A Vignette Study of the Mediating Role of Hostile Attributions in the Relationship Between Community Violence Exposure and Youths’ Aggressive Behaviors

City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works

Student Theses John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Summer 8-2020

Hostile Attributions to Ambiguous Situations: A Vignette Study of the Mediating Role of Hostile Attributions in the Relationship between Community Violence Exposure and Youths’ Aggressive Behaviors

Hyun Kim [email protected]

How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know!

More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/jj_etds/173 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu

This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGERSSIVE BEHAVIOR

Hostile Attributions to Ambiguous Situations: A Vignette Study of the Mediating

Role of Hostile Attributions in the Relationship between Community Violence

Exposure and Youths’ Aggressive Behaviors

A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts in Forensic Psychology

John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York

Hyun Kim

Thesis Advisor: Dr. Maureen Allwood

August 2020

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS ii List of Tables

Table 1: Community Violence Exposure by Sample Type ...... 33 Table 2: Descriptive Statistics ...... 34 Table 3: Correlational Analysis ...... 35 Table 4: Hostile Attribution Bias ...... 36 Table 5: Logistic regression of violence exposure on hostile attribution bias ...... 37

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS iii Abstract

The effect of exposure to community violence has received increasing attention in recent years, given its prevalence and negative psychological and behavioral consequences on adolescents, including aggression (Lambert et al., 2018). The existing literature links violence exposure to hostile interpretation of situations

(Dodge et al., 1990; Huesmann, 1988), and hostile interpretations to aggressive responses (Bradshaw et al., 2009 ; Crick & Dodge, 1994 ; Dodge et al., 1990).

However, most studies have focused on parenting practices and within home violence.

Few studies have examined the possible mediating role of hostile attribution bias in the relationship between community violence exposure and youth aggression, especially within a frame of social information processing. Therefore, the current study aimed to examine the associations among community violence exposure, hostile interpretation, and aggressive behaviors using a hostile attribution measure that captures different stages of social information processing. The archival self-report data of 100, primarily female, participants were examined using descriptive statistics, chi-square analyses, t-test analyses and a logistic regression analysis. The result showed that 13 participants (13%) interpreted either one of the two hypothetical ambiguous situations as potentially hostile. Contrary to hypothesis, on average, community violence exposure and aggressive behavior for participants with and without hostile attribution bias were not statistically different from each other.

However, the associations were in the expected directions and the effect sizes are reported for this small, under-powered sample.

Keywords : community violence, hostile attribution bias, aggressive behavior

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS iv Table of Contents

List of Tables ...... iii Abstract ...... iv I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 A. Prevalence of Community Violence ...... 3 B. Psychological and Behavioral Correlates of Community Violence ...... 4 C. Social Information Processing and Hostile Attribution Bias ...... 4 II. THE CURRENT STUDY ...... 7 III. METHODS ...... 8 A. Participants ...... 8 B. Procedures ...... 8 C. Measures ...... 8 1. Violence Exposure...... 9 2. Social Cognition ...... 9 3. Aggressive Behavior ...... 10 D. Data Analysis ...... 11 IV. RESULTS ...... 11 A. Examination of Hostile Attributions in Relation to Violence Exposure ...... 12 B. Examination of Hostile Attributions in Relation to Delinquent Behaviors and Aggression ...... 13 C. Exploratory Examination of Sample Differences ...... 14 1. Community adolescent sample ...... 14 3. College student sample ...... 16 V. DISCUSSION ...... 18 A. General Discussion ...... 18 B. Limitation ...... 20 C. Conclusion ...... 21 VI. REFERENCES ...... 23 VII. APPENDICES ...... 38 A. Screen for Adolescent Violence Exposure ...... 38 B. Evaluation of Everyday Situations – Adolescent Version ...... 39 C. Self-Report Delinquency Scale ...... 43

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 1 Hostile attributions to ambiguous situations: A vignette study of the mediating

role in the relationship between community violence exposure and adolescents’

aggressive behaviors

According to the social learning theory, people learn how to respond to a social situation through direct experience or by viewing the behaviors of others

(Bandura, 1971). As Bandura (1971) describes, direct learning occurs when a person is exposed to situations and forced to respond. Responses that are followed by rewarding outcomes are likely to be selected again in a similar situation. According to

Bandura, people also learn and develop hypotheses about successful behaviors through observations of others and the consequences of others’ behaviors (Wood &

Bandura, 1989). Huesmann (1988), extended Bandura’s social learning theory by focusing more closely on cognitive processes. According to Huesmann (1988), we develop cognitive scripts based on what we learned in the past, and these cognitive scripts, stored in our memory, are used as guides of our behaviors.

Based on both Bandura’s and Huesmann’s theories of social learning and cognitive processing, exposure to violence may provide opportunities for learning violent and aggressive behaviors. For example, the more exposure to community violence, the more chances that youth may directly or indirectly learn to respond to conflict with violence and aggression. As Huesmann (1988) also points out, if one has repeatedly or recently experienced hostile situations, the more likely one might perceive hostility in a new situation even when no hostility is intended. This is because violence not only cues the use of existing aggressive scripts but also provides examples of new aggressive scripts (Huesmann, 1988). Such attributional bias of inferring hostility in the other’s intent, even when the social cues are ambiguous, has been referred to as “hostile attributional bias” (Nasby et al., 1980). When a social COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 2 situation is interpreted with hostility, one is more likely to retrieve and employ an aggressive script (Huesmann, 1988). For example, an adolescent who has been involved in or observed many fights in the community may interpret a person bumping into him as a provocation, and react to it with aggression.

