European Journal of Personality, Vol.

7,19-36 (1993) zyxw

Early emotional instability, prosocial behaviour, and aggression:
some methodological aspects

z
GlAN VlTTORlO CAPRARA and CONCETTA PASTORELLI
z
Universitd degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Rome, ltaly

Abstract
The internal consistency of Emotional Instability, Prosocial Behaviour, and Aggression
scales was examined in elementary school children aged between 7 and 10 years. Multiple
informants (self-report, teacher rating, mother rating, and peer nomination) were
obtained on the above three dimensions. Relationships between the scales were first
examined within the single informant frame of reference and then between informants.
The concurrent validity was assessed using sociometric measures (popularity, rejection,
social impact, and social preference) and the Achenbach and Edelbrock Child Behavior
Checklist (teacher and parent form). The results confirm the internal validity of the
three scales measuring emotional instability, prosocial behaviour, and aggression in

zyxwvuts
child self-report, teacher rating, and mother rating. The use of self-report measures
seems promising within the multiple informant strategy of research on child behaviour.
Correlational results show satisfactory concurrent validity for the three scales, especially

zyxw
for teacher rating and peer nomination. The strict relation between emotional instability
and aggression poses problems of discriminant validity which need to be further investi-
gated.

INTRODUCTION

The great amount of research reported in the literature on childhood and adult
aggression testifies to the relevance and the complexity of the phenomenon under
investigation (Parke and Slaby, 1983).The study reported here focuses on the import-
ance of using specific constructs differently related to child aggression and of using
a multiple informant/method research strategy. The use of self-report and the infor-
mation provided by others (teachers, parents, and peers) are likely to highlight the
nature of the relations between aggression and other indicators of social adjustment/
maladjustment.
Our general interest is in the processes that regulate personality development and

zyxwv
adaptation. Prior research on this (see Caprara and Pastorelli, 1989, for a review)

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gian Vittorio Caprara, Dipartimento
di Psicologia, liniversita degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Via degli Apuli 8,00185, Rome, Italy.

0890-2070/93/010019-18$14.00 Received 20 December 1991

0 1993 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 16 September 1992
20 zyxwvutsr
G. V. Caprara and C. Pastorelli

regarding adult populations has documented that the study of individual differences
that are related in various ways to aggression is fundamental for an understanding
of the basic processes which cause and regulate aggressive behaviour in its various
forms. This research has also suggested a revision of the traditional notion of aggres-
sion as a unitary phenomenon in favour of more specific constructs reflecting the
basic ingredients of aggression. The scales developed to measure irritability, emotional
susceptibility (Caprara, Cinanni, D’Imperio, Passerini, Renzi and Travaglia, 1985a),
and dissipation/rumination (Caprara, 1986) in adults show how our approach favours
a more finely grained analysis using more precise, though more limited, constructs.
Irritability is defined as the tendency to react impulsively, controversially, or rudely
to the slightest provocation or disagreement. Emotional susceptibility is defined as
the tendency to experience feelings of discomfort, inadequacy, and vulnerability.
Both constructs are assumed to reflect tendencies to perceive events as frustrating
and to overreact emotionally. Dissipationhmination is considered to reflect the
individual tendency to get over ill-feelings or desires to retaliate when frustrated
or offended.
A number of studies have now confirmed the validity of these constructs and
have sustained the hypothesis that whereas both irritability and emotional susceptibi-
lity are critical in situations in which impulsive or reactive aggression is the main
issue (Berkowitz, 1974; Caprara, Renzi, Alcini, D’Imperio and Travaglia, 1983;
Caprara, Renzi, Amolini, D’Imperio and Travaglia, 1984), the role of dissipation/
rumination is critical in situations in which the role of cognitive elaboration in percep-
tion, attribution, evaluation, memory-storing, and recall is prominent (Caprara, Col-
uzzi, Mazzotti and Zelli, 1985b; Caprara, Gargaro, Pastorelli, Prezza, Renzi and
Zelli, 1987).
As regards the controversial debate on the definition of different forms of aggres-
sion (e.g. Hartup, 1974; Parke and Slaby, 1983), while such findings confirm our
strategy of employing more specific constructs, they also suggest a distinction between
amounts of variability, which in the various situations is accounted for by the affective
and cognitive components of aggression.
Our hypothesis is not based on a new and untenable distinction between emotional
and cognitive aggression. We believe, in accordance with the theories of Megargee
(1966) and Block and Gjerde (1986) about the role that excess and defect of control
may play in the regulation of aggression, that the various forms of aggression depend
on different combinations of affect and cognition which in turn vary in relation
to different instigators and situations. What needs to be clarified is the assemblage
of the various components into the various manifestations of aggression and how
these are characterized by various degrees of control. Individual differences may
help to clarify the different combinations and to provide a gauge for understanding
the basic process and mechanism which underlies and moderates aggressive behav-
iour.
On the basis of the literature on aggression and prosocial behaviour (Eron and
Huesmann, 1984; Parke and Slaby, 1983) and the results of our research on the
role of emotional susceptibility (Caprara and Pastorelli, 1989), we identified three
constructs: emotional instability, prosocial behaviour, and aggression (physical and
verbal).
A number of studies enabled us to validate three scales (self-reports as well as
teacher and other ratings) for measuring emotional instability, prosocial behaviour,
 Emotional instability,prosocial behaviour, and aggression

and physical and verbal aggression in children. Both the Italian and the English
zy
21

versions of these scales showed satisfactory psychometric characteristics (Caprara,

Alcini, Mazzotti and Pastorelli, 1988; Caprara and Pastorelli, 1989).
In the case of aggression and prosocial behaviour, we expected to confirm the
inverse relationship that has been found elsewhere (see Miller and Eisenberg, 1988,
for a review). By including emotional instability, we intended to explore further
the connection between the various forms of lack of emotional control and aggression.
Furthermore, the introduction of self-reports in school-aged children in combination
with other informants (teachers, mothers, peers)-using a multiple indicator/multiple
agent research strategy-was a significant improvement.
The major aims of this study were:

(1) to explore further the internal factorial structure of the Emotional Instability,
Prosocial Behaviour, and Physical and Verbal Aggression scales for different
informants (self-report, teacher rating, and mother rating);

zyxw
(2) to examine the relations within and between different informants (self, teacher,
mother, and peer) for the above three scales, and
(3) to assess the concurrent validity of these scales using sociometric measures, the
Teacher Report Form of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL-TRF; Achenbach
and Edelbrock, 1983), and the Parent Form of the Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL-PF; Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1986).

