Developmental Psychology Copyright 1988 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1988, Vol. 24, No. 4, 580-588 0012-1649/88/S00.75

Cognitive Mediators of Aggression in Adolescent Offenders:

1. Assessment
Ronald G. Slaby and Nancy G. Guerra
Harvard University
Department of Human Development

The role of cognitive mediators in identifying differences in aggression was examined. Male and
female adolescents incarcerated for antisocial aggression offenses and high-school students rated as
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

either high or low in aggression were compared in terms of two sets of cognitive mediators: skills in
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

solving social problems and beliefs supporting aggression. Antisocial-aggressive individuals were
most likely (and low-aggressive individuals were least likely) to solve social problems by: denning
problems in hostile ways; adopting hostile goals; seeking few additional facts; generating few alterna-
tive solutions; anticipating few consequences for aggression; and choosing few "best" and "second
best" solutions that were rated as "effective." Antisocial-aggressive individuals were also most likely
to hold a set of beliefs supporting the use of aggression, including beliefs that aggression: is a legiti-
mate response; increases self-esteem; helps avoid a negative image; and does not lead to suffering by
the victim. The ways in which these findings further elaborate a model of social-cognitive develop-
ment and extend it to antisocial-aggressive adolescents are discussed.

As children grow older, their individualized patterns of ag-
gression have been found to become increasingly stable and
differentiated from those of their age-mates (Olweus, 1984). To
account for this finding, it has been hypothesized that, as they
develop, individuals* patterns of aggression are governed to an
increasing extent by internalized and habitual patterns of cog-
nition (Eron, 1987; Slaby & Roedell, 1982). For example, a va-
riety of studies have focused on identifying those social infor-
mation-processing skills that differentiate aggressive and non-
aggressive children (e.g., Dodge, 1980; Richard & Dodge, 1982;
Spivack & Shure, 1974). Somewhat separate from the research
on cognitive skills involved in processing information, a second
body of research has focused on cognitive content in the form
of generalized beliefs that represent adopted standards of con-
duct or response-outcome expectancies supporting the use of
aggression (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Perry, Perry, & Rasmussen,
1986). Little attention has been given to developing an integra-
tive model of social-cognitive development that explores both
the processes and the content of cognition that may serve to
mediate aggressive behavior.
Furthermore, much of the research on cognitive mediation of
This article is based on a dissertation by Nancy G. Guerra, submitted
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the doctoral degree, Har-
vard University, 1986.
This research was supported by a grant from the State of California,
Office of Criminal Justice Planning. Points of view or opinions in this
article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
official position or policies of the Office of Criminal Justice Planning.
We would like to thank the staff of the Santa Barbara City and County
School Districts and the staff of the California Youth Authority for their
cooperation. We also thank Ed DeVos and Diana Arezzo for their help
in preparing the figures.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nancy
G. Guerra, who is now at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Box 4348, Chicago, Illinois 60680.
580
aggression has been conducted with elementary-school children
and has not been extended to adolescents. This research has
also been limited to the range of typical aggressive behaviors
found in school children. Yet, for some adolescents, patterns of
aggression become extreme and antisocial, leading eventually
to the criminal acts ofjuvenile offenders. By comparing the cog-
nitive mediational patterns of antisocial aggressive juvenile
offenders with those of high-aggressive and low-aggressive high-
school students, the present study was designed to extend previ-
ous research on social-cognitive development beyond the age
of elementary-school children and beyond the range of typical
aggressive behaviors found among such children.
The specific cognitive skills assessed represent an elaboration
of recent research on the social problem-solving process and its
relation to aggression. Whereas early studies in this area em-
phasized the relation between aggressive behavior and deficits
in the child's ability to generate alternative solutions to social
problems (Shure & Spivack, 1976; Spivack & Shure, 1974),
subsequent efforts have focused on a broader range of cognitive
processes. The work of Dodge and his associates (e.g., Dodge,
1980; Dodge & Frame, 1982) has been notable in this area. On
the basis of research with school-age children, Dodge (1986) has
formulated afive-stepsequential model and has proposed that
aggressive behavior may result from deficits and biases in pro-
cessing social information at any or all of the steps. The five
steps he proposed are: (1) encoding of social cues, (2) represen-
tation and interpretation of cues, (3) response search, (4) re-
sponse decision, and (5) enactment. Relating to the first four
steps of this model, six information-processing components of
social problem solving were investigated in the present study:
seeking information, defining the problem, selecting a goal,
generating alternative solutions, anticipating consequences, and
prioritizing responses.
Information seeking (i.e., requesting additional facts relevant
to the situation) was seen as part of the individuaTs encoding
 COGNITIVE MEDIATORS OF AGGRESSION
process (Step 1) whereby he or she selectively attends to relevant
cues and generates needed information. On the basis of related
research that has found that aggressive children attend to fewer
cues than their less aggressive peers (e.g., Dodge & Newman,
1981), we hypothesized that, when compared with low-aggres-
sive students, antisocial-aggressive offenders and high-aggres-
sive students would seek less information.
As part of the process of representation and interpretation of
cues (Step 2), an individual must define the problem and select
a goal. In the present study, subjects were asked to choose be-
tween responses indicating either a hostile or a nonhostile per-
ception of the situation. We hypothesized that the hostile attri-
butional bias that has been previously found to characterize ag-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
gressive school children (e.g., Dodge & Frame, 1982; Nasby,
Hayden, & dePaulo, 1980) would manifest itself in the way that
antisocial-aggressive and high-aggressive adolescents defined
social problems (on the basis of the perception that others were
hostilely motivated adversaries) and selected problem-solving
goals (on the basis of attack or defense against the person per-
ceived as hostile).
One aspect of the response search process (Step 3) involves
the subject's skill in generating alternative solutions to a social