Earlier studies that measured youth’s exposure to violence often focused on violence occurring at home, and found that children who were abused or subjected to harsh parenting were more likely to develop biased social information processing patterns, which means that they are more likely to attribute hostile intent and less likely to generate competent solutions to interpersonal problem, and develop aggressive behaviors than children without such experiences (Dodge et al., 1990).

However, children spend less time with their parents and more time with peers as they get older (Ellis et al., 1981), demonstrating the importance of outside-home environment in one’s development. Particularly for adolescents, abusive social experience can happen inside and outside home, and both might impact their behaviors. In a study using a national sample of children and adolescents aged one month to 17 years (N=4,503), indirect exposure to community violence was found to be more prevalent than exposure to family violence (Finkelhor et al., 2015). Thus, the impact of community violence, including the impact on biased cognition and aggression warrants further examination. Such studies could increase understanding of the process by which victims of violence are at greater risk of perpetrating violence against others (McMahon et al., 2009).

The current study will examine the associations among community violence exposure, hostile attribution bias, and aggressive behaviors among adolescents. First, information about the prevalence and psychological consequences of community violence will be reviewed. Second, what is currently known about the relationships COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 3 among community violence, aggression, and hostile attributions will be summarized, followed by an empirical examination of hostile attribution bias as a potential mediator in the relationship between community violence exposure and aggressive behaviors.

Prevalence of Community Violence

In a national study of adolescents aged 12 to 17 years ( N=2,459; 51.2% male), 37.8% of the adolescents reported that they had witnessed community violence at least once in a lifetime (Zinzow et al., 2009). In another study of an urban adolescent sample drawn from a national probability sample aged between 12 to 17 years ( N=1,245; 49% male), lifetime exposure to community violence was 55%

(McCart et al., 2007). Some studies with smaller sample sizes that focus on low- income youth have found much higher prevalence of community violence exposure.

For example, Overstreet and Braun (2000) assessed 10-15-year-old ( N=70; 54.3% females) African American children from primarily welfare-dependent households, and found that 67% experienced at least one type of community violence victimization and 100% were witness to at least one type of community violence.

Richters and Martinez (1993), studied 54 fifth and sixth grade children (52% males) living in low-income neighborhood, and found that 35% of the sample had been victimized and 90% had witnessed community violence. In line with the meta- analysis by Stein et al. (2003), the prevalence of community violence exposure varies broadly across communities, with low-income communities having the highest rates.

Therefore, levels of hostile attribution bias, as well as other cognitive and psychological consequences might also vary.

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 4 Psychological and Behavioral Correlates of Community Violence

Studies generally agree that being victimized by or witnessing violence in the community is related to psychological symptoms such as anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Allwood & Bell, 2008; Cooley -Quille et al. , 2001; Mart inez

& Richters, 1993), depression, and aggression (Allwood et al., 2012; Scarpa, 2001).

Such relationships have been found in several longitudinal studies as well (Chen,

2010; Hammack et al. , 2004; McCabe et al., 2005). Of particular relevance to the current research are the studies that examine the effect of community violence exposure on aggressive and antisocial behavior. For example, Gorman-Smith and

Tolan (1998) studied 245 fifth and seventh grade boys for a year and found that exposure to community violence was related to increased aggression over time, even after controlling for previous aggression symptoms. Similarly, Lambert et al. (2008) assessed 473 middle school students and found that community violence exposure at grade 6 was associated with aggressive behavior at grade 7.

Social Information Processing and Hostile Attribution Bias

Not all youth who are exposed to community violence exhibit aggressive behaviors. Biased social cognitions have been identified as one potential mechanism by which youth exposed to community violence are at risk for aggression and the commission of violence against others (Bradshaw et al., 2009; Guerra et al., 2003;

McMahon et al., 2009). That is, among youth who have been exposed to community violence, the ones that process social situations with a biased social cognition regarding hostile intent may also be the ones at greatest risk for acting aggressively.

Examination of responses to general social cues indicate that individuals engage in a step-by-step process, referred to as social information processing (Crick COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 5 & Dodge, 1994). According to Crick and Dodge (1994), there are five mental steps to process social cues before enacting a response. The first step is encoding of internal and external cues. Individuals selectively attend to and encode particular situational and internal cues. The second step is interpretation of cues. This involves a personalized mental representation of the situational cue, causal attributions of past situations (based on past experiences), intent attributions of others, evaluation of the performance and goal attainment during the past event. In step three, individuals select a goal for the situation. That is, individuals decide the outcome they want to produce in each situation. Step four, individuals access their memory for the possible responses to the situation. In the case of a novel situation, a new response is constructed. Step five is evaluating the previously accessed or constructed responses and selecting the most positively evaluated response for behavioral enactment. Hostile attribution bias is one’s tendency of interpreting a social cue as having hostile intent, which corresponds to the second step of the social information processing.

When youth are exposed to chronic or repeated violence, they are more likely to attend to, encode, and interpret ambiguous social cues as intentional hostility.