METHOD

Subjects and procedure

Self-reports

Elementary school children, 214 boys and 176 girls (total N = 390), between 7 and
10 years old, participated in this study. The children were from a public elementary
school in a small town (population about 18000), 28km from Rome. All subjects
had a middle-class background.
Emotional Instability (EI), Prosocial Behaviour (PB), and Aggression (A) scales
were administered in a group setting by two trained female experimenters. Children
were asked to fill in the three self-report scales without communicating with their
companions. Before starting, the experimenter explained to the children that their
response to the questionnaire would be absolutely confidential. When necessary,
the experimenter offered explanations when children requested some clarification.

Teacher ratings
Twenty teachers at the same elementary school were asked to complete the EI, PB,
and A scales plus the TRF scales of the CBCL (Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1983)
for each child in their class.
Teachers were given the EI, PB, and A scales at the end of November 1989 and
were asked to complete them by the end of December 1989. The T R F of the CBCL
was administered in February 1990.
22 zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvu
G. V. Caprara and C. Pastorelli

Mother ratings
Two hundred and ninety-one mothers from a total of 390 agreed to participate.
Selective biases in participation were ascertained with ANOVAs, using as dependent
variables the teacher and peer ratings of aggression. The results did not show any
significant effect between the participating group and the non-participating group.
The administration of the EI, PB, and A scales and the CBCL started in February

zyxwvut
1990 and finished in May 1990. Mothers filled in the three scales and the CBCL

zyxwvu
at the school in a group setting (five to seven people at the same time). A female
researcher was available for explanation whenever necessary.
Peer ratings
The same children ( N = 390) were presented with a booklet containing seven questions
(three questions related to EI, PB, and A, respectively; and four questions related
to sociometric status) and a list of all the names of the children in their class. Adminis-
tration took place in February 1990, and was conducted in a group setting. Each
child was first asked to read the question (e.g. ‘Who are the three classmates who
fight a lot?’) and then to read all the names of their classmates, and finally to put
a circle around the names that they wished to indicate. Children were also told
that it was necessary to work alone, without communicating with their friends and,
more importantly, that nobody would see their answers except the experimenter.

Measures
SeEf-reports
The Emotional Instability scale (El).This is a 20-item scale (answer format: often = 3;
sometimes =2; never = l), containing five control items which do not contribute to
the total score and which were included to avoid response set phenomena. Various
items offer a description of a particular child’s behaviour denoting a lack of adequate
self-control in social situations as a result of scarce capacity to refrain from impulsivity
and emotionality (see Appendix 1).
Prosocial Behaviour scale (PB). This is a 15-item scale (answer format: often=3;
sometimes =2; never = 1) containing five control items. The items offer a description
of a child’s behaviour denoting altruism, trust, and agreeableness (see Appendix
2).
Physical and Verbal Aggression scale ( A ) . This is a 20-item scale (answer format:
often = 3; sometimes = 2; never = 1) with five control items. The items offer a descrip-
tion of the child’s behaviour aimed at hurting others physically and verbally (see
Appendix 3).
Teacher ratings
(a) EZ, PB, and A scales. A modified version of the scales, developed for children,
was used for the teachers. In this version, each item was reformulated using the
third person (e.g. ‘Hehhe gets into fights’, instead of ‘I get into fights’). The response
format was the same (often = 3; sometimes = 2; never = 1).
(b) The Achenbach and Edelbrock Teacher Report Form of the Child Behavior
Checklist (CBCL-TRF).This is a standardized rating form consisting of 118 problem
items, open-ended items for physical problems without any known medical cause,
 zy
zyxw
Emotional instability,prosocial behaviour, and aggression

and other unspecified problems, ratings of academic performance, and four adaptive
characteristics. Teachers were instructed to circle a 0 if the item was not true, 1
23

if it was sometimes true, and 2 if it was true or often true. A revised version (authors
of this article) of the Italian translation of the TRF (Krogh and Trevisan; State
University of New York at Buffalo) was used.

Mother ratings
(a) EI, PB, and A scales; mothers were given the same EI, PB, and A scales that
were used for teachers.
(b) The Child Behavior Checklist, parent report (CBCL-PF), is a standardized rating
scale composed of 118 problem items and items assessing activities, social relations,
school achievement, and social competence. Mothers were instructed to circle 0 (not
true), 1 (sometimes true), or 2 (true or often true) on the Italian translation of the
CBCL (the CDE Group, Montreal Children’s Hospital) which was somewhat revised
by the authors of this article.

zyxwvut
Peer measures
(a) Peer nomination measures were developed on the basis of those items which
proved to have higher loadings in the factorial structure of EI, PB, and A. These
were (EZ)disturb others, (PB)give help, and ( A ) fight a lot.
(b) Sociometric variables-(Popularity I ) play with; (Popularity 2) study with;
(Rejection I ) do not want to play with; (Rejection 2) do not want to study with-were
used as measures of sociometric status.