problem. Past studies of alternative solution thinking have been
inconclusive; whereas some studies found that aggressive chil-
dren generated fewer solutions than their less aggressive peers
(Richard & Dodge, 1982; Shure, Newman, & Silver, 1973),
other studies have failed to support this relation (Sharp, 1981).
These mixed findings may be partially due to the fact that, in
most previous research using hypothetical situations, subjects
were presented with a predefined problem and asked to gener-
ate solutions focused on a specific goal. If the specific preset goal
were simply less relevant for an aggressive individual, he or she
might be expected to generate fewer solutions to meet that goal.
Thus, we were interested in assessing the generation of solutions
when subjects were first allowed to select both their problem
and goal.
Within the social information-processing framework, rela-
tively little attention has been directed toward the response-
decision step (Step 4), wherein an individual considers the con-
sequences of various responses and prioritizes the set of possi-
ble responses. Several early studies with preschool children
failed to find significant differences in the number of conse-
quences generated by high- and low-aggressive children (Shure,
Newman, & Silver, 1973; Spivack & Shure, 1974). The failure
to demonstrate differences between high- and low-aggressive
preschool children on this measure may have resulted, in part,
from a floor effect related to the extremely low number of conse-
quences generated by virtually all young children (Marsh,
1982). On the other hand, in research with adolescents, delin-
quents have been found to consider fewer consequences than
their nondelinquent peers when solving social problems (Hains
&Ryan, 1983). Thus, we hypothesized that antisocial aggressive
offenders would anticipate fewer consequences for responding
aggressively than their nonoftender peers in high school who
were either high or low in aggression.
Another aspect of the response-decision process (Step 4) is
the prioritization of solutions. Although the ability to generate
a variety of solutions may provide an important repertoire from
which to choose one's preferred solutions, a qualitative evalua-
tion is also involved. One qualitative dimension of alternative
581
solution thinking is the likelihood that one's "best" and "second
best" solutions are "effective," as the term is defined by Richard
& Dodge (1982): a solution judged by others to be nonviolent
and goal-directed. A recent study of elementary-school children
found some evidence that, although high- and low-aggressive
children's best solutions were equally likely to be effective, the
second best solutions of high-aggressive children were less likely
to be effective than those of low-aggressive children (Richard &
Dodge, 1982). Thus, it was expected that when compared with
low-aggressive students, antisocial-aggressive offenders and
high-aggressive students would prioritize their solutions so that
their second best (if not their best) solution would be less likely
to be rated as effective.
Beyond the cognitive skills involved in processing informa-
tion emphasized in Dodge's (1986) model, the present study
was designed to assess cognitive content in the form of general-
ized beliefs that may support the use of aggressive behavior. Re-
cent applications of social learning theory to the study of aggres-
sion have stressed both the motivational and the regulatory
functions of an individual's generalized beliefs concerning ag-
gression (Bandura, 1986). We assessed three categories of gen-
eral social beliefs regarding aggression: (a) the legitimacy of ag-
gression, (b) the expected outcomes for the aggressor, and (c)
the expected outcomes for the victim. Much of the socialization
literature points to the multitude of opportunities for children
to adopt as standards of conduct for themselves the belief that
aggression is often an acceptable response in a variety of situa-
tions (e.g.. "It's O.K. to hit someone if you don't like him or
her") (Bandura. 1973; Parke & Slaby, 1983). We hypothesized
that antisocial-aggressive and high-aggressive subjects would be
more likely than low-aggressive subjects to believe that aggres-
sion is a legitimate response in a variety of situations.
In addition to providing an individual with standards of con-
duct, beliefs can represent generalized response-outcome ex-
pectancies concerning the aggressor or the victim that support
the use of aggression. For example, aggressive school children
have been found to be more likely than nonaggressive children
to endorse the belief that aggression will both reduce aversive
treatment by others and produce tangible rewards (Perry, Perry,
& Rasmussen, 1986). In addition, aggressive individuals have
been found to expect aggression to enhance self-esteem and to
maintain status among peers (Bandura, 1973; Bornstein, Bel-
lack, & Hersen, 1980; Short, 1968). Thus, we hypothesized that
antisocial-aggressive and high-aggressive youth would be more
likely to hold the beliefs that aggression increases self-esteem
and helps to avoid a negative image with peers.
The disengagement of self-sanctions for behavior that harms
others has also been linked with a variety of beliefs, including
denial of injury to the victim (Bandura, 1973; Sykes & Matza,
1957). Accordingly, we hypothesized that antisocial-aggressive
and high-aggressive youth would be more likely to believe that
others deserve to be victimized and that victims of aggression
don't suffer.
Method
Subjects
Subjects were 144 adolescents, equally divided by sex and ranging in
age from 15 to 18 years, with a mean age of 17 years, 1 month. They
 582 RONALD G. SLABY AND NANCY G. GUERRA
were selected to form three comparable groups of equal size: antisocial
aggressive: high aggressive; and low aggressive.
The subjects in the antisocial-aggressive group were drawn from a
sample of adolescents incarcerated in a state juvenile correctional facil-
ity for having committed one or more violent criminal acts (i.e.. assault
and battery, robbery, rape, attempted murder, and murder). The institu-
tion was chosen because it was the only maximum security facility in the
state (and hence likely to house the most violent offenders) that accepted
female as well as male offenders. The institution housed an average of
600 adolescent offenders between the ages of 14 and 21 years; about 60%
were male; about 60% were members of minority groups, predomi-
nantly Blacks and Hispanics; and about 80% had a history of at least
one antisocial-aggressive offense. All inmates1 files were screened to de-
termine their eligibility on the basis of age (15-18 years), reading level
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(Grade 6 or better), intellectual functioning (not learning handicapped),
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
offense (antisocial aggression), parole date (not less than 6 months), and
written consent indicating their willingness to participate in a future
training program.
The subjects for the high-aggressive and low-aggressive groups were
drawn from a sample of students attending the I Ith or 12th grade of a
public high school chosen for its comparability with the correclional