Hostile attribution bias, is the tendency to attribute hostile intent under circumstances that are benign or ambiguous (Nasby et al., 1980). As perceived intent guides one’s response in a social situation (Rule & Duker, 1973), one is likely to respond with hostility if a hostile intent was perceived. In Dodge’s (1980) study of young boys, it was found that the boys responded with retaliatory aggression when they inferred hostile intention to the act of provocateur. In sum, youth who have been expose to violent environment are more likely to have hostile attribution bias, which lead to hostile interpretation of social cues followed by aggressive behaviors. However, earlier studies on youth’s violence exposure in relation to hostile attribution bias COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 6 and/or aggression have either emphasized the importance of home environment

(Dodge et al., 1990), or measured violence exposure as total exposure to violence from difference sources such as home, school, community, and/or media (Calvete &

Orue, 2011). Relatively few studies have empirically examined the sole effect of community violence exposure in relation to youth’s social cognition and aggression.

As an example of the few studies that investigate youth social cognitions in relation to community violence exposure and aggression, Bradshaw et al. (2009) directly examined the effect of these social information processing (SIP) variables in the relationship between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior in school. In their study, a latent variable labelled negatively biased SIP was created, which was comprised of hostile attribution bias, aggressive response generation, and justification of aggression. Using a sample of 184 suburban adolescents aged 14 to 17 years, Bradshaw et al. (2009) found that the relationship between lifetime exposure to community violence and aggressive behavior in school was mediated by negative biased SIP. However, in their study, both the correlational analysis and the factor loadings revealed a weaker correlation for hostile attribution bias in comparison to aggressive response generation and justification of aggression. That is, in Bradshaw et al. (2009), hostile attribution bias itself does not explain much of the relationship between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior, which may be attributed to the study sample or method. Therefore, the current study will examine this relationship using a different sample and measurement. Similarly, McMahon et al.

(2009) found that in two samples of African American elementary school students, more exposure to community violence was associated with higher retaliatory beliefs about aggression, which longitudinally led to less self-efficacy to control aggression, and concomitant aggressive behavior. In their study, retaliatory beliefs about COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 7 aggression are defined as beliefs that promote aggressive acts following provocation.

Although hostile attribution bias was not measured directly in the study, we speculate that retaliatory beliefs and aggression are preceded by cognitions related to perceived provocation and hostile attribution bias, which in turn leads to more retaliatory beliefs and aggression.

The Current Study

According to the literature, youth’s exposure to community violence is positively associated with later aggressive behavior (Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998;

Lambert et al., 2008). One potential mediator in this relationship is hostile attribution bias. However, relatively few studies have measured hostile attribution bias in relation to community violence and aggression, and the ones that did assess the hostile attribution bias separately from the social information processing (SIP) model. For a better assessment, hostile attribution bias should be measured as part of the five stages of SIP model. Therefore, the current study aimed to examine this mediating role of hostile attribution bias using a comprehensive measure of social information processing.

First, the study hypothesized a positive relationship between community violence exposure with both hostile attribution bias and aggressive behavior. Second, it was hypothesized that the relationship between community violence exposure and aggression would be mediated by hostile attribution bias. Furthermore, to understand if the associations with community violence were potentially driven by associations with home violence, home violence was included as a control variable. Additionally, to add the understanding of the association between community violence exposure and SIP steps, exploratory analyses examined the relationships between high COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 8 community violence exposure (at 1 SD above the mean) and the types of goals and types of expected behavioral responses generated.

Methods

Participants

There was a total of 100 participants ; 49 adolescents (36 females, 11 males, 1 other) and 51 young adult college students (41 females, 10 males). The mean age of the total sample was 17.09 years ( SD =2.50). The age of adolescent sample ranged from 12 to 18 years ( M= 14.79, SD =1.29), whereas it ranged from 14 – 22 years for college student sample ( M= 18.84, SD =1.72). The self-identified ethnicity was 41%

Latino, 17% African American, 16% White, 13% Asian/Asian American, 6%

American Indian/Native American, and 5% other ethnicity.

Procedures

Data were collected as part of a larger study, referred to as the Youth

Experience Project (Allwood, PI). All recruitment, consent materials, and study procedures were reviewed and approved by the University Institutional Review

Board. Participants were recruited through flyers distributed to community agencies and postings on Craigslist. Interested adolescents or their parents contacted the research lab via email or a phone call and were given more information about the study. Those who agreed to participate in the study provided their contact information, including name, phone number, and the email, which was used for scheduling

Parental consent and child assent were collected at the start of the session. All sessions consisted of 1 to 4 participants. When the session was administered in a group, participants were seated at a distance to ensure privacy. All sessions were COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 9 facilitated by trained post-baccalaureate or master’s level research assistants, who read aloud the instructions and items for participants to answer on their own paper/pencil measure. Measures were administered in three separate counter balanced order and analyses show no significant effects based on the order of administration.

Measures

Violence exposure . Youth’s lifetime exposure to community violence and home violence was assessed using the Screen for Adolescent Violence Exposure measure (SAVE; Hastings & Kelley, 1997). The SAVE is a self-report measure of youth’s exposure to violence in the home and neighborhood (including school). This measure consists of 32 items on 3 subscales, Traumatic Violence (e.g., seeing someone get killed), Physical and Verbal Abuse (e.g., being beat up, being screamed at), and Indirect Violence (e.g., seeing someone carry a gun, hearing someone getting killed). Each item is rated on a 5-point scale (0 = never to 4 = always ) to indicate how often these experiences occurred over their lifetime. For the present study, violence occurring in the neighborhood was used to measure community violence exposure.