zyx RESULTS

First, we explored possible sex and age differences in the self-reports, teacher ratings,
mother ratings, and peer nominations of emotional instability, prosocial behaviour,
and aggression. We conducted separate 2 (Sex: boydgirls) x 2 (Age: 7-8/9-10)
ANOVAs, using the total score of each scale as the dependent variable for self-reports,
teacher ratings, and mother ratings, and the number of nominations as the dependent
variable in the case of peer ratings.
Table 1 shows means and standard deviations for the three separate scales, the
different informants (self, teacher, and mother), and the various groups (sex and
age).
As regards self-reports, the results show significant effects for the separate sex
and age groups. Boys rated themselves as more emotionally unstable

zyxw
(F(1,386) = 28.31, p < 0.0001) and more aggressive (F(1,386) = 70.40, p < 0.0001)
than girls. Girls rated themselves as more prosocial than boys (F(1,386) = 23.74,
p < 0.000 1). The 7-8-year-old children reported less emotional instability
(F(1,386) = 39.92, p < O.OOOl), less aggressive behaviour (F(1,386) = 20.25,
p < O.OOOl), and less prosocial behaviour (F(1,386) = 28.47, p < 0.0001) compared
with the 9-10-year-old children. No significant Sex x Age interaction was found.
As regards teachers’ evaluations, boys were rated as significantly more emotionally
unstable (F(1,383) = 36.79, p < O.OOOl), more aggressive (F(1,383) = 47.52,
p < 0.0001), and significantly less prosocial (F(1,383) = 21.94, p < 0.0001) than girls.
24 zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvuts
zyxwvu
G. V. Caprara and C. Pastorelli

Table 1. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of EI, PB, and A for the different groups

N
Self-report
M (SD) N
Teacher rating
M (SD)
Emotional Instability
Total 390 28.73 (5.80) 387 24.05 (7.82)
Boys 214 30.20 (5.84) 212 26.16 (8.31)
Girls 176 27.30 (5.27) 175 21.49 (6.52)
Age: 7-8 179 27.03 (5.97) 176 24.85 (8.63)
Age: 9-10 21 1 30.47 (5.10) 211 23.38 (7.18)

Prosocial Behaviour
Total 390 23.80 (3.99) 387 25.14 (4.65)
Boys 214 22.85 (4.24) 212 24.18 (4.78)
Girls 176 24.80 (3.50) 175 26.30 (3.90)
Age: 7-8 179 22.58 (4.09) 176 24.83 (4.90)
Age: 9-10 21 1 24.63 (3.73) 21 1 25.40 (4.23)

Aggression
Total 390 24.33 (6.19) 387 20.64 (6.53)
Boys 214 26.59 (6.40) 212 22.61 (7.32)
Girls 176 21.82 (4.74) 175 18.25 (4.49)
Age: 7-8 179 23.05 (6.23) 176 21.14 (7.10)
Age: 9-10 21 1 25.62 (5.89) 21 1 20.21 (6.07)
Mother rating Peer nomination
N M N M (SD)
Emotional Instability
Total 29 1 29.73 (5.53) 390 2.89 (4.37)
Boys 157 31.18 (5.25) 214 4.04 (5.04)
Girls I34 27.86 (5.04) 176 1.46 (2.56)
Age: 7-8 128 30.08 (5.62) 179 2.83 (3.97)
Age: 9-10 163 29.48 (5.87) 21 1 2.91 (4.57)

Prosocial Behaviour
Total 29 1 26.46 (2.73) 390 2.95 (3.29)
Boys 157 25.94 (2.86) 214 2.70 (3.14)
Girls 134 27.1 1 (2.39) 176 3.26 (3.57)
Age: 7-8 128 26.29 (2.98) 179 2.92 (3.07)
Age: 9-10 163 26.57 (2.53) 21 1 2.98 (3.58)

Aggression
Total 287 23.28 (4.86) 390 2.92 (4.52)
Boys 154 24.80 (4.53) 214 4.77 (5.27)
Girls 133 20.89 (4.10) 176 0.72 (1.64)

zyxwvuts
Age: 7-8 126 23.21 (4.40) 179 2.89 (4.23)
Age: 9-10 161 22.94 (4.99) 21 1 2.96 (4.77)

The 9-10-year-old children were rated as more prosocial than the younger ones
< 0.05). No significant Sex x Age interaction was found.
(F(1,383) = 3 . 7 0 , ~
As regards mothers’ evaluation, boys were rated as more emotionally unstable
(F(1,287) = 22.07, p < O.OOOl), more aggressive (F(1,283) = 44.56, p < O.OOOl), and
less prosocial (F(1,287) = 8.17, p < 0.005) than girls. No significant effect for Age
or for the Sex X Age interaction was found.
 zyxwv
Emotional instability, prosocial behaviour, and aggression

zy
zyx
zy
As regards peer nominations of EI, PB, and A, separate two-way ANOVAs were
performed on the number of nominations received by each child on each of the
three questions (disturb, fight, and help). Means and standard deviations are also
shown in Table 1.
Males received more nominations for disturbing others (F(1,435) = 44.49,
25

p < 0.0001) andfighting (F(1,386) = 88.34, p < 0.0001) than girls. No significant age
effects were found in the cases of disturbing others andfighting. As regards helping
others, no significant differences were found for any of the factors under consideration
(Sex: F( 1,386) = 1.99, n.s.; Age: F(1,386) = 0.00, n.s.; Sex x Age: F( 1,386) = 0.92, n.s.).

Internal consistency of the three scales measuring EI, PB, and A

Preliminarily, the large number of subjects enabled for all informants’ ratings (self,
teachers, and mothers) separate factor analyses on the EI, PB and A scales for
boys and girls, 7-8 year old and 9-10-year-old children. Since results regarding factor-
ial structure similarity, using Tucker’s theta of congruence (see Harman, 1976), con-
firmed in the case of the various groups of boys, girls, and younger and older children
the same monofactorial structure of previous findings (Caprara et al., 1988), our
discussion is based on the principal component analysis (one factor extraction) of
the overall sample (Table 2).

Table 2. Comparisons of factorial structure (Tucker’s theta)

of different groups for the three informants (self, teachers, and
mothers)
Boys/girls Age: 7-8/9-10
Self EI 0.990 0.984
PB 0.993 0.978
A 0.974 0.982

Teachers EI 0.998 0.996

PB 0.994 0.988
A 0.992 0.994

Mothers EI 0.995 0.991

PB 0.969 0.965
A 0.982 0.986

Note: EI = Emotional Instability; PB = Prosocial Behaviour;

A = Aggression.