facility in terms of geographic location, predominance of lower- and
middle-class youth, and high percentage of minority youth (about
55%). Because teacher ratings have been found to correlate highly with
peer nominations and other indices of aggression (e.g., Eron, Walder, &
Lefkowitz, 1971), physical education teachers were asked to fill out a
10-item scale for all students (/V = 267). For each item (e.g., "uses physi-
cal force to get his/her way"), subjects were rated on a 5-point scale.
Level of aggression was determined by summing the ratings for all 10
items. In previous research, this rating scale has been found to show
high 10-week test-retest reliability (Kendall's T = .96)(Guerra, 1983).
A total of 223 teacher ratings were returned.
Because of differences typically found between males and females on
indices of aggression, subjects were classified as high or low aggressive
within their own sex group. Subjects in the bottom 10% of the ratings
were dropped in order to eliminate extremely nonaggressive subjects.
Then, those males and females who scored in the top and bottom one-
third of the rankings for their sex were classified as high aggressive and
low aggressive, respectively.
For the purpose of matching subjects assigned to the three status
groups, subjects from the available pool for each group (156 antisocial
aggressive, 68 high aggressive, 70 low aggressive), subjects were catego-
rized by sex, age (15-16 or 17-18 years), and minority group status
(minority or nonminority). Elimination of qualified subjects to achieve
equal group sizes (24 males and 24 females) was accomplished by ran-
dom selection. Given that IQ data were unavailable, IQ was not used in
the matching procedure. However, a minimal level of intellectual ability
for the incarcerated group was established by screening for the criteria
of reading level and intellectual functioning.
Procedure
Procedures for the administration of both assessment measures fol-
lowed those outlined by Marsh (1982). The social problem-solving
questionnaire, followed by the beliefs questionnaire, was administered
to subjects in a small group setting. One of two experimenters read each
measure in a standardized manner, making sure subjects had adequate
time to answer; no difficulties in understanding the materials were
noted. After testing, subjects were thanked and asked to refrain from
having discussions with their peers about their participation in the
study. The same standardized procedures were followed at both the high
school and the juvenile correctional institution.
Social problem-solving measures. The measures of social problem-
solving skills were adapted from the Interpersonal Problem Solving
Analysis (IPA) developed by Marsh (1982). On the basis of an earlier
pilot study of the adapted measure using a sample of 66 institutional-
ized delinquents. 10-week test-retest reliability (Kendall's T) was estab-
lished for each of the seven measures and ranged from .75 to .93. The
questionnaire consisted of two hypothetical stories wherein subjects
were asked to imagine that they were involved in a situation in which a
same-sex, unknown peer is interfering with a personal-instrumental
goal for reasons that are ambiguous, such as in the following story:
You're playing on your school's Softball team and have a big game
coming up. \bu've been trying to practice as much as you can after
school. One day you go outside to practice with a friend but can't
find any bats. You see a guy (girl) sitting on the bench just twirling
a bat around. "Hey, let me borrow that for awhile," you say. "No
way" says the guy (girl).
Following presentation of each story, subjects were asked seven ques-
tions: (a) Problem definition. What is the problem?; (b) Goal selection,
If you were to solve this problem, what would be your goal?; (c) Number
of facts. Would you need any more information? If so, what?; (d) Num-
ber of solutions. What are all the ways you think you can solve this
problem?; (e) Best solution, What do you think is the very best solu-
tion?; (f) Second best solution. What do you think is the second best
solution?; and (g) Number ofconsequences. What are all the things that
might happen if you did this? (A standard aggressive response was given;
e.g.. "Grab the bat and hit him/her")
For problem definition, subjects chose between a hostile (e.g., "This
guy/girl won't let you use his/her bat, even though he's/she's not using
it") and nonhostile (e.g., "You don't have a bat and want to practice")
definition. On the basis of their choice indicating perceived hostility for
neither, one, or both of the two stories, each subject received a percent-
age score of 0, 50, or 100. Likewise, for goal selection, subjects chose
between a hostile (e.g., "Show the guy/girl not to mess with me") or
nonhostile (e.g., "Get a bat so that you can practice") response, with
responses scored as in problem definition. For number of facts, number
of solutions, and number ofconsequences, the total number of nondu-
plicative responses was scored by raters on the basis of scoring guidelines
in which only identical responses were to be considered duplicative. Re-
sponses to best and second-best solutions were recorded and later rated
by an experimenter (who was blind to the status of subjects) as effective
if they were nonviolent and nonhostile. Interrater reliability (.94) was
established for these two measures by having a second coder rate a ran-
dom sample of 25 responses.
Beliefs measures. The beliefs questionnaire consisted of a list of 18
statements (presented in a standard order) depicting beliefs supporting
aggression. Because this measure was developed specifically for the pres-
ent study, 10-week test-retest reliability was established through a pilot
study using a sample of 66 institutionalized delinquents and was found
to be high (Kendall's T - .86). Five beliefs supporting aggression were
measured: (a) Legitimacy of aggression (6 items, e.g., "It's O.K. to hit
someone if you just go crazy with anger"); (b) Aggression increases self-
esteem (3 items, e.g.. "It's important to show everyone how tough you
are by being a good fighter"); (c) Aggression helps to avoid a negative
image O items, e.g., "If you back down from a fight, everyone will think
you're a coward"); (d) Victims deserve aggression (3 items, e.g., "If
someone gets beat up, it's usually his or her own fault"); and (e) Victims
don't suffer (3 items, e.g., "People who get beat up badly probably don't
suffer a lot"). A belief supporting aggression was indicated by a "true"
response in half of the items and a "false" response for the other half of
the items. The percentage of responses indicating support for aggression
was calculated for each measure. Alpha coefficients, indicating the in-
ternal consistency of items within each of the five belief categories, were
.67, .53. .68. .72, and .37. respectively.
Results
For each of the 12 dependent measures, a 3 X 2 analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was performed, with Group Status (antiso-
 COGNITIVE MEDIATORS OF AGGRESSION 583
100 PROBLEM DEFINITION 100 - GOAL ORIENTATION
90 - (perceived hostility) (perceived hostility)
90 1
80 - Females 80 1
70 - 70 -
60 - 60 -
0% — —i H 50-
50 - / 0% 1
40 - 40 -
11II I—,
/
30 -
20- /
/
In 30
20
-
- /
/
/

