indicate what s/he
would do if this situation happened to him/her. Responses were categorized as non-
aggressive (e.g., passive, prosocial, depended to authority; score = 0), or aggressive (i.e.,
physical, verbal or relational aggression; score = 1). The overall score for aggressive
response selection was computed by summing the scores of the six vignettes (range: 06).
Cronbachs alpha for aggressive response selection was 0.78. After response selection, the
child was asked if this reaction was a bad or good idea. Only if the child had given an
aggressive response and this aggressive response was evaluated as good, was the answer
coded as 1. Otherwise, the answer was coded as 0. The overall score for positive evaluation
of aggression was computed by summing the scores of the six vignettes (range: 06).
Cronbachs alpha for positive evaluation of aggression was 0.73.
To form one measure of aggressive response evaluation and decision (step 5), the scores
for aggressive response decision and positive evaluation of aggression were summed
(range = 012). Higher scores indicated a more positive endorsement and a more frequent
selection of aggression.
The second part of the interview was designed to assess response generation (step 4).
The child was again presented with four hypothetical social situations. One situation
depicts a peer-group entry situation (the child wants to play with other children), two
situations depict instrumental provocations (another child sits down on the childs chair,
several children want to play with the same toy), and one situation depicts a relational
provocation (a child hears two children making fun of his/her friend). After the story was
read by the interviewer, the child was asked what the target child could do or say in this
situation. The interviewer then prompted for up to four additional responses (What else
could s/he do or say?). As in the rst part of the interview, each response was coded as
non-aggressive (coded 0) or aggressive (coded 1). Cronbachs alpha for aggressive
response generation was 0.82. A score was then computed that indexed the proportion of
responses that were coded as aggressive (range = 01).
Inter-rater agreement of codings was estimated using a second coder for approximately
10% of participants; the intraclass correlation coefcients varied between 0.87 and 1.00.
Aggression
To assess aggression, teachers completed the Preschool Social Behavior Scale-Teacher
Form (PSBS-T; [7]). This measure consists of 16 items, 6 of which assess relational
aggression, 6 of which assess physical aggression, and 4 of which assess prosocial
behavior. Examples of items that assess physical aggression are This child pushes or
shoves other peers and This child verbally threatens to hit or beat up other peers.
Examples of items that assess relational aggression are This child tells others not to play
with or be a peers friend and This child tells a peer that they wont be invited to their
birthday party unless s/he does what the child wants. The prosocial items of the PSBS-T
were not included in the current analysis. Items were rated on a ve-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (never or almost never true) to 5 (always or almost always true). The
intercorrelation between the physical and relational aggression subscales was r = 0.50,
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2012) 43:87101 93
1 3
p \0.001. Aggression score was computed by summing the physical and relational
aggression items. The score could range from 12 to 60. The PSBS-T is a widely used
measure with established validity and reliability [7, 32]. For the present sample, Cron-
bachs alpha for the aggression scale was 0.90.
Data Analyses
First, means and standard deviations of all study variables were calculated. Then, Baron
and Kennys [12] criteria were used to test meditational effects. For this, correlations
between emotion regulation, SIP variables, and aggression were examined to investigate
whether these variables were interrelated and met the rst criteria for mediation analyses.
To test for mediation, hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. As a nal step, a
Sobel test was conducted to test whether the indirect effect of the independent variable on
the dependent variable through the mediator variable was signicant [41].
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Values of skewness ranged from 0.16 to 1.99 and values of kurtosis ranged from -1.99 to
4.15. As such, all variables met standards of univariate normality as outlined by Kline [42].
Table 1 contains the means and standard deviations for all study variables by gender.
Results showed that multivariate effect for gender was non-signicant, F(5, 187) = 1.89,
p = 0.10.