Self-reports
The results of the principal component analysis (one factor extraction), item-total
correlations, and Cronbach alpha coefficients are reported in Table 3.
As regards the three scales, the extracted components accounted respectively for
29.8 per cent (EI), 33.5 per cent (PB), and 35.3 per cent (A) of the total variance.
26 zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsr
zyxwv
G. V. Caprara and C. Pastorelli

Table 3. Factor loadings and percentage of total variance accounted for by the first component,
item-total correlation, and Cronbach alpha (self-report and teacher and mother ratings)
Items Self Teacher Mother
Emotional Instability
EI 1 0.44 0.36 0.81 0.77 0.60 0.53
E12 0.61 0.50 0.86 0.83 0.66 0.57
E14 0.58 0.48 0.84 0.80 0.60 0.52
EI5 0.52 0.42 0.80 0.77 0.63 0.56
E16 0.59 0.49 0.82 0.78 0.71 0.64
E17 0.41 0.34 0.62 0.58 0.48 0.41
EI9 0.64 0.52 0.84 0.81 0.69 0.61
EIlO 0.50 0.42 0.63 0.59 0.40 0.33
EIll 0.61 0.50 0.79 0.75 0.66 0.58

zyxwvut
EI13 0.61 0.51 0.75 0.70 0.67 0.59
E114 0.45 0.36 0.68 0.64 0.47 0.40
E116 0.51 0.42 0.78 0.74 0.65 0.57
E117 0.57 0.46 0.74 0.71 0.69 0.61
EI19 0.53 0.45 0.75 0.71 0.59 0.53
E120 0.49 0.42 0.65 0.60 0.47 0.40
YOof variance 29.8 58.7 37.3
first component
Alpha 0.82 0.94 0.87

Prosocial Behaviour
PB 1 0.66 0.52 0.82 0.77 0.63 0.46
PB2 0.58 0.44 0.85 0.79 0.54 0.37
PB4 0.70 0.56 0.85 0.80 0.69 0.53

zyxwvuts
PB5 0.53 0.39 0.79 0.72 0.40 0.27
PB7 0.53 0.40 0.83 0.76 0.59 0.41
PB9 0.51 0.38 0.71 0.64 0.49 0.35
PBlO 0.54 0.42 0.80 0.74 0.61 0.44
PB12 0.43 0.31 0.57 0.49 0.40 0.26
PB13 0.63 0.50 0.73 0.66 0.53 0.38
PB15 0.57 0.43 0.48 0.41 0.47 0.34
% of variance 33.5 57.5 29.9
first component
Alvha 0.77 0.9 1 0.71
Table 3 continues opposite. For self-reports, teacher ratings and mother ratings, the first column refers
to factor loadings and the second column refers to item-total correlations.

Factor loadings and item-total correlations were mostly satisfactory. Cronbach’s

alpha coefficients were equally satisfactory and a further confirmation of the internal
consistency of the scales.

Teacher ratings
As shown in Table 3, the percentage of variance accounted for by the extracted
component for EI, PB, and A was very satisfactory; factor loadings and item-total
correlations were high on all three scales. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients further con-
firmed the internal consistency of each scale.
Table 3 continued
Items Self
Emotional instability, prosocial behaviour, and aggression

Teacher Mother
zy
zy 27

Aggression
A1 0.66 0.57 0.80 0.75 0.69 0.59

zyxwvuts
A3 0.73 0.65 0.82 0.78 0.73 0.64
A4 0.63 0.56 0.82 0.79 0.67 0.58
A5 0.65 0.56 0.75 0.70 0.52 0.42
A7 0.54 0.45 0.79 0.74 0.55 0.48
A8 0.54 0.46 0.49 0.43 0.28 0.21
A10 0.54 0.46 0.65 0.61 0.46 0.38
A1 1 0.36 0.29 0.42 0.38 0.35 0.29
A12 0.53 0.45 0.63 0.59 0.43 0.36

zy
A13 0.57 0.49 0.61 0.47 0.36 0.31
A15 0.64 0.55 0.81 0.76 0.73 0.65
A16 0.59 0.50 0.81 0.77 0.67 0.56
A18 0.68 0.61 0.79 0.76 0.66 0.57
A19 0.61 0.53 0.81 0.77 0.61 0.52
A20 0.47 0.39 0.85 0.80 0.61 0.52
YOof variance 35.3 54.7 33.3
first component
Alpha 0.86 0.93 0.85

Mother ratings
zyxwvu
As shown in Table 3, factor loadings, item-total correlations and Cronbach alpha
coefficients substantially reflected those of the children in showing more satisfactory
scores for EI and A than for PB.

Relationships within and between informants for the EI, PB, and A scales
In order to examine single informant and between-informant relationships for the
EI, PB, and A scales, the Bravais Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated
using the total score of each scale for self-reports and mothers’ ratings; standardized
scores ( z ) within each class were used for teacher ratings and peer nominations.
Table 4 shows the inter-correlations of the EI, PB, and A scales for self-reports,
teacher ratings, mother ratings, and peer nominations.
Relations among the scales
Correlations between EI and A were positive in all informants. This confirms what
has been found by other investigators regarding the strict relation of aggression
with constructs similar to emotional instability such as hyperactivity and impulsive
motor restlessness (Af Klinteberg and Magnusson, 1989; Hinshaw, 1987). Correla-
tions between A and PB were significantly negative and confirmed our expectations
for self-reports and teacher ratings. However, they did not reach the significance
level for mother ratings and peer nominations. The correlations between EI and
PB were significantly negative in self-reports, teacher ratings, and peer nominations.
Apparently A and EI, although positively correlated, are differently associated with
prosocial behaviour in the evaluation of self, teachers, mothers, and peers.
28 zyxwvutsr
zyxwv
zyxwvu
G. V. Caprara and C. Pastorelli

Table 4. Correlations of self-reports, teacher ratings, mother

ratings, and peer nominations for EI, PB, and A

Self
Teacherb
Mother‘
Peerd
-0.15*
-0.26**
-0.13
-0.25**
AIPB
-0.28**
-0.37**
-0.14
-0.13
zyxw
Correlations within informants for the three scales
EI/PB EIIA
0.68**
0.80**
0.75**
0.70**
Correlations between informants on the same scales
EI PB A
Selflteacher 0.25** 0.21** 0.28**
Self/mother 0.22** 0.20** 0.28**
Self/peer 0.18** 0.19** 0.33**

zyxwvuts
Teacher/
mother 0.42** 0.26** 0.40**
Teachedpeer 0.66** 0.33** 0.62**
Peedmother 0.25** 0.11 0.34**
Note: EI = Emotional Instability; PB = Prosocial Behaviour; A = Ag-
gression.
* p < 0.001; * * p < 0.0001.
“ N = 390; ‘ N = 387; ‘ N = 287; d N = 390.