1 Bn
10 - 10 -
0- 1 ^ 0 -
f \ r It •
Low High Antisocial Low i High i Antisocial

AGGRESSION GROUP AGGRESSION GROUP

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

4.0 - NUMBER OF FACTS 4.0 - NUMBER OF SOLUTIONS

3.5 - 3.5-
3.0- 3.0 -
2.5 -
s 2.5 -

x
2.0 - la 2.0 -
1.5 - 1.5-
1.0 - 1.0 -
0.5- 0.5-
0.0 - 0.0 -
Low High Antisocial Low High Antisocial
AGGRESSION GROUP AGGRESSION GROUP

EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS fist & 2nd)

"1

• -1 11 (
4.0 - NUMBER OF CONSEQUENCES 90 -
3.5- B0 - 1
3.0- 70-

I• 1
I• ••
B

•
2.5- 60-
50-
2.0 -
1.5 -
I I
40-
30-
•
l •1
• I
1.0 -
0.5 - I 20-

0.0 - I • 1
10-
n n i
IAntisocial
B
_•_!
Low High Antisocial Low High

AGGRESSION GROUP AGGRESSION GROUP

Figure 1. Social problem-solving skills for each group.

rial aggressive, high aggressive, and low aggressive) and Sex of
Subject as the main factors. The data were so strongly differen-
tiated in support of the hypotheses that 7 of the 12 ANOVAS
were compromised by the fact that they involved cells with zero
variation (i.e., cells with means of 0% or IOO°b). This result
poses an unusual statistical situation because there is no way
statistically to create variation where there is none. In light of
both the robustness of ANOVA to violations of its assumptions
and the strength of the data, ANOVA was used as the common
basis for analyzing all 12 measures. Post hoc comparisons were
conducted using the Tukey procedure; significant differences
using this procedure reflect at least a .05 level of significance.
Mean scores for all measures are illustrated in Figures I and 2.1
Group Status
ANOVA for the social problem-solving measures revealed a
significant main effect for Group Status for each of the 7 mea-
sures: for problem definition, F(2, 138) = 35.25, p < .001; for
goal selection, F(2, 138) = 10.93, p < .001; for number of facts
requested. f(2, 138) = 35.58, p < .001; for number of alterna-
tive solutions, F(2, 138) = 29.78, p< .001; for number of conse-
quences. ,R2, 138) = 35.22, p < .001; for effectiveness of best
solution. F(2. 138) = 14.22. p < .001; and for effectiveness of
second-best solution, F(2,138) = 3 7 . 1 5 , p < . 0 0 l .
Post hoc comparisons were then conducted for each measure.
For problem definition, significant differences were revealed be-
tween all status groups. Antisocial-aggressive subjects were sig-
nificantly more likely to choose a hostile definition than were
high- and low-aggressive subjects. High-aggressive subjects were
significantly more likely to choose a hostile definition than were
low-aggressive subjects. For goal selection, no significant
differences were revealed between antisocial-aggressive and
1
Group means and standard deviations are available from the au-
thors on request.
 584 RONALD G. SLABY AND NANCY G. GUERRA
LEGITIMACY OF AGGRESSION
100 -.
90 -
80 J Males
70 -
60 - Females
2 50 -
u 40-
30-
20-
10 J
0
Low High Antisocial

AGGRESSION GROUP
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

INCREASES SELF-ESTEEM AVOIDS A NEGATIVE IMAGE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

100 -,
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
5
40 - 0%
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
Low High Antisocial High Antisocial

AGGRESSION GROUP AGGRESSION GROUP

VICTIMS DESERVE AGGRESSION VICTIMS DONT SUFFER

Low High Low High Antisocial

AGGRESSION GROUP AGGRESSION GROUP

Figure 2. Social beliefs supporting the use of aggression for each group.