Correlation Analyses
First, correlations among the study variables were run separately for boys and girls to
examine differences in the associations between maladaptive emotion regulation, deviant
SIP variables, and aggression. Differences in the magnitude of correlations for boys and
Table 1 Descriptive statistics by gender
Variables Boys (n = 98) Girls (n = 95)
M SD Range M SD Range
Maladaptive emotion regulation
a
(TR) 0.22 1.83 -2.714.62 -0.23 1.67 -2.713.72
Hostile attribution of intent
b
(CSR) 0.54 0.50 01.00 0.38 0.49 01.00
Aggressive response generation
c
(CSR) 0.12 0.17 00.76 0.07 0.13 00.67
Aggressive response evaluation and
decision (CSR)
2.10 2.87 012.00 1.69 2.25 08.00
Aggression (TR) 21.66 8.26 12.0043.00 20.39 7.26 12.0040.00
TR teacher report, CSR child self-report
* p \0.05; *** p \0.001
a
The sum of inhibitory control (reversed) and anger/frustration
b
Score type range = dichotomy (01)
c
Score type range = proportion (01)
94 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2012) 43:87101
1 3
girls were tested with the Fisher Z tests. Results showed that there were no signicant
gender differences in the pattern of correlations. Thus, the remaining analyses were con-
ducted on the sample as a whole.
Bivariate correlations for all study variables are presented in Table 2. Maladaptive
emotion regulation was signicantly positively correlated with aggressive response gen-
eration, aggressive response evaluation and decision and aggression. Aggression was
signicantly positively correlated with aggressive response generation and aggressive
response evaluation and decision.
Mediation Analyses
Baron and Kennys [12] criteria were used to test whether deviant SIP mediated the
association between maladaptive emotion regulation and aggression. To show mediation,
the following conditions must be met: 1) There is a signicant relation between the
independent variable (i.e., maladaptive emotion regulation) and the mediator (i.e., deviant
SIP); 2) the independent variable relates signicantly to the outcome variable (i.e.,
aggressive behavior); 3) the mediator relates signicantly to the outcome variable; and 4)
the association between predictor and outcome variable must be reduced to non-signi-
cance (in the case of full mediation) or substantially reduced in magnitude (in the case of
partial mediation) when the mediator is entered into the equation.
As shown in Table 2, the rst three conditions were met for aggressive response gen-
eration and aggressive response evaluation and decision as potential mediators, so only
these two models were tested further.
In the rst regression analysis, aggressive behavior was regressed on maladaptive
emotion regulation, and then aggressive response generation was added in step 2. Overall,
the model was signicant, F(2, 190) = 61.33, p \0.001. The variance explained by the
predictor (maladaptive emotion regulation) in the rst step was R
2
= 0.39 (p \0.001).
When aggressive response generation was included into the equation, the effect of mal-
adaptive emotion regulation on aggression was not substantially reduced from b = 0.63
(p \0.001) to b = 0.62 (p \0.001). Aggressive response generation as potential mediator
was no longer signicant (b = 0.02, DR
2
= 0.00, p = 0.75). The Sobel test showed that
the indirect effect was not statistically signicant (z = 0.30, p = 0.76). Thus, the relation
between maladaptive emotion regulation and aggression was direct, rather than mediated
by aggressive response generation (see Fig. 1).
In the second regression analysis aggression was regressed on maladaptive emotion
regulation, and then aggressive response evaluation and decision was added in step 2.
Overall, the model was signicant, F(2, 190) = 61.29, p \0.001. When aggressive
Table 2 Intercorrelations of study variables
Variables 1 2 3 4
1. Maladaptive emotion regulation (TR)
2. Hostile attribution of intent (CSR) 0.05
3. Aggressive response generation (CSR) 0.21** 0.24**
4. Aggressive response evaluation and decision (CSR) 0.24** 0.09 0.27***
5. Aggression (TR) 0.63*** 0.08 0.15* 0.16*
TR teacher report, CSR child self-report
* p \0.05; ** p \0.01; *** p \0.001
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2012) 43:87101 95
1 3
response evaluation and decision was included into the equation, the effect of maladaptive
emotion regulation on aggression was not substantially reduced from b = 0.63 (p \0.001)
to b = 0.62 (p \0.001). Aggressive response evaluation and decision as potential medi-
ator was no longer signicant (b = 0.01, DR
2
= 0.00, p = 0.81). The Sobel test conrmed
that the indirect effect was not statistically signicant (z = 0.23, p = 0.81). Thus, the
relation between maladaptive emotion regulation and aggressive behavior was direct rather
than mediated by aggressive response evaluation and decision (see Fig. 2).