Internal consistency (Cronbach’s ɑ) of total exposure to community violence was .94, and was .86, .76, and .95, respectively, for Traumatic Violence, Physical and Verbal

Abuse, and Indirect Violence. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s ɑ) of total exposure to home violence was .89, and was .66, .81, and .88, respectively, for Traumatic

Violence, Physical and Verbal Abuse, and Indirect Violence.

Social cognition . Adolescent’s social information processing steps were assessed using the modified version of the Children’s Evaluation of Everyday Social

Encounters Questionnaire (ChEESE-Q; Bell et al., 2009). The original ChEESE-Q is a self-report measure that consists of six social vignettes with 10 items per vignette to COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 10 measure five stages of social information processing relevant to social anxiety in children. For the Youth Experience Project, the original ChEESE-Q vignettes and items were modified to measure different stages of social information processing related to the hostile interpretation in youth. As a result, the modified version of the

ChEESE-Q has four vignettes of which respectively has four items measuring different components of social information processing (e.g., interpretation, affect, expected response, and response goal) using categorical and open-ended response formats. Of primary interest in the present study was the hostile interpretation items.

For this study only two vignettes were used. Vignette 1 depicted a situation where one sits at a school cafeteria table where he or she does not usually sit, and is asked his or her name. Vignette 2 depicted a situation where another person’s bag bumps one’s knees as this person takes a seat beside him or her. To assess the interpretation of each vignette, the participant chose a response to indicate his belief on the intent of the vignette protagonist (the person who asked the participant’s name, and the person whose bag bumped the participant’s knees). There were six options: interested in meeting you, suspicious of you, being nice to you, being mean to you, challenging you, it’s not about you. If a participant rated the protagonist to have acted out of suspiciousness, meanness, or for challenging purpose, this response was considered as having a negative interpretation, and got a score of 1. If a participant rated the protagonist to have acted out of interest, niceness, or for irrelevant purpose, this response was considered as having a positive or neutral interpretation, and got a score of 0.

Aggressive behavior . Adolescents’ aggressive behavior was assessed using the

Self-Reported Delinquency scale (SRD; Elliott et al., 1985). SRD is a self-report measure that consists of 45 items across six domains (i.e., property offenses, status COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 11 offenses, illegal service, drug use, disorderly conduct, offenses [aggression] against people). Of primary interest in the present study is the Aggression Against People domain, consisting of 9 items such as “attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting or killing him/her.” Each item is rated on a 5-point scale (0 = not at all to 4 =

10 or more ) to indicate how often each behavior occurred in the past year. In the present study, internal consistency of the composite SRD scale was .91, and the Aggression

Against People subscale was .67.

Data Analysis

The data was analyzed using SPSS 21.0. Preliminary analyses included descriptive statistics (e.g., frequencies, means, standard deviations). Outliers were defined as any data point that was more than 3 SD from the mean of the measure or subscale, and also at least 1 SD from the nearest data point. Based on this definition, there were three outliers. Identified outliers were truncated to the 3 SD value from the mean.

Chi-square tests were conducted to examine the relations between different steps of social information processing. T-test analyses were used to examine the community violence exposure and aggression score differences between the sample with hostile interpretation and the sample without hostile interpretation. Then ordered logistic regression was conducted to examine the potential effect of violence exposure

(from community and home) on hostile attribution bias. Finally, an ANOVA was conducted to examine potential differences in community violence exposure and aggression scores for community adolescents and college students with and without hostile interpretation.

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 12 Results

Almost all participants (90.9%) reported experiencing at least one community violence event (See Table 1). Indirect violence exposure was the most common with

90.9% reporting at least one indirect event, (e.g., seeing people scream at each other).

Almost one third of the participants (31.3%) reported at least one traumatic violence event, with the most common one to be seeing someone getting hurt badly, and one third (33.3%) reported experiencing at least one physical and verbal abuse event, with the most common one to be someone of one’s own age threating to beat him or her up

(Table 1). As shown in Table 2, on average, participants reported higher exposure to community violence than home violence (M= 15.68 vs. M= 9.09).

As shown in Table 3, all types of community violence exposures were positively correlated with aggressive behaviors. Similarly, home violence exposures were positively associated with aggressive behaviors.

Examination of Hostile Attributions in Relation to Violence Exposure

For the two vignettes only 13 of the 100 participants indicated a negative interpretation of the intent (i.e., suspicious, mean, or challenging) in one of the two hypothetical situations. Independent t-test analyses were conducted to compare community violence exposure of participants with hostile interpretation versus the ones without (Table 4). Contrary to hypothesis, there was no significant difference in composite community violence exposure scores for participants with hostile interpretation ( M=20.62, SD =17.39) and without hostile interpretation ( M=14.94,

SD =14.49 ); t(97)=-1.28, p=.20. In addition, there was no significant difference in the score of each subscale; traumatic violence exposure scores for participants with hostile interpretation ( M=2.08, SD =3.52) and without hostile interpretation ( M=1.14, COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 13 SD =2.69 ); t(97)=-1.12, p=.27, in physical and verbal abuse scores for participants with hostile interpretation ( M=1.46, SD =2.07) and without hostile interpretation

(M=1.03, SD =1.84 ); t(97)=-.77, p=.44, in indirect violence scores for participants with hostile interpretation ( M=17.08, SD =12.82) and without hostile interpretation

(M=12.79, SD =11.61 ); t(97)=-1.22, p=.22. However, the means were in the predicted direction, with those who interpreted either of the hypothetical situations with hostility having more exposure to community violence, traumatic violence, physical and verbal abuse, and indirect violence.