high-aggressive subjects, although both groups were signifi-
cantly more likely than the low-aggressive subjects to choose a
hostile goal. For number of facts, number of solutions, and
number of consequences, significant differences were revealed
between all groups, with low-aggressive subjects generating
more items than both high- and antisocial-aggressive subjects,
and with high-aggressive subjects generating more items than
antisocial-aggressive subjects. For best and second-best solu-
tions, no significant differences were revealed between low- and
high-aggressive subjects, although both were significantly more
likely than antisocial-aggressive subjects to choose a solution
that was rated as effective.
ANOVAS for the beliefs measures revealed a significant main
effect for Group Status for each of the five measures: for legiti-
macy of aggression, F(2, 138) = 26.42,/? < .001; for aggression
increases self-esteem, F{2, 138) = 26.60, p < .001: for aggres-
sion helps to avoid a negative image, F(2, 138) = 36.10, p <
.001; for victims deserve aggression, F(2, 138) = 9.57, p < .001;
and for victims don't suffer, F(2, 138) = 9.06, p < .001.
Post hoc comparisons were then conducted for each measure.
Significant differences between each of the three status groups
were found for legitimacy of aggression and for aggression helps
to avoid a negative image, with antisocial-aggressive subjects be-
ing more likely than both high- and low-aggressive subjects to
agree with these beliefs, and high-aggressive subjects being sig-
nificantly more likely than low-aggressive subjects to agree with
these beliefs. For the belief that aggression increases self-esteem,
no significant differences were revealed between high- and low-
aggressive subjects, although antisocial-aggressive subjects were
significantly more likely to agree with this belief than subjects
in both of these groups. For the belief that victims don't suffer,
no significant differences were revealed between antisocial- and
high-aggressive subjects, although both groups were signifi-
cantly more likely than low-aggressive subjects to hold this be-
lief. Post hoc comparisons for victims deserve aggression re-
vealed the unexpected finding that antisocial-aggressive sub-
jects were significantly less likely to hold this belief than subjects
in both the high- and low-aggressive groups.
 COGNITIVE MEDIATORS OF AGGRESSION
Sex of Subject
ANOVAS for the social problem-solving measures revealed a
significant main effect for Sex of Subject for five of the seven
measures: for problem definition, F\\, 138) = 25.61,/? < .001:
for goal selection, F\ I, 138) = 6.12, p< .05; for number of facts
requested, F\\, 138) = 7.12, p < .01; for effectiveness of best
solution, F(\, 138) = 10.63, p < .01; and for effectiveness of
second-best solution, F{ 1, 138) = 21.29, p < .001. For problem
definition and goal selection, males were significantly more
likely than females to focus on perceived hostility. Females
asked for significantly more facts than males. For solution
effectiveness, females were significantly more likely than males
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
to choose best and second-best solutions that were rated as
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
effective.
ANOVAS for the beliefs measures revealed a significant main
effect for Sex of Subject for three of the five measures: for ag-
gression increases self-esteem, F(\, 138) = 15.52. p < .001; for
victims deserve aggression. F(1, 138) = 4.06./? < .05: and for
victims don't suffer, F( 1, 138) = 7.36, p < .01. Males were sig-
nificantly more likely than females to agree with the beliefs that
aggression increases self-esteem and that victims don't suffer,
whereas females were significantly more likely than males to
agree with the belief that victims of aggression deserve to be
victimized.
Interactions Between Variables
A significant Group Status X Sex of Subject interaction was
found for problem definition, F(2, 138) = 7.33, p < .001, with
the pattern of findings being somewhat different for males and
females. For males, antisocial-aggressive and high-aggressive
subjects did not differ, but both groups showed significantly
higher levels of perceived hostility than low-aggressive subjects.
For females, low-aggressive and high-aggressive subjects did not
differ, but antisocial-aggressive subjects showed significantly
higher levels of perceived hostility than subjects in both of these
groups. High-aggressive males showed higher levels of perceived
hostility than high-aggressive females.
A significant Group Status x Sex of Subject interaction was
found for effectiveness of best solution, F(2, 138) = 4.39, p <
.05, and for effectiveness of second-best solution, F(2, 138) =
3.29, p < .05. For males, antisocial-aggressive subjects were sig-
nificantly less likely than both high-aggressive and low-aggres-
sive subjects to choose effective best and second-best solutions;
high-aggressive subjects were also less likely than low-aggressive
subjects to choose an effective second-best solution, although
these two groups did not differ in the effectiveness of their best
solution. For females, antisocial-aggressive subjects were sig-
nificantly less likely than both high-aggressive and low-aggres-
sive subjects (who did not differ significantly from each other)
to choose effective best and second-best solutions. Among low-
aggressive subjects, males and females did not differ in the
effectiveness of their best and second-best solutions; however,
among both the high-aggressive and the antisocial-aggressive
groups, males were significantly less likely than females to
choose effective best and second-best solutions.
Correlations Among Measures
To assess the relation among the dependent measures of so-
cial problem-solving skills and beliefs regarding aggression,
585
Pearson product-moment coefficients were computed. Gener-
ally, all measures except the belief that victims of aggression
deserve to be victimized were consistently intercorrelated with
one another. Correlation coefficients among all measures are
presented in Table I.
Predictions of Aggression Group Status
From the Cognitive Measures
Although significant F values for Group Status were reported
in the ANOVAS for all 12 measures, these values offer a poor
barometer of each measure's relative ability to discriminate be-
tween the three aggression status groups, given that they are
confounded by intercorrelations among the measures that con-
tribute redundantly to overall discrimination, indeed, the mea-
sures of social problem-solving skills were designed to build on
each other in some ways (e.g., the solutions generated would be
expected to be a function of the problem definition selected).
Thus, three stepwise discriminant analyses were performed in
an attempt to assess the measures' relative discriminatory
power according to the Wilks's lambda likelihood ratio crite-
rion for maximizing the ratio of between-group to within-group
variability. A forward selection procedure was used in which,
at each step, the measure was entered that contributed most
discriminatory power after partitioning out the variance for
which any previously entered measure had already accounted.
Selection of measures continued until none of the remaining
variables met the entry criterion for adding significantly (.05)
to the discriminatory power of the measures already entered.
An analysis of the seven measures of social problem-solving
skills revealed the following hierarchy of measures with signifi-
cant discriminatory power: for information seeking, r2 = .33;
for problem definition, partial r2 = .20; for number of conse-
quences, partial r2 = .11; and for effectiveness of second-best
solution, partial r2 = .07. The total variance accounted for by
these four measures was 71%.
An analysis of the five measures of beliefs revealed the follow-
ing hierarchy of measures with significant discriminatory
power: for aggression helps to avoid a negative image, r2 = .42;
for aggression increases self-esteem, partial r 2 = .13; for aggres-
sion is a legitimate response, partial r2 = .12; and for victims
deserve to be victimized, partial r2 = .10. The total variance
accounted for by these four measures was 77%.
In order to analyze the relative discriminatory power of the
beliefs measures among the measures of social problem-solving
skills, the measures of beliefs were first aggregated in terms of
their implied support for the use of aggression. Because the
measure of subjects' belief that victims deserve to be victimized
was the only measure that failed to discriminate among the
three aggression groups in the predicted direction, and because
it was the only measure of beliefs that failed to intercorrelate
with the other measures of beliefs, this measure was not in-
cluded in the aggregated score.
The analysis of the seven measures of problem-solving skills,
together with the aggregated measure of beliefs supporting ag-
gression revealed the following hierarchy of measures with sig-
nificant discriminatory power: for information seeking, r2 =
.33; for aggregated beliefs supporting aggression, partial r2 =
.21; for problem definition, partial r2 = . 16; for number of con-
sequences, partial r2 = .11; and for effectiveness of second-best
 586 RONALD G. SLABY AND NANCY G. GUERRA