Discussion
This study examined the relation between maladaptive emotion regulation, biases in social-
cognitive processes, and aggressive behavior in a sample of German preschool children.
The goal of the present study was to examine whether social-cognitive processing medi-
ated the relation between maladaptive emotion regulation and aggressive behavior. Based
on previous research, it was hypothesized that emotion dysregulation would positively
relate to deviant SIP and to aggression. SIP biases should positively relate to aggressive
behavior. However, due to the lack of solid empirical evidence, it was unclear whether
deviant SIP would mediate the relation between maladaptive emotion regulation and
aggression.
Results from this study were consistent with previous research and with Lemerise and
Arsenios model in showing that emotion processes and SIP are interrelated [26, 27].
Specically, children with higher maladaptive emotion regulation generated and selected
more aggressive responses and showed a more positive endorsement of aggression.
Moreover, in accordance with other studies, aggressive behavior was associated with
maladaptive emotion regulation [18, 19] and deviant social-cognitive processes [21, 23].
Together, these empirical data clearly show that emotion dysregulation and SIP biases are
related to aggression in preschool children.
Maladaptive Emotion
Regulation
Aggression
.63***
Aggressive Response
Generation
.21**
.15*
.62***
Controlling for
Aggressive Response
Fig. 1 Effects of maladaptive
emotion regulation and
aggressive response generation
on aggression. Note: *p \0.05,
**p \0.01, ***p \0.001
.24** .16*
Aggressive Response
Evaluation and Decision
.63***
.62***
Controlling for
Aggressive Response
Evaluation and Decision
Maladaptive Emotion
Regulation
Aggression
Fig. 2 Effects of maladaptive
emotion regulation and
aggressive response evaluation
and decision on aggression. Note:
*p \0.05, **p \0.01,
***p \0.001
96 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2012) 43:87101
1 3
In the present study, no signicant associations were found between hostile attribution
of intent and emotional dysregulation as well as aggressive behavior. These results stand in
contrast with the ndings that hostile attribution bias signicantly relates to aggressive
behavior [43] and anger, respectively [26]. But, Coy et al. [23] found that preschool boys
with Oppositional Deant Disorder were no more likely to attribute intentions in ambig-
uous situations than were comparison group boys which is in line with the present ndings.
In addition, some researchers have raised questions about the construct validity of the
interpretation step of social information processing, because young children may have
difculties in understanding the questions or the concept of intentionality [22]. In the
present study, however, intent was asked with the words did the other child/ren want this
or not? and the scale demonstrated adequate internal consistency. This illustrates that
more research is needed on hostile attribution bias in young children.
Mediation analyses revealed that the association between maladaptive emotion regu-
lation and aggressive behavior was direct and not mediated by deviant SIP (i.e., aggressive
response generation, aggressive response evaluation and decision). This nding is con-
sistent with results from Orobio de Castro et al. [28] and van Nieuwenhuijzen et al. [29],
which showed that emotion processes directly led to aggression. However, the nding from
the present study stands in contrast with results from Musher-Eizenman et al. [30] and
Crozier et al. [31]. However, because of differences in age groups and the operational-
ization of variables, comparability between these studies is rather difcult. Although more
research is needed before any clear conclusion can be drawn, the present study along with
the results of Orobio de Castro et al. [28] and van Nieuwenhuijzen et al. [29] indicate that
low emotion regulation or strong emotions can directly lead to enactment of physical
aggression without later SIP steps (i.e., step 4 and step 5) as mediators. This suggests that
strong emotions can derail cognitive thought, what is called preemptive (i.e., script-
based) processing [8, 44]. Preemptive processing is rapid, automatic, irrational and
probably classically conditioned. Thus, the present ndings do not clearly match with
Lemerise and Arsenios model [9], as this model postulates a mediation via SIP. Although
Lemerise und Arsenio [9] mention the possibility of preemptive processing, it remains
unclear what conditions give rise to such a form of processing. In contrast, Fontaine and
Dodge [45] as well as Orobio de Castro [46] explicitly consider the omission of social
information processing in the case of intense emotions. While Fontaine and Dodge [45]
postulate that extreme emotions can lead to omission of step 5 (aggressive response
evaluation and decision), Orobio de Castro [46] suggest that in the case of intense emo-
tions, both step 4 (aggressive response generation) and step 5 may be left out. Together,
this demonstrates that also on the theoretical level obscurities still exist.