Similar results were reported for home violence in relation to hostile attribution bias. Using independent t-test analyses, we found no significant difference in composite home violence exposure scores for participants with hostile interpretation ( M=9.54,

SD =11.16) and without hostile interpretation ( M=9.02, SD =8.91 ); t(97)=-.19, p=.85, or each subscale; traumatic violence exposure scores for participants with hostile interpretation ( M=.54, SD =.88) and without hostile interpretation ( M=.67, SD =1.73 ); t(96)=.27, p=.79, in physical and verbal abuse scores for participants with hostile interpretation ( M=1.08, SD =1.66) and without hostile interpretation ( M=1.70,

SD =2.53 ); t(96)=.86, p=.39, in indirect violence scores for participants with hostile interpretation ( M=7.92, SD =9.52) and without hostile interpretation ( M=6.66,

SD =6.64 ); t(97)=-.60, p=.55.

Examination of Hostile Attributions in Relation to Delinquent Behaviors and

Aggression

Next, self-reported delinquency scores were compared between participants with hostile interpretation and without hostile interpretation. Using independent t-test analyses, we found no significant difference in self-reported delinquency scores for COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 14 the individuals with hostile interpretation ( M=11.00, SD =14.44) and without hostile interpretation ( M=10.56, SD =12.87 ); t(98)=-.11, p=.91. In addition, there was no significant difference in the aggression against people subscale for participants with hostile interpretation ( M=1.38, SD =2.60) and without hostile interpretation ( M=1.25,

SD =2.08 ); t(98)=-.21, p=.83.

To examine the potential effect of violence exposure (from community and home) and hostile attribution bias while controlling for potential demographic differences, such as age, sex, and race, an ordered logistic regression analysis was conducted. Goodness of fit was tested using Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and the model was found to fit the data. The results are presented in Table 5. Overall, we found no significant association between the violence exposure from community or home and hostile attribution bias. However, demographics, community violence exposure and home violence exposure explained 8.1% of the variance in hostile attribution bias.

Exploratory analyses of the high community violence exposure group (at 1

SD above the mean, n=17) yielded some interesting results. Among 13 participants with hostile attribution bias, three were in the high community violence exposure group, and one of them indicated a hostile response to the hypothetical situation, “ask them why they bumped the bag to my knees.” The goal for this response was to

“communicate one’s anger.” In the other 10 participants who were not considered to have high community violence exposure, one of them indicated a hostile response to the hypothetical situation, “sit at the table and just stare when they ask my name.” The goal for the response was to “stand one’s ground.” In sum, participants with hostile attribution bias did not differ in their goals and responses to an ambiguous situation based on their level of exposure to community violence.

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 15 Exploratory Examination of Sample Differences

Community adolescent sample. The total sample consists of 49 adolescents and 51 young college students. Using t-test analyses, we found a significant difference between the adolescents and the college students in the scores of community violence

(t=3.20, p<.01, d=.64), and its subscales ; traumatic violence (t=2.98, p<.01, d=.60), physical and verbal abuse ( t=3.23, p<.01, d=.65), and indirect violence ( t=2.78, p<.01, d=.56). We also found a significant difference in self-reported delinquency scores

(t=2.42, p<.05, d=.48) and its subscale, aggression against people scores (t=2.86, p<.01, d=.57) between the samples. Therefore, more analyses were conducted for each sample.

As shown on Table 4, 16.3% of the community adolescents (5 females, 3 males) interpreted either one of the two hypothetical situations as having hostile intent. Using independent t-test analyses, we found no significant difference in composite community violence exposure scores for adolescents with hostile interpretation ( M=23.50, SD =20.70) and without hostile interpretation ( M=19.71,

SD =15.31 ); t(47)=-.61, p=.55, or each subscale; traumatic violence exposure scores for adolescents with hostile interpretation ( M=2.88, SD =4.32) and without hostile interpretation ( M=1.93, SD =3.28 ); t(47)=-.71, p=.48, in physical and verbal abuse scores for adolescents with hostile interpretation ( M=1.50, SD =2.14) and without hostile interpretation ( M=1.71, SD =2.04 ); t(47)=.26, p=.80, in indirect violence scores for adolescents with hostile interpretation ( M=19.13, SD =15.21) and without hostile interpretation ( M=16.07, SD =11.98); t(47)=-.63, p=.53.