Table 1
Imercorrelations Among Measures
Measure 1 10 12

Problem-solving skills
1. Problem definition
(perceived hostility) — .548 • • • _-.333*
Til*** _
.242*** .300*** -.459*** -.547*** .458*** .403*** .580*** -.038 (ns) .371*
2. Goal selection
(perceived hostility) — -.271*** -.241** -.244** -.376*** -.372*** .387*** .254** .372*** .060 (ns) .292***
3. N facts — .561*** .561*** .378*** .424*** -.386*** •.374*** -.413*** .014 (ru) -.218**
4. Absolutions — .714*** .383*** .531*** -.354*** .312*** -.409*** M6(ns) .274**
5. -Vconsequences .326*** -.360*** .046 (ns) -.231**
6. Effectiveness of 348*** 441*** —350***
"best" solution .097 (ns)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

.380*** -.365*** .065 (ns)

7. Effectiveness of — .617*** -.203*
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

"2nd best" solution .361 •** -.485*** .036 (ns) .340***

_ -.446***
Beliefs supporting aggression
8. Legitimacy of
aggression .406*** .447*** .048 (ns) .301***
9. Increases self-
esteem — .408*** -.131 (ns) .116(ns)
10. Avoids a negative
image — -.038 (ns) .312***
11. Victimsdeserve
aggression .005 (ns)
12. Victims don't suffer

* / ; < . 0 5 . **/><.01. ***/>< .001.