In future, it should be examined under what conditions emotion processes directly lead
to aggressive behavior and under what conditions indirectly via SIP. Possibly, only moods
or low-intensity emotions inuence SIP [47]. In addition, it should be explored how many
SIP steps are omitted. Perhaps the association between emotion processes and aggression is
mediated only by hostile attribution of intent [48], and not by other SIP steps. This could
not be examined in the present study as the conditions for mediation analysis were not met.
Additional theoretical and empirical studies are needed, in order to analyze the inuence of
emotion processes on aggression via SIP. However, despite these obscurities, the results
suggest that prevention and intervention programs designed to prevent and reduce early
childhood aggression should promote social-cognitive as well as emotion regulation skills
as children cannot solve problems if they are overwhelmed with anger. Indeed, many
aggression prevention programs are aimed at strengthening young childrens abilities to
recognize and manage their emotions, and to solve social problems [49, 50]. Studies show
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2012) 43:87101 97
1 3
that universal and selective/indicated programs are effective at reducing aggressive
behavior in preschoolers [51, 52]. In view of insufcient and contradictory research data,
no further recommendations for intervention or assessment can be made so far. This
illustrates the need for further research in this area.
Study results must be interpreted cautiously because of several limitations. First, in the
present study only low correlations between deviant SIP variables and aggressive behavior
were found. This result is consistent with those of other studies [22, 53]. Possible expla-
nations are the community instead of a clinical sample, and the use of hypothetical
vignettes instead of actually staged (seemingly) real-life situations to measure SIP [21]. In
future research, SIP biases should be assessed by using in vivo, experimental manipulation
of ambiguous peer scenarios to then see whether real-life responses, which are probably
less rational, converge with self-reported SIP in hypothetical vignettes and whether this
method results in greater predictive power. Another explanation for the small effects on
aggression may be the sample of preschool children. Research has shown that SIP is a
better predictor of aggressive behavior in older children than in younger children [21, 54].
It is assumed that with increasing age, social cognition becomes more strongly connected
with actual behavior [54]. In addition, (physical) aggression is to some degree normative
during early childhood and more adaptive than for school-aged children. Prospective
longitudinal studies indicate that the development of physical aggression peaks between
two and four years of age and then decreases steadily [55]. Most children learn to use
alternatives to physical aggression with age. In future, older children should be included to
examine this issue in more detail.
Second, the social-cognitive interview consisted mainly of instrumental conicts, while
only one hypothetical situation depicted a relational provocation. In addition, the
aggressive answers were not differentiated between different forms of aggression. A study
done by Crick et al. [56] showed that relationally aggressive children exhibited hostile
attributional bias only in relational provocation contexts. In addition, Crick and Werner
[57] have demonstrated that SIP biases are specic to the form of aggression (e.g., positive
evaluation of relational aggression predicts relationally aggressive behavior). In future
research, the social-cognitive interview should be complemented by relational provoca-
tions, and responses should be coded in a more differentiated manner to then see whether
there are specic associations between different forms of aggression and SIP.
Third, the measures relied solely on teacher or child report; thus, it is possible that the
high correlation between aggression and emotion dysregulation may be inuenced in part
by common method variance. For example, it could be that teachers infer negative emo-
tions on children who have displayed aggressive behavior just as easily as the assumed
opposite directionality [58]. But, anger and inhibitory control items from the CBQ differ
from the aggressive behavior scales (PSBS-T) as the CBQ does not assess aggressive
behaviors (that are intended to hurt or harm others). Nevertheless, in future research, an
observational measure of emotion regulation (e.g., frustration task; [19]) or of aggressive
behavior [33] should be used to avoid the problem of common method variance.