Using independent t-test analyses, we found no significant difference in composite home violence exposure scores for adolescents with hostile interpretation

(M=8.75, SD =9.11) and without hostile interpretation ( M=8.95, SD =8.89 ); t(47)=.06, COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 16 p=.95. We did not find a significant different for traumatic violence exposure scores for adolescents with hostile interpretation ( M=.38, SD =.74) and without hostile interpretation ( M=.76, SD =1.85 ); t(47)=.57, p=.57, in physical and verbal abuse scores for adolescents with hostile interpretation ( M=.75, SD =1.16) and without hostile interpretation ( M=2.29, SD =2.94 ); t(47)=1.45, p=.15, or in indirect violence scores for adolescents with hostile interpretation ( M=7.63, SD =8.37) and without hostile interpretation ( M=5.80, SD =6.29); t(47)=-.71, p=.48.

Using independent t-test analyses, we found no significant difference in self- reported delinquency scores for adolescents with hostile interpretation ( M=13.75,

SD =17.95) and without hostile interpretation ( M=13.76, SD =16.09); t(47)=.001, p=.999. In addition, there was no significant difference in the aggression against people subscale for adolescents with hostile interpretation ( M=1.88, SD =3.23) and without hostile interpretation ( M=1.87, SD =2.45 ); t(47)=-.006, p=.996.

College student sample. On the other hand, 9.8% for the college students (3 females, 2 males) interpreted either one of the two hypothetical situations as having hostile intent (see Table 4). Using independent t-test analyses, we found no significant difference in composite community violence exposure scores for students with hostile interpretation ( M=16.00, SD =10.68) and without hostile interpretation ( M=10.59,

SD =12.34 ); t(48)=-.94, p=.35 , or each subscale; traumatic violence exposure scores for students with hostile interpretation ( M=.80, SD =1.10) and without hostile interpretation ( M=.42, SD =1.76 ); t(48)=-.47, p=.64, in physical and verbal abuse scores for students with hostile interpretation ( M=1.40, SD =2.19) and without hostile interpretation ( M=.42, SD =1.39 ); t(48)=-1.41, p=.16, in indirect violence scores for students with hostile interpretation ( M=13.80, SD =8.17) and without hostile COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 17 interpretation ( M=9.80, SD =10.53); t(48)=-.82, p=.42.

Using independent t-test analyses, we found no significant difference in composite home violence exposure scores for students with hostile interpretation

(M=10.80, SD =14.99) and without hostile interpretation ( M=8.09, SD =9.03 ); t(48)=-.38, p=.71. We did not find a significant different for traumatic violence exposure scores for students with hostile interpretation ( M=.80, SD =1.10) and without hostile interpretation ( M=.59, SD =1.63 ); t(47)=-.28, p=.78, in physical and verbal abuse scores for students with hostile interpretation ( M=1.60, SD =2.30) and without hostile interpretation ( M=1.16, SD =1.96 ); t(47)=-.47, p=.64, or in indirect violence scores for students with hostile interpretation ( M=8.40, SD =12.20) and without hostile interpretation ( M=7.44, SD =6.92); t(48)=-.27, p=.79.

Using independent t-test analyses, we found no significant difference in self- reported delinquency scores for students with hostile interpretation ( M=6.60,

SD =4.72) and without hostile interpretation ( M=7.72, SD =8.29 ); t(49)=.29, p=.77. In addition, there was no significant difference in the aggression against people subscale for students with hostile interpretation ( M=.60, SD =.89) and without hostile interpretation ( M=.70, SD =1.52 ); t(49)=.14, p=.89.

A 2 x 2 ANOVA was conducted to compare the level of community violence exposure and aggressive behavior between community adolescents with hostile interpretation, and community adolescents without hostile interpretation, college students with hostile interpretation, and college students without hostile interpretation.

There was a significant effect of composite community violence exposure [F(3, 95) =

3.760, p<.05], traumatic community violence exposure [F(3, 95) = 3.227, p<.05], physical and verbal abuse in the community [ F(3, 95) = 3.949, p<.05], and indirect community violence exposure [ F(3, 95) = 2.884, p<.05] for the four conditions. Post COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 18 hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni test indicated that the level of composite community violence exposure was significantly higher in community adolescents without hostile attribution bias (M= 19.71, SD= 15.31) compared to college students without hostile attribution bias (M= 10.59, SD= 12.34). However, Bonferroni post hoc test revealed that the scores of traumatic community violence exposure, physical and verbal abuse in the community, and indirect community violence exposure for each group were not significantly different from each other. There was no significant effect of self-reported delinquency or aggression against people for the four groups.

Discussion

The current study investigated the relationship between community violence exposure, hostile attribution bias, and aggressive behavior among community adolescents and young adults. We found a positive relationship between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior, but hostile attribution bias was not associated with either community violence exposure and aggressive behavior. This result could be attributed to our sample characteristics. Most of our sample were females (77.8%). Female and male tend to be associated with different types of aggression, with male having more physical aggression (Coie & Dodge, 2006;

Godleski & Ostrov, 2010), which is known to have the most robust connection with hostile attribution bias (Law & Falkenbach, 2017; Nelson et al., 2002). Such may have affected our number of youths with hostile attribution bias and obscured our findings. As described in the results, most of our participants (90.1%) reported experiencing at least one violence event in the community in their lifetime, but only one third (33.3%) reported the event to involve physical and verbal abuse. Our study a very small number of youths with hostile attribution bias (n=13), which is not likely COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 19 to yield any statistically significant result.