solution, partial r2 = .06. The total variance accounted for by
these five measures was 87°c.
Discussion
Two sets of cognitive mediators were found to differentiate
among antisocial-aggressive, high-aggressive, and low-aggres-
sive adolescents: social problem-solving skills (all seven mea-
sures) and beliefs supporting aggression (all five measures). Al-
though almost all measures were intercorrelated, discriminant
function analyses revealed that many of these measures pro-
vided unique incremental sources of variation for differentiat-
ing among the three aggression status groups. In general, high
levels of aggression were associated with low display of prob-
lem-solving skills as well as with high endorsement of beliefs
supporting aggression. Although these findings are consistent
with previous research in identifying social-cognitive factors
that differentiate aggressive and nonaggressive children (e.g.,
Bandura, 1986; Dodge, 1980; Perry et al., 1986; Richard &
Dodge, 1982;Spivack&Shure, 1974), this investigation further
elaborates the social-cognitive development model in a number
of important ways.
First, this study extends the model based on the typical range
of aggressive behaviors shown by school children to that of vio-
lent juvenile offenders who have committed such antisocial ag-
gressive acts as murder, rape, and assault. Violent juvenile
offenders differed from low-aggressive high-school students on
each of the cognitive skills and beliefs measures. In addition,
they differed from the high-aggressive high-school students on
each of the skills measures except goal selection and on each of
the beliefs measures except the belief that victims of aggression
don't suffer. Whereas the violent juvenile offenders differed
from both the high-aggressive and the low-aggressive high-
school students on the belief that victims deserve aggression,
the findings were in an unexpected direction: Violent juvenile
offenders were least likely to hold this belief.
The significance to be attached to this belief is unclear be-
cause it was the only measure that failed to intercorrelate with
any of the other measures of beliefs or skills. One possible expla-
nation for the high level of agreement among high-school stu-
dents concerning the belief that victims deserve aggression de-
rives from Lerner's (1970) "just world" hypothesis, whereby
most people typically believe that good things happen to good
people and bad things happen to bad people. It may be that
violent juvenile offenders deviate from this normative belief.
Furthermore, it may be that violent juvenile offenders have an
experiential basis for believing that individuals may become
victims through arbitrary or uncontrollable circumstances.
To the extent that endorsement of this belief can be viewed as
deviating from the norm, our findings can be taken as confirm-
ing a more general form of our hypotheses. That is, low-aggres-
sive, high-aggressive, and antisocial-aggressive groups represent
increasing levels of aggression that were consistently related to
both a decreasingly extensive display of social problem-solving
skills and an increasing endorsement of nonnormative beliefs
concerning aggression. Although some may view juvenile
offenders as a qualitatively distinct category of subjects on the
basis of both the nature and extent of their antisocial aggression,
these findings alternatively suggest that violent juvenile offend-
ers are linked to their nonoffender peers by a common set of
cognitive mediational variables that can be described as con-
tinua along which violent juvenile offenders score at one end
and low-aggressive high-school students score at the other end.
 COGNITIVE MEDIATORS OF AGGRESSION
Investigation is warranted of both quantitative differences in
cognitive mediational measures and qualitative differences in
patterns of interrelationship among these and other measures
in further comparing these groups to others such as youth en-
gaged in various types of delinquency (see Hains& Ryan, 1983)
and individuals who are repeatedly victimized (see Olweus,
1978).
Second, by focusing on adolescents, the present study extends
the developmental scope of previous aggression research that
has been guided by the emerging paradigm of social-cognitive
development. This previous research has focused almost exclu-
sively on preschool and elementary-school children. It has gen-
erally demonstrated more extensive differences in cognitive me-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
diational patterns between aggressive and nonaggressive chil-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
dren in the later elementary years as compared with differences
found for younger children (e.g.. Perry et al., 1986; Richard &
Dodge, 1982). Our findings with adolescents reveal an even
greater margin of difference for a wider range of cognitive medi-
ators than has been previously reported, suggesting that, with
development, individual patterns of cognition may become in-
creasingly differentiated.
Third, our findings reveal a number of sex differences in the
cognitive factors associated with aggression. Across all aggres-
sion groups, males displayed less extensive skills in solving so-
cial problems (infiveof the seven measures) and they were more
inclined to hold beliefs supporting the use of aggression (in
three of the five measures) than were females. On the other
hand, females were more likely than males to hold the belief that
victims deserve to be victimized, possibly indicating a greater
adherence to the normative belief in a "just world" (Lerner,
1970). as was discussed earlier. There were no sex differences
for two measures involving the quantity of responses generated
(number of solutions and number of consequences) nor for the
belief that aggression is a legitimate response.
If males and females display equal facility in generating re-
sponses and are equally likely to endorse the belief that aggres-
sion is a legitimate response, why might males be more likely
than females to display aggression, as has been reliably found
in previous research (see Parke & Slaby, 1983)? Our findings
suggest that one important difference may be in the way males
and females formulate social problems and anticipate out-
comes. Males were more likely than females to base their prob-
lem definition and goal selection on the perception that the
other was a hostilely motivated adversary, to seek less informa-
tion that might permit disconfirmation of this perception, and
to choose best and second-best solutions that were not effective.
Thus, males and females may have been solving qualitatively
different problems.
This sex difference in hostile perception is in need of further
investigation, because neither its source nor its range of target
individuals was addressed in this study. Because subjects were
presented with stories involving only target individuals of the
same sex as themselves, it is unclear to what extent the observed
sex differences in problem-solving skills may have been due to
the sex of the target individual, with male targets generally per-
ceived as more likely to be hostile adversaries than female tar-
gets, as previous research has suggested (Barrett, 1979; Perry et
al., 1986; Smith & Green, 1974). Research is warranted on the
extent to which individuals' social perceptions of hostile adver-
saries are applied generally to all others or specifically to partic-
587
ular categories of individuals, indicating prejudgments on the
basis of such variables as gender, age, race, or physical size.
Through investigation of the source of hostile perceptions of
others, the link between the development of aggression and the
development of prejudicial behavior might be more clearly es-
tablished.
Finally, our results provide preliminary support for the appli-
cation to the study of aggressive behavior of a more comprehen-
sive model of social-cognitive development that combines skills
in social in formation-processing with beliefs whose content
offers general support for the use of aggression. Our results indi-
cated that both the skills measures and the beliefs measures dis-
criminated significantly between the three aggression groups,
and. together, these two sets of measures offered the best basis
for discrimination among these groups. Although cognitive
measures of skills and beliefs arise from different research tradi-
tions (information processing vs. social learning), imply differ-
ent forms of cognitive mediation (process based vs. content
based), and emphasize different levels of response to situational
cues (specific vs. general), their separate conceptualization and
assessment within a common theoretical framework permits
important questions to be raised concerning their separate and
interactive effects.
Indeed, the distinctions between process and content of cog-
nitive mediation and between specific and general bases for re-