Finally, due to the cross-sectional nature of the research design, no inferences can be
made about the direction of effects. It is, in fact, most likely that the relationship between
emotion regulation, social information processing, and aggressive behavior is bidirectional.
Longitudinal studies are needed to establish the causal direction of these relations.
Despite these limitations, the present study contributes to existing research by providing
insight into the proximal risk factors of aggression. Our ndings indicate that both mal-
adaptive emotion regulation and deviant SIP are important contributors to preschoolers
aggression and that the relation between maladaptive emotion regulation and aggressive
98 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2012) 43:87101
1 3
behavior is not mediated by SIP biases. The current study represents a rst attempt at
understanding these relations, even though much more work is needed to fully understand
the relationship between emotion regulation, SIP, and aggressive behavior in early
childhood.
Summary
Emotional and social-cognitive processes are presumed to be the proximal mechanisms
underlying childrens aggressive behavior [9]. The objective of this study was to investi-
gate the mediating role of social information processing in the relation between emotion
regulation and aggression in preschool children. Results indicated that maladaptive emo-
tion regulation and biased social information processing were associated with higher levels
of aggression. However, the relation between emotion regulation and aggressive behavior
was not mediated by social information processing. The results point out that further
empirical and theoretical research is needed to examine under what conditions emotion
processes directly lead to aggressive behavior and under what conditions indirectly via
social-cognitive processes. Emotions with varying intensity and social information pro-
cessing steps could be considered in a more differentiated manner. Moreover, multimethod
longitudinal studies are required.
References
1. Furniss T, Beyer T, Guggenmos J (2006) Prevalence of behavioural and emotional problems among six-
years-old preschool children. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 41:394399
2. Petermann F, Helmsen J, Koglin U (2010) Expansive Verhaltensstorungen [Disruptive disorders].
Monatsschr Kinderheilkd 158:2227
3. Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Ridder EM (2005) Show me the child at seven: the consequences of
conduct problems in childhood for psychosocial functioning in adulthood. J Child Psychol Psychiatry
46:837849
4. Kim-Cohen J, Arseneault L, Caspi A, Polo Tomas M, Taylor A, Moftt TE (2005) Validity of DSM-IV
conduct disorder in 4, 55 year-old children: a longitudinal epidemiology study. Am J Psychiat
162:11081117
5. Dodge KA, Coie JD, Lynam D (2006) Aggression and antisocial behavior. In: Damon W, Lerner R,
Eisenberg N (eds) Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality devel-
opment. Wiley, New York, pp 719788
6. Crick NR, Grotpeter JK (1995) Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment.
Child Dev 66:710722
7. Crick NR, Casas JF, Mosher M (1997) Relational and overt aggression in preschool. Dev Psychol
33:579588
8. Crick NR, Dodge KA (1994) A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms
in childrens social adjustment. Psychol Bulletin 115:74101
9. Lemerise EA, Arsenio WF (2000) An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in social
information processing. Child Dev 71:107118
10. Eisenberg N, Spinrad TL (2004) Emotion-related regulation: sharpening the denition. Child Dev
75:334339
11. Thompson RA (1994) Emotion regulation: a theme in search of denition. In: Fox NA (ed) The
development of emotion regulation: biological and behavioral considerations. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development 59:2552
12. Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:11731182
13. Kopp CB (1989) Regulation of distress and negative emotions: a developmental view. Dev Psychol
25:343354
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2012) 43:87101 99
1 3
14. Cole PM, Hall SE (2008) Emotion dysregulation as a risk factor for psychopathology. In: Beauchaine
TP, Hinshaw SP (eds) Child and adolescent psychopathology. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp 265298
15. Eisenberg N, Spinrad TL, Fabes RA, Reiser M, Cumberland A, Shepard SA et al (2004) The relations of
effortful control and impulsivity to childrens resiliency and adjustment. Child Dev 75:2546
16. Koglin U, Petermann F (2004) Das Konzept der Inhibition in der Psychopathologie [The concept of
inhibition in psychopathology]. Z Klin Psychol Psychiatr Psychother 52:91117
17. Liew J, Eisenberg N, Reiser M (2004) Preschoolers effortful control and negative emotionality,
immediate reactions to disappointment, and quality of social functioning. J Exp Child Psychol
89:298319
18. Rydell AM, Berlin L, Bohlin G (2003) Emotionality, emotion regulation, and adaptation among 5- to
8-year-old children. Emotion 3:3047
19. Gilliom M, Shaw DS, Beck JE, Schonberg MA, Lukon JL (2002) Anger regulation in disadvantaged
preschool boys: strategies, antecedents, and the development of self-control. Dev Psychol 38:222235