Relationships between scales across informants

Correlations among the three scales across informants (self, teacher, mother, and
peer) (see Table 4) showed that informants’ evaluations correlated significantly and
positively along the same dimensions, with the single exception of the peedmother
correlation in PB.
As noted above, the various informants showed similar patterns of painvise correla-
tions as regards the dimensions under examination (see Table 4). However, it must
be noted that (a) the positive correlation between EI and A was higher in teacher
ratings than in self-reports, mother ratings, and peer nominations; (b) the negative
correlations between PB and A was higher in teacher ratings and child self-reports
compared with mother ratings and peer nominations; and (c) the negative correlation
between EI and PB was lower in mother ratings than in teacher ratings and peer
nominations.

The concurrent validity of the Emotional Instability, Prosocial Behaviour, and

Aggression scales
The validity of the EI, PB, and A scales was further examined using the following
concurrent validity criteria: (a) sociometric measures of popularity, rejection, social
impact, and social preference; (b) TRF of CBCL: internalizing/externalizing scales,
total behaviour problem score; school performance and adaptive functioning (work-
ing hard, behaving appropriately, learning, happiness); and (c) CBCL, parent form:
internalizing/externalizing scales, total behaviour problem score; social competence
(activities, social, school).
Sociometric measures
As regards the sociometric variables, the Popularity (positive nominations: Popl-
 zy
Emotional instability, prosocial behaviour, and aggression 29

zyx
companions whom you may like to play with; P o p 2 ~ o m p a n i o n swhom you like
to study with) and Rejection scores (negative nominations: Rej l+ompanions whom
you don’t want to play with; Rej2--companions whom you don’t want to study
with) were standardized within each class.
Social Impact and Social Preference scores were calculated according to Peery
(1979). These variables correspond to the sum of Popl +Pop2 + Rejl + Rej2
for Social Impact, and to the algebraic sum of (Popl + Pop2) - (Rejl + Rej2)
for Social Preference. Both of these two scores were standardized within each class.
As shown in Table 5, the major correlate of Popularity was PB-peers (‘Helps
others’), while the major correlate of Rejection was EI-peers (‘Disturbs others’).
It is not surprising that the same informant provided the highest correlations. How-
ever, it is interesting to note the weak correlations between self-reports, on the one
hand, and popularity and rejection, on the other hand, as opposed to the correlations
between teacher and mother ratings of EI and A and peer rejection.
The major positive correlates of Social Impact were EI-peers (‘Disturbs others’)

zyxwv
and A-peers (‘Fight’). The major positive correlate for Social Preference was ‘Helps
others’, and the major negative correlate was ‘Disturbs others’. Social Impact corre-
lated positively with the teacher ratings of EI and A; Social Preference correlated
negatively with the teacher ratings of EI and A.
Achenbach and Edelbrock ’s CBCL-TRF and CBCL-PF
Externalizinghternalizing, total problem behaviour scores, and variables related
to school performance, adaptive functioning and social competence of the Teacher
Report Form (TRF) and the Parent Form (PF) of the CBCL were computed, accord-
ing to the instructions reported in the respective manuals (Achenbach and Edelbrock,
1983, 1986). All scores of the CBCL-TRF were standardized within each class.
The correlations with the Achenbach and Edelbrock measures (see Table 5) within
the same informant were, as expected, more consistent compared with the correlations
between different informants.
Teacher ratings. As regards teacher ratings, EI and A correlated positively with
externalizing (CBCL-TRF). Prosocial Behaviour (PB) correlated negatively with
internalizing as well as externalizing. The total problem behaviour score (CBCL-
TRF) showed a significant and positive correlation with EI and A, and a negative
correlation with PB.
School performance and the child’s adaptive characteristics (working hard, appro-
priate behaviour, learning, and happiness) showed significant and negative correla-
tions with EI and A, and a significant positive correlation with PB.
Thus, the findings confirmed the problematic nature of EI and A as perceived
by teachers and the adaptive nature of PB as perceived by teachers.
These findings were partially confirmed by the correlations between CBCL-TRF
and self-reports, mother ratings and peer nominations of EI, PB, and A.
In the case of self-reports, PB was negatively correlated with the externalizing
dimension and the total problem behaviour score (CBCL-TRF) and positively corre-
lated with the child’s adaptive characteristics.
There was a positive correlation of the externalizing dimension and the total prob-
lem behaviour score and mothers’ evaluations of EI and A.
The high correlation between CBCL-TRF and peer nomination of EI, PB, and
A is relevant regarding our expectations. Children who are perceived as problematic
30 zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsr
zyxwv
G. V. Caprara and C. Pastorelli