sponding to social cues have not been clearly maintained in the
social-cognitive literature. For example, although Dodge's
(1986) model focuses on social information-processing skills
applied to specific situational cues, the repeated finding that
highly-aggressive children favor a hostile perception of others
when processing ambiguous information raises questions re-
garding the role of specific processes and general content. That
is, it is unclear whether this hostile bias represents a deficit in
processing information whereby aggressive children merely as-
sume that others' intentions would be similar to their own, pre-
sumably hostile, intentions, or whether this hostile bias reflects
a more general set of "paranoid" beliefs about others' motiva-
tions that might affect processing and interpretation of cues.
Although content and process may thus be conceptualized as
somewhat distinct components of cognition, they clearly inter-
act. Information processing implies that certain content is be-
ing processed. For example, in generating consequences, an in-
dividual must generate or draw from an existing repertoire of
available responses. If he or she holds the belief, for instance,
that heightened self-esteem is a consequence of aggression, this
response might be available for consideration during the re-
sponse-evaluation step of information processing. However, this
particular belief might also directly lead the individual to seek
out opportunities to aggress. Beliefs may serve either as guides
to the specific information to be processed or as direct guides
to action (e.g., Sigel, 1986).
Because the skills and beliefs measures of the present study
provide only a loosely formulated way of addressing these con-
ceptual distinctions within a common framework, more work is
needed in the ways in which these cognitive mediational factors
interact. Rather than limiting the assessment of beliefs to their
endorsement or nonendorsement, future studies might assess
both the strength of various beliefs and the salience of those
beliefs in the problem-solving process. For example, do individ-
uals spontaneously generate or fail to generate particular conse-
 588 RONALD G. SLABY AND NANCY G. GUERRA
quences as a function of the strength of their beliefs about those
consequences? Do individuals with more strongly held beliefs
process information less extensively or even circumvent the
processing of information, particularly in highly arousing situa-
tions? Do individuals with an impulsive cognitive style default
more frequently in the processing of specific information when
confronting social problems in favor of using more general so-
cial beliefs as guides to their actions?
Further research is also needed on the relative stability and
changeability of cognitive mediational factors associated with
aggressive and violent behavior. The fact that aggression in
childhood is a strong predictor of aggressive and antisocial be-
haviors in adulthood, including violent criminal offenses, traffic
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
violations, spouse abuse, and a tendency toward severe punish-
ment of one's own children (Huesmann. Eron, Lefkowitz, &
Walder, 1984), suggests the possibility that central organizing
factors, if left unaddressed, may play a role in the maintenance
and escalation of aggression over time. Our data, although lim-
ited to a one-time assessment of adolescents, raise the possibil-
ity that cognitive factors, representing habitual patterns of cog-
nitive mediation that underly aggression, may serve to differen-
tiate and stabilize an individual's use of aggression in particular
situations. Nevertheless, these emerging patterns of cognitive
mediation are seen as potentially changeable through interven-
tions designed to build social problem-solving skills and to
modify beliefs related to the use of aggression.
References
Band lira, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-HaU.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barrett, D. E. (1979). A naturalistic study of sex differences in chil-
dren's aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 25. 193-203.
Bornstein, M.. Bellack, A. S.. & Hersen, M. (1980). Social-skills training
for highly aggressive children. Behavior Modification, 4, 173-186.
Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and children's aggressive behav-
ior. Child Development, 51, 162-170.
Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information-processing model of social
competence in children. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota sympo-
sium on child psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 77-125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Dodge, K. A., & Frame, C. L. (1982). Social cognitive biases and deficits
in aggressive boys. Child Development. 53. 629-635.
Dodge. K. A.. & Newman, J. P. (1981). Biased decision-making pro-
cesses in aggressive boys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 90, 375-
379.
Eron. L. (1987). The development of aggressive behavior from the per-
spective of a developing behaviorism. American Psirhologist. 42,
435-442.
Eron, L. D., Walder, L. Q , & Lefkowitz, M. M. (1971). The learning of
aggression in children. Boston: Little, Brown.
Guerra, N. (1983). Social-cognitive deficits in aggressive boys: A prelim-
inary study. Unpublished manuscript. Harvard University.
Hains, A. A., &Ryan, E. B. (1983). The development of social cognitive
processes among juvenile delinquents and nondelinquent peers.
Child Development, 54, 1536-1544.
Huesmann. L. R.( Eron, L. D., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder, L. O.
(1984). Stability of aggression over time and generations. Develop-
mental Psychology. 20. J120-1134.
Lerner. M. J. (1970). The desire for justice and reaction to victims. In
J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior
(pp. 205-229). New \brk: Academic Press.
Marsh, D. T. (1982). The development of interpersonal problem-solving
among elementary-school children. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
M0. 107-118.
Nasby, W, Hayden, B., & dePaulo, B. M. (1980). Attribulional bias
among aggressive boys to interpret unambiguous social stimuli as dis-
plays of hostility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 459-468.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools. New York: Wiley.
Olweus, D. (1984). Development of stable aggressive reaction patterns
in males. In R. Blanchard & C. Blanchard (Eds.). Advances in the
study ofaggression (Vol. I.pp. 103-137). New \brk: Academic Press.
Parke, R. D.. & Slaby. R. G. (1983). The development of aggression. In
P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) and E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Hand-
hook of child psychology. Vol. 4. Socialization, Personality, andSocial
Development (pp. 547-641). New York: Wiley.
Perry, D. G.. Perry, L. C , & Rasmussen, P. (1986). Cognitive social
learning mediators of aggression. Child Development. 57, 700-71 1.
Richard, B.. & Dodge, K. A. (1982). Social maladjustment and prob-
lem-solving in school -aged children. Journal of Consulting and Clini-
cal Psychology. 42, 787-793.
Sharp, K. C. (1981). Impact of interpersonal problem-solving training
on preschoolers' social competency. Journal of Applied Developmen-
tal Psychology, 2, 175-187.
Short, J. R, Jr. (Ed.). (1968). Gang delinquency and delinquent subcul-
tures. New York: Harper & Row.
Shure, M. B.. Newman, S.. & Silver, S. (1973, March). Problem-solving
thinking among adjusted, impulsive, and inhibited Head Start chil-
dren. Paper presented at a meeting of the Eastern Psychological Asso-
ciation, Washington, DC.
Shure, M. B., & Spivack, G. (1976). Problem-solving techniques in
childrearing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sigel, I. E. (1986). Reflections on the belief-behavior connection: Les-
sons learned from a research program on parental belief systems and
teaching strategies. In R. D. Ashmore & D. M. Brozdinsky (Eds.),
Thinking about the family: Views of parents and children (pp. 3 5 -
65). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
Slaby, R. G., & Roedell, W. C (1982). Development and regulation of
aggression in young children. In J. Worell (Ed.), Psychological devel-
opment in the elementary years (pp. 97-149). New York: Academic
Press.
Smith, P. K., & Green, M. (1974). Aggressive behavior in English nurs-
eries and playgroups. Sex differences and responses of adults. Child
Development, 45, 211-214.
Spivack, G.. & Shure. M. B. (1974). Social adjustment of young chil-
dren: A cognitive approach to solving real-life problems. Washington,
DC: Jossey-Bass.
Sykes, G., & Matza. D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory
of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664-670.
Received June 12, 1987
Revision received January 15, 1988
Accepted January 16, 1988 •