Although the relationship was statistically not significant, we did find that participants who showed hostile attribution bias had more exposure to community violence and they exhibited more aggressive behavior. This is in line with our hypothesis, that hostile attribution bias will have a positive relationship with community violence exposure and aggressive behavior, as well as previous studies

(Dodge et al., 2015; Godleski & Ostrov, 2010; Huesmann, 1988).

We could not test the mediation effect of hostile attribution bias in the relationship between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior, given the association between the three variables. However, our result of logistic regression analysis suggests that community violence exposure does have an effect on hostile attribution bias. In our logistic regression analysis, demographics, community violence exposure and home violence exposure explained 8.1% of the variance in hostile attribution bias, which is not a small effect.

It is important to note that our result of hostile attribution bias is hard to interpret, as the incidence rate is very low. Nonetheless, we sought for more information on the 13 participants with hostile attribution bias. Our vignettes of hostile attribution bias captured the respondents’ goals and behaviors along with intent attribution to the given scenarios. Using these vignettes, we found that most participants did not react aggressively even when they perceived hostility in the situation. This was true for individuals with high community violence exposure and individuals with more normative community violence exposure. Two possible explanations exist. First, hostile interpretation does correlate with concomitant reports of aggressive behavior, but this relationship was not found in this study perhaps because of the low incidence of hostile attribution bias. This is plausible, as we did COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 20 find that participants who showed hostile interpretation had higher levels of self- reported aggressive behavior even though this was statistically not significant.

Second, the steps in between interpretation and behavioral enactment may have offered corrective information leading to selection of a non-aggressive response despite a hostile interpretation of the situation. For instance, even if hostility is perceived from the social interaction, one is unlikely to employ an aggressive behavior if he or she did not believe that aggression is acceptable (Zelli et al., 1999), or did not believe that aggressiveness would help to achieve their goal. Future research could cover these other steps, namely clarification of goals, response access or construction, and response evaluation, to provide a better understanding of our findings.

Limitation

The current study has a clear limitation with its small sample size. Given the low occurrence of the hostile attribution bias, potentially driven by most of them being female, finding a statistically significant result was very difficult. A larger sample, with similar number of each gender, will be needed for a better assessment of the relationship between hostile attribution bias, community violence, and aggressive behavior.

Moreover, we analyzed two vignettes of the four in the adapted version of the

Cheese-Q. This was because the other two vignettes were not as ambiguous as the others, and directed the participants’ responses. However, taking down two vignettes from four could have also impacted our sample size, and as a result obscured our findings.

Another limitation of the study is that this study is cross-sectional. By COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 21 measuring community violence exposure with the lifetime prevalence, and aggressive behavior for the past year, it is more likely that community violence exposure preceded aggressive behavior. However, we should not overlook the possibility of aggressive youths placing themselves in hostile or dangerous situation, which in turn increases the likelihood of exposure to community violence (Lambert et al., 2005). A longitudinal study should be conducted to confirm the sequence of these events.

In addition, when we divided the sample into community adolescents and college students, we found that community adolescents showed higher community violence exposure as well as higher self-reported delinquency compared to their college counterparts. Although the analyses conducted with each sample did not add more information than what we already had, using two different samples may have biased our result.

Conclusion

The results of this study support the effect of community violence exposure on youths’ aggressive behavior. The mediating role of hostile attribution bias in the relationship between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior was not statistically supported in the study. When we closely examined the responses of the participants with hostile attribution bias, we found that most of them did not indicate a hostile behavior to the situation despite their hostile interpretation. According to the social information processing model, after the interpretation of the social cue, individuals clarify the goals, access or construct responses, and evaluate their response before enacting that response. Future research that measures social information processing steps in more detail, with a larger sample, could determine if these other steps of social information processing mitigate the effect of hostile COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 22 attribution bias on aggressive behavior.

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 23 References

Allwood, M. A., Baetz, C., DeMarco, S., & Bell, D. J. (2012). Depressive symptoms,

including lack of future orientation, as mediators in the relationship between

adverse life events and delinquent behaviors. Journal of Child & Adolescent

Trauma, 5 , 114-128. doi:10.1080/19361521.2012.671795

Allwood, M. A., & Bell, D. J. (2008). A preliminary examination of emotional and

cognitive mediators in the relations between violence exposure and violent

behaviors in youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 36 (8), 989-1007.

doi:10.1002/jcop.20277

Attar, B. K., Guerra, N. G., & Tolan, P. H. (1994). Neighborhood disadvantage,

stressful life events, and adjustment in urban elementary-school children.

Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23 (4), 391-400.

doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp2304_5

Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory . New York: General Learning Press.

Bell, D. J., Luebbe, A. M., Swenson, L. P., & Allwood, M. A. (2009). The Children’s

Evaluation of Everyday Social Encounters Questionnaire: Comprehensive

assessment of children’s social information processing and its relation to

internalizing problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,

38 (5), 705-720. doi:10.1080/15374410903103585

Beyers, J. M., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & Dodge, K. A. (2003). Neighborhood

structure, parenting processes, and the development of youths’ externalizing

behaviors: A multilevel analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology,

31 , 35-53. doi:10.1023/A:1023018502759 COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 24 Bradshaw, C. P., Goldweber, A., & Garbarino, J. (2013). Linking social-

environmental risk factors with aggression in suburban adolescents: The role

of social-cognitive mediators. Psychology in the Schools, 50 (5), 433-450.

doi:10.1002/pits.21690

Bradshaw, C. P., Rodgers, C. R. R., Ghandour, L. A., & Garbarino, J. (2009). Social-

cognitive mediators of the association between community violence exposure

and aggressive behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 24 (3), 199-210.

doi:10.1037/a0017362

Calvete, E., & Orue, I. (2011). The impact of violence exposure on aggressive

behavior through social information processing in adolescents. American

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81 (1), 38-50. doi:10.1111/j.1939-

0025.2010.01070.x

Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect

aggression during childhood and adolescence: Meta-analytic review of gender

differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child

Development, 79 (5), 1185-1229. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x.