Table 5. Correlations of EI, PB, and A (different informants) with sociometric measures
and the Achenbach and Edelbrock CBCL (teacher and parent form)
Self' Teacherb
EI PB A EI PB A
Sociometric measures
Pop 1 0.05 0.08 0.04 -0.11 0.19** -0.11
Pop2 0.02 0.15 -0.02 -0.13 0.18** -0.15
Rej 1 0.10 -0.07 0.12 0.46 -0.22** 0.43**
Rej2 0.12 -0.08 0.17* 0.53** -0.25** 0.51**

z
SOC.impact 0.14 0.01 0.17* 0.40** -0.10 0.39**
SOC.pref. -0.06 0.13 -0.10 -0.43** 0.28** -0.40**
TRF of CBCL
Tinter
Texter
Total prob.
School perf.
Work hard
Approp. beh.
Learning
Happy
-0.05
0.15
0.10
-0.00
-0.02
-0.10
-0.01
-0.00
-0.15
-0.19**
-0.20**
0.21 **
0.22**
0.19**
0.21 **
0.20**
zyxwv
-0.03
0.20**
0.16*
-0.05
-0.08
-0.18**
-0.03
-0.03
0.04
0.75**
0.66**
-0.28**
-0.38**
-0.50**
-0.26**
-0.20**
-0.40**
-0.35**
-0.40**
0.49**
0.40**
0.43**
0.37**
0.39**
0.06
0.66**
0.57**
-0.26**
-0.35**
-0.51**
-0.23**
-0.23**

CBCL mother
Minter. -0.03 0.02 0.06 0.10 -0.07 0.06
Mexter 0.15 -0.08 0.04 0.39** -0.14 0.31**
Total prob. 0.08 -0.03 0.05 0.14 -0.11 0.15
Activities 0.04 0.10 0.06 0.00 -0.04 0.04
Social 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.08
School -0.04 0.09 -0.06 -0.06 0.01 -0.05
Social comp. -0.04 0.14 0.07 0.03 -0.00 0.06
Table 5 continues opposite

by teachers are also perceived by their peers as emotionally unstable, aggressive,

and not very prosocial.
The externalizing dimension and the total problem behaviour score correlated
positively with EI and A peer nomination. Internalizing and externalizing and the
total problem behaviour score correlated negatively with PB peer nominations.
School performance and adaptive characteristics in general correlated negatively
with the peer nominations of EI and A, with the exception of the correlation between
learning and happiness and peer nominations of A. On the other hand, school per-
formance and all adaptive characteristics of the child correlated positively with P B
(peer nominations).
Mother ratings. As regards mother ratings, EI and A were positively correlated
with both internalizing and externalizing tendencies and total problem behaviour
scores.
In general, there were fewer relations than expected between mother CBCL and
self-reports, teacher ratings,and peer nominations. However, some were consistent
with our expectations: children who are perceived as externalizers by their mothers
are also perceived by their teacher and peers as more emotionally unstable and
 zzy
zy Emotional instability, prosocial behaviour, and aggression 31

zyxwvutsr
Table 5 continued

zyxw
Mother' Peerd
EI PB A EI PB A
Sociometric measures
Popl -0.05 -0.01 -0.00 -0.14 0.47** -0.06
Pop2 -0.07 0.00 -0.06 -0.17* 0.61** -0.07
Rej 1 0.21* -0.06 0.23** 0.58** -0.24** 0.43**
Rej2 0.19* -0.10 0.24** 0.61** -0.28** 0.50**
SOC.impact 0.15 -0.09 0.21* 0.48** 0.18** 0.43**
SOC. pref. -0.17 0.04 -0.18 -0.52** 0.52** -0.37**

TRF of CBCL
Tinter. -0.03 -0.18 -0.02 -0.01 -0.21* -0.08
Texter. 0.32** -0.10 0.29** 0.57** -0.37** 0.41**
Total prob. 0.28** -0.11 0.25** 0.48** -0.38** 0.31**
School perf. -0.11 0.12 -0.08 -0.26** 0.60** -0.17*
Work hard -0.14 0.12 -0.16 -0.35** 0.57** -0.23**
Approp. beh. -0.25** 0.12 -0.24** -0.42** 0.55** -0.36**
Learning -0.05 0.12 -0.08 -0.22** 0.58** -0.13
Happy -0.10 0.22** -0.11 -0.17* 0.35** -0.10

CBCL mother
Minter. 0.43** -0.15 0.33** 0.02 -0.13 0.00
Mexter 0.68** -0.16 0.59** 0.22** -0.22** 0.24**
Total prob. 0.56** -0.13 0.48** 0.10 -0.17 0.11
Activities -0.03 0.13 -0.11 -0.00 0.14 -0.01
Social -0.02 0.16 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.09

zyxwvu
School -0.12 0.02 -0.07 -0.06 0.16 -0.10
Social comn. -0.05 0.18 -0.06 0.00 0.14 0.03
Note: * p < 0.001; **p < O.OOO1.
" N = 390; b N = 387;" = 281; ' N = 390.
Popl = like to play with; Pop2 =like to study with; Rejl = d o not like to play with; Rej2 =do not like
to study with; SOC.impact = sum of all nominations; SOC.pref. = algebraic sum of positive nominations
- negative nominations; Tinter. = teacher-internalizing scale; Texter. = teacher-externalizing scale;
Minter. = mother-internalizing scale; Mexter. = mother-externalizing scale.; total prob. = total problem
behaviour scale.

aggressive.The significant negative correlation between peer nominations of prosocial

behaviour and mothers' perception of problematic behaviour of the child (Externaliz-
ing scales and the total problem behaviour score) is also particularly relevant.