20. Gouze KR (1987) Attention and social problem solving as correlates of aggression in preschool males.
J Abnorm Child Psych 15:181197
21. Orobio de Castro B, Veerman JW, Koops W, Bosch JD, Monshouwer HJ (2002) Hostile attribution of
intent and aggressive behavior: a meta-analysis. Child Dev 73:916934
22. Runions KC, Keating DP (2007) Young childrens social information processing: family antecedents
and behavioral correlates. Dev Psychol 43:838849
23. Coy K, Speltz ML, DeKlyen M, Jones K (2001) Social-cognitive processes in preschool boys with and
without oppositional deant disorder. J Abnorm Child Psych 29:107119
24. Green VA, Cillessen AHN, Rechis R, Patterson MM, Hughes JM (2008) Social problem solving and
strategy use in young children. J Genet Psychol 169:92112
25. Lerner JS, Keltner D (2000) Beyond valence: toward a model of emotion-specic inuences on
judgement and choice. Cogn Emot 14:473493
26. Tittmann M, Rudolph U (2007) Aggressives Verhalten und soziometrischer Status bei Kindern im
Vorschulalter. Verantwortlichkeitszuschreibungen und Emotionen bei Kindern (SAVE) [Aggressive
behavior and sociometric status of preschool children: validation of an exercise to ascertain attribution
of responsibility and emotion in children (SAVE)]. Z Entwickl Paedagogis 39:177186
27. Denham SA, Bouril B, Belouad F (1994) Preschoolers affect and cognition about challenging peer
situations. Child Study J 24:121
28. Orobio de Castro B, Merk W, Koops W, Veerman JW, Bosch JD (2005) Emotions in social information
processing and their relations with reactive and proactive aggression in referred aggressive boys. J Clin
Child Adolesc Psychol 34:105116
29. Van Nieuwenhuijzen M, Orobio de Castro B, van Aken MAG, Matthys W (2009) Impulse control and
aggressive response generation as predictors of aggressive behaviour in children with mild intellectual
disabilities and borderline intelligence. J Intellect Disabil Res 53:233242
30. Musher-Eizenman DR, Boxer P, Danner S, Dubow EF, Goldstein SE, Heretick DML (2004) Social-
cognitive mediators of the regulation of environmental and emotion regulation factors to childrens
aggression. Aggressive Behav 30:389408
31. Crozier JC, Dodge KA, Fontaine RG, Lansford JE, Bates JE, Pettit GS et al (2008) Social information
processing and cardiac predictors of adolescent antisocial behavior. J Abnorm Psychol 117:253267
32. Juliano M, Werner R, Wright Cassidy K (2006) Early correlates of preschool aggressive behavior
according to type of aggression and measurement. J Appl Dev Psychol 27:395410
33. Ostrov JM, Keating CF (2004) Gender differences in preschool aggression during free play and
structured interactions: an overservational study. Soc Dev 13:255277
34. Wellman HM, Cross D, Watson J (2001) Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: the truth about
false belief. Child Dev 72:655684
35. Statistisches Bundesamt (2009) Bevolkerung und Erwerbstatigkeit: Bevolkerung mit Migrations-
hintergrund. Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2007 [Population and employment: population with a
migration background. Results of the micro census 2007]. Wiesbaden
36. Putnam SP, Rothbart MK (2006) Development of short and very short forms of the Childrens Behavior
Questionnaire. J Pers Assess 87:102112
37. Hagekull B, Bohlin G (2004) Predictors of middle childhood psychosomatic problems: an emotion
regulation approach. Infant Child Dev 13:389405
38. Petermann F, Koglin U, Natzke H, Marees N (2005) Kinderinterview zu sozialen Situationen [Child
interview about social situations]. University Bremen, Bremen Unpublished manuscript
39. Dodge KA, Lansford JE, Salzer Burks V, Bates JE, Pettit GS, Fontaine R et al (2003) Peer rejection and
social information-processing factors in the development of aggressive behavior problems in children.