DISCUSSION
The results of the factor analyses and the reliability coefficients confirm the internal
validity of the scales regarding emotional instability, prosocial behaviour, and aggres-
sion-for self-reports, teacher ratings as well as ratings given by mothers.
The results further confirm what has been widely reported in the literature regarding
the greater aggression and less prosocial behaviour reported and perceived by others
in boys than in girls (Feschbach, 1970; Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974; Parke and Slaby,
1983).
32 zyxwvutsr
zyxwv
G. V. Caprara and C. Pastorelli

Correlations between the various informants’ evaluations of the same dimension

and similar patterns of correlations among the various dimensionsin different inform-
ants provided further support for the validity of the three measures.
The high correlation between EI and A may pose problems of discriminant validity
for the two scales, particularly in the teacher rating form.
Moreover, the role of what we have called emotional instability seems to be crucial
in relation to adjustment. This is because of (a) its positive correlation with aggression;
(b) its negative correlation with prosocial behaviour across different informants (self,
teacher, peer); (c) its positive correlation with peer rejection; and (d) its negative
correlation with popularity among peers.
The correlations of our measures with external criteria such as the Achenbach
and Edelbrock CBCL (teacher and parent forms) appear to be unsatisfactory for
self-reports, satisfactory for parent evaluations, and extremely interesting for teacher
and peer evaluations. EI seems to be critical in relation to the perception of problema-
tic behaviour by teachers and peers. We believe that clarification of the role of
EI versus rejection and adjustment might contribute to clarify the links between
emotional instability and aggression.
Given the role that rejection plays as cause and effect of aggression (Asher and
Coie, 1990), it is likely that EI associated with isolation and rejection may also
lead to aggression as a response to perceived aversion and as part of a vicious circle
in which it is almost impossible to disentangle cause and effect.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results confirm the validity of our scales for measuring emotional instabi-
lity and aggressive and prosocial behaviour in children.
We believe that it is very important to have indicators for children which are
able to ascertain how children are aware of their own behaviour, particularly in
cases of behaviour which expose them to psychosocial risks.
To some extent, our results show that children can be reliable when reporting
on their own and their peers’ level of aggression, emotional instability, and prosocial
behaviour.
According to Cairns and Cairns (1984) and Achenbach (1985), self-reports of
children can be used alternatively for the information that they provide about them-
selves in relation to others, as well as for the information provided by discrepancy
between the perception that they have of their own behaviour and the perception
that their peers and their educators have of it.
Therefore, we developed instruments for children which are similar to the ones
developed for teachers and parents. It is likely that the use of similar instruments
for different informants can reduce method variance, enhance convergence, and dis-
close new avenues for understanding adjustment mechanisms and clarifying the inter-
personal processes which facilitate or compromise the social development of children.
As regards emotional instability and aggression, further studies are needed to
investigate the discriminant validity of the EI and A scales. Methodological variations
should be introduced to clarify the amount of variance due to characteristics of
the instruments and/or to the misperception of the observers.
However, as regards adjustment, what our data do suggest is that adults and
 Emotional instability, prosocial behaviour, and aggression

children share a tendency to treat emotional instability and aggression in the same
way. This is probably due to the fact that emotional instability and aggression seem
zy 33

to produce the same disturbing effects.

In this respect, the fact that emotional instability is more associated with peer
rejection than aggression should not be underestimated. It leads to an understanding
of what emotional instability means for a child and how hisher relationships with
peers may be affected by being emotionally unstable. In cases where emotional instabi-
lity introduces too many elements of discontinuity regarding mutually shared expec-
tations of how one should behave (not being interruptive, impatient, etc.) into
relations with others, it is likely that emotional instability leads to rejection. Nor
should one underestimate the consequences of confusion or mislabelling when the
behaviour of a child is mainly evaluated on the basis of its immediate effects.

zy
Correlational studies are obviously not sufficient to clarify these issues. Longitudi-
nal studies are needed to find out differences,changes, and continuities/discontinuities
within subjects and across subjects, as suggested by Magnusson (1988) and Cairns,
Cairns, Neckennan, Ferguson and Gariepy (1989). Only such studies can clarify
the subtle processes which pave the way to the later maladjustment of children exhibit-
ing lack of emotional control and early aggression (Caprara, 1993; Rutter, 1988).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation-Grants

to Individuals for Research and Study (1989-1990) and by the Minister0 della Pubb-
lica Istruzione to Gian Vittorio Caprara.

Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

REFERENCES

zyxw
Achenbach, T. M. (1985). Assessment and Taxonomy of Child and Adolescent Psychopathology,

Achenbach, T. M. and Edelbrock, C. A. (1983). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist
and Revised Child Behavior Profile, Burlington, Author, VM.
Achenbach, T. M. and Edelbrock, C. A. (1986). Manualfor the Teacher’sReports and Teacher
Version of the Child Behavior Profile, Burlington, Author, VM.

zyx
Af Klinteberg, B. and Magnusson, D. (1989). ‘Hyperactive behaviour in childhood and adult
impulsivity: a longitudinal study of male subjects’, Personality and Individual Differences,
10: 43-50.
Asher, S . R. and Coie, J. D. (1990). Peer Rejection in Childhood, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Berkowitz, L. (1974). ‘Some determinants of impulsive aggression: role of mediated associa-
tions with reinforcements for aggression’, Psychological Review, 81: 165-1 76.
Block, J. and Gjerde, P. F. (1986). ‘Distinguishingbetween antisocial behavior and undercon-
trol’. In: Olweus, D., Block, J. and Radke-Yarrow, M. (Eds), Development of Antisocial
and Prosocial Behavior: Research, Theories, and Issues, pp. 177-206, Academic Press, New
York.
Cairns, R. B. and Cairns, B. D. (1984). ‘Predicting aggressive patterns in girls and boys:
a developmental study’, Aggressive Behavior, 11: 227-242.
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckennan, H. J., Ferguson, L. L. and Gariepy, J. L. (1989).
‘Growth and aggression: 1. Childhood to early adolescence’, Developmental Psychology,
25: 32CL330.
34 zyxwvutsr
zyxwv
zyxwvu
G. V. Caprara and C. Pastorelli

Caprara, G. V. (1986). ‘Indicators of aggression: the Dissipation-Rumination Scale’, Persona-

lity and Individual Diferences, 17: 23-3 l.
Caprara, G. V. (1993). ‘Marginal deviations, aggregate effects, and disruption of continuity’.
In: Hettema, P. J. and Deary, I. J. (Eds), Basic Issues in Personality, Kluwer, Dordrecht,
The Netherlands.
Caprara, G. V. and Pastorelli, C. (1989). ‘Toward a reorientation of research on aggression’,
European Journalof Personality, 3 121-138.

zyxw
Caprara, G. V., Alcini, P., Mazzotti, E. and Pastorelli, C. (1988). ‘Sviluppo e caratteristiche
di tre scale per la misura dell’aggresssivitafisica e verbale, del comportamento prosociale,
dell’instabilitb emotiva’ [Development and characteristics of three scales measuring aggres-
sion, prosocial behaviour, and emotional instability]. In: Caprara, G. V. and Laeng, M.
(Eds), Indicatori e Precursori della Condotta Agressiva [Indicators and Precursors of Aggress-
ive Behaviour], pp. 121-143, Bulzoni, Roma.

zyxwvut
Caprara, G. V., Cinanni, V., D’Imperio, G., Passerini, S., Renzi, P. and Travaglia, G. (1985a).
‘Indicators of impulsive aggression; present status of research on Irritability and Emotional
Susceptibility Scales’, Personality and Individual Digerences, 6: 665-674.
Caprara, G. V., Coluzzi, M., Mazzotti, E. and Zelli, A. (1985b). ‘Effect of insult and dissipa-
tion-rumination on delayed aggression and hostility’, Archivio di Psicologia, Neurologia
e Psichiatria, 46: 130-139.
Caprara, G. V., Gargaro, T., Pastorelli, C., Prezza, M., Renzi, P. and Zelli, A. (1987). ‘Indivi-
dual differencesand measures of aggression in laboratory studies’, Personality and Individual
Differences, 8: 885-893.
Caprara, G. V., Renzi, P., Alcini, P., D’Imperio, G. and Travaglia, G. (1983). ‘Instigation
to aggress and escalation of aggression examined from a personological perspective: the
role of irritability and emotional susceptibility’, Aggressive Behavior, 9: 345-353.

zyxwvut
Caprara, G. V., Renzi, P., Amolini, P., D’Imperio, G. and Travaglia, G. (1984). ‘The eliciting
cue value of aggressive slides reconsidered in a personological perspective: the weapons
effect and irritability’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 14: 313-322.
Eron, L. D. and Huesmann, L. R. (1984). ‘The relation of prosocial behavior to the develop-
ment of aggression and psychopathology’, Aggressive Behavior, 10: 201-21 1.
Feschbach, S. (1970). ‘Aggression’. In: Mussen, P. H. (Ed.), Carmichael’s Manual of Child
Psychology, 3rd edn, Vol. 2, pp. 159-259, Wiley, New York.
Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Hartup, W. W. (1974). ‘Aggressionin childhood. Developmental perspectives’,American Psy-
chologist, 29: 336-341.
Hinshaw, S. P. (1987). ‘On the distinction between attentional deficitshyperactivity and con-
duct problemdaggression in child psychopathology’,Psychological Bulletin, 101: 443-463.
Maccoby, E. E. and Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The Psychology of Sex Digerences, Stanford Univer-
sity Press, Stanford, CA.
Magnusson, D. (1988). Individual Development from an Interactional Perspective, Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Megargee, E. I. (1966). ‘Undercontrolled and overcontrolled personality types in extreme
antisocial aggression’, Psychological Monograph, 80: No. 66.
Miller, P. A. and Eisenberg, N. (1988). ‘The relation of empathy to aggressive behavior and
externalizingantisocial behavior’, Psychological Bulletin, 103: 324-344.
Parke, R. D. and Slaby, R. G. (1983). ‘The development of aggression’h: Mussen, P. M.
(Series Ed.) and Hetherington, M. (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology, 4th edn,
Vol. 4, pp. 547-642, Wiley, New York.
Peery, J. C. (1979). ‘Popular, amiable, isolated, rejected: a reconceptualization of sociometric
status in preschool children’, Child Development, 56: 253-264.
Rutter, M. (1988). Studies of Psychosocial Risk: The Power of Longitudinal Data, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
 zy
zy
zyxw
Emotional instability, prosocial behaviour, and aggression

APPENDIX 1
35

Answer format

zyxwvuts
Emotional Instability scale Often Sometimes Never
EI 1 I am impatient
E12 I make trouble for others
E13 I get along well with others
E14 I shout
EI 5 I interrupt others while they are talking
E16 I play loud games
E17 I play with matches or fire
EI8 I am funny
E19 I bother others
EIlO I have bad moods
EI11 I am impolite
EI12 I feel happy
E113 I don’t respect others
E114 I cry
EI15 I make new friends easily
E116 It’s hard for me to stay still
E117 At school I talk when I shouldn’t
EI18 I do well in school
E119 I get mad
E120 I play dangerous games
Note: EI3, EI8. EI12, EI15,and EI18 are control items that do not contribute to the total score.

APPENDIX 2

Answer format
Prosocial Behaviour scale Often Sometimes Never
PB 1 I try to make sad people happier
PB2 I spend time with my friends
PB3 When I have to do things that I don’t like I
get mad
PB4 I try to help others
PB5 I am gentle
PB6 I cry about things that don’t matter
PB7 I share things I like with my friends
PB8 I feel annoyed
PB9 I help others with their homework
PBlO I let others use my toys
PBll I have bad dreams
PB12 I like to play with others
PB13 I trust others
PB14 I bite my fingernails
PB15 I hug my friends
Note: PB3, PB6, PB8, PB1 I , and PB14 are control items that do not contribute to the total score.
36 zyxwvutsrq
zyxw
G. V. Caprara and C. Pastorelli

APPENDIX 3

Answer format
Aggression scale Often Sometimes Never
A1 I get into fights
A2 I watch a lot of television
A3 I kick and hit or punch
A4 I get even when I’m mad
AS I hurt others
A6 I like to be with others
A7 I threaten others
A8 I bite others to harm them
A9 I am afraid of the dark
A10 I argue with older children
A1 1 I am envious
A12 I tell lies
A13 I say bad things about other kids
A14 I feel sure of myself
A15 I insult other kids or call them names
A16 I push and trip others
A17 I tell jokes
A18 I tease other kids
A19 I use bad words (I swear)
A20 I like to fist-fight
Note: A2, A6, A9, A14, and A17 are control items that do not contribute to the total score