Child Dev 74:374393
100 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2012) 43:87101
1 3
40. Harter S, Pike R (1984) The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social acceptance for young
children. Child Dev 55:19691982
41. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple
mediation models. Behav Res Meth Ins C 36:717731
42. Kline RB (2005) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed). Guilford Press, New
York
43. Webster-Stratton C, Lindsay DW (1999) Social competence and conduct problems in young children:
issues in assessment. J Clin Child Psychol 28:2543
44. Costanzo PR, Dix TH (1983) Beyond the information processed: socialization in the development of
attributional processes. In: Higgins ET, Ruble DN, Hartup WW (eds) Social cognition and social
development: a sociocultural perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 6381
45. Fontaine RG, Dodge KA (2006) Real-time decision making and aggressive behavior in youth: a heu-
ristic model of response evaluation and decision (RED). Aggressive Behav 32:604624
46. Orobio de Castro B (2004) The development of social information processing and aggressive behaviour:
current issues. Eur J Dev Psychol 1:87102
47. Forgas JP (1995) Mood and judgement: the affect infusion model (AIM). Psychol Bull 117:3966
48. Dodge KA, Somberg DR (1987) Hostile attributional biases among aggressive boys are exacerbated
under conditions of threats to the self. Child Dev 58:213224
49. Koglin U, Petermann F (2006) Verhaltenstherapeutisches Forderprogramm im Kindergarten [Behav-
ioral therapy program in kindergarten]. Verhaltenstherapie Kind Jugendl 2:8795
50. Webster-Stratton C, Reid MJ (2003) Treating conduct problems and strengthening social emotional
competence in young children (ages 48 years): the Dina Dinosaur treatment program. J Emot Behav
Disord 11:130143
51. Koglin U, Petermann F (2011) The effectiveness of the behavioural training for preschool children. Eur
Early Child Educ Rs J 19:97111
52. Webster-Stratton C, Reid MJ, Stoolmiller M (2008) Preventing conduct problems and improving school
readiness: evaluation of the incredible years teacher and child training programs in high-risk schools.
J Child Psychol Psyc 49:471488
53. Dodge KA, Laird R, Lochman JE, Zelli A (2002) Multidimensional latent-construct analysis of chil-
drens social information processing patterns: correlations with aggressive behavior problems. Psychol
Assessment 14:6073
54. Lansford JE, Malone PS, Dodge KA, Crozier JC, Pettit GS, Bates JE (2006) A 12-year prospective
study of patterns of social information processing problems and externalizing behaviors. J Abnorm
Child Psych 34:715724
55. Tremblay RE (2010) Developmental origins of disruptive behavior problems: the original sin
hypothesis, epigenetics and their consequences for prevention. J Child Psychol Psyc 51:341367
56. Crick NR, Grotpeter JK, Bigbee MA (2002) Relationally and physically aggressive childrens intent
attributions and feelings of distress for relational and instrumental peer provocations. Child Dev
73:11341142
57. Crick NR, Werner NE (1998) Response decision processes in relational and overt aggression. Child Dev
69:16301639
58. Petermann F, Kullik A (2011) Fruhe Emotionsdysregulation: Ein Indikator fur psychische Storungen im
Kindesalter? [Early emotion dysregulation: an indicator for mental disorders in childhood?]. Kindh
Entwickl 20:186196
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev (2012) 43:87101 101
1 3
Copyright of Child Psychiatry & Human Development is the property of Springer Science & Business Media
B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.