Chen, W. Y. (2010). Exposure to community violence and adolescents' internalizing

behaviors among African American and Asian American adolescents. Journal

of Youth and Adolescence, 39 (4), 403-413. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9427-7

Cillessen, A. H. N., Lansu, T. A. M., & Van Den Berg, Y. H. M. (2014). Aggression,

hostile attributions, status, and gender: A continued quest . Development and

Psychopathology, 26 (3), 635-644. doi:10.1017/S0954579414000285 COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 25 Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (2006). Aggression and antisocial behavior in youth. In

W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (series Eds.) & N. Eisenberg (vol. Ed.), Handbook

of child psychology, vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development

(pp. 719–788). New York: Wiley.

Contreras, L., & Cano, M. d. C. (2016). Child-to-parent violence: The role of

exposure to violence and its relationship to social-cognitive processing. The

European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 8 (2), 43-50.

doi:10.1016/j.ejpal.2016.03.003

Cooley-Quille, M., Boyd, R. C., Frantz, E., & Walsh, J. (2001). Emotional and

behavioral impact of exposure to community violence in inner-city

adolescents . Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 30 (2), 199-

206. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3002_7

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

information processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment.

Psychological Bulletin, 115 (1), 74-101. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74

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

aggressive children’s intent attributions and feelings of distress for relational

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

doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00462

Dinan, B. A., McCall, G. J., & Gibson, D. (2004). Community violence and PTSD in

selected South African townships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19 (6),

727-742. doi:10.1177/0886260504263869 COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 26 Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and children’s aggressive behavior. Child

Development, 51 (1), 162-170. doi:10.2307/1129603

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

the development of aggressive behavior problems. Development and

Psychopathology, 18 (3), 791-814. doi:10.1017/S0954579406060391

Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of

violence. Science, 250(4988), 1678-1683. doi:10.1126/science.2270481

Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Lansford, J. E., Sorbring, E., Skinner, A. T., Tapanya, S.,

… Pastorelli, C. (2015). Hostile attributional bias and aggressive behavior in

global context. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United

States of America, 112 (30), 9310-9315. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418572112.

Dodge, K. A., Murphy, R. R., & Buchsbaum, K. (1984). The assessment of intention-

cue detection skills in children: Implications for developmental

psychopathology. Child Development, 55 (1), 163–173. doi:10.2307/1129842

Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Valente, E. (1995). Social information-

processing patterns partially mediate the effect of early physical abuse on later

conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104 (4), 632-643.

doi:10.1037//0021-843X.104.4.632

Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., McClaskey, C. L., & Brown, M. M. (1986). Social

competence in children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child

Development, 51 (2), 1-85. doi: 10.2307/1165906 COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 27 Dodge, K. A., Price, J. M., Bachorowski, J. A., & Newman, J. P. (1990). Hostile

attributional biases in severely aggressive adolescents. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 99 (4), 385-392. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.99.4.385

Dodge, K. A., & Somberg, D. R. (1987). Hostile attributional biases among

aggressive boys are exacerbated under conditions of threats to the self . Child

Development, 58 (1), 213-224. doi:10.2307/1130303

Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug

use. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Ellis, S., Rogoff, B., & Cromer, C. C. (1981). Age segregation in children’s social

interaction. Developmental Psychology, 17 (4), 399-407. doi: 0012-

1649/81/1704-0399

Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., Shattuck, A., Hamby, S., & Kracke, K. (2015). Children’s

exposure to violence, crime, and abuse: An update. Retrieved August 03, 2019,

from https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248547.pdf

Garbarino, J., Kostelny, K., & Dubrow, N. (1991). What children can tell us about

living in danger. American Psychologist, 46 (4), 376-383. doi:10.1037/0003-

066X.46.4.376

Godleski, S., & Ostrov, J. M. (2010). Relational aggression and hostile attribution

biases: Testing multiple statistical methods and models. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 38 (4), 447-58. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9391-4.

Gorman-Smith, D., & Tolan, P. (1998). The role of exposure to community violence

and developmental problems among inner-city youth. Development and

Psychopathy, 10 (1), 101-116. doi:10.1017/S0954579498001539 COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 28 Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, R., & Spindler, A. (2003). Community violence exposure,

social cognition, and aggression among urban elementary school children.

Child Development, 74 (5), 1561-1576. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00623

Guy, A., Lee, K., & Wolke, D. (2017). Differences in the early stages of social

information processing for adolescents involved in bullying. Aggression

Behavior, 43 (6), 578-587. doi:10.1002/ab.21716

Hammack, P. L., Richards, M. H., Luo, Z., Edlynn, E. S., & Roy, K. (2004). Social

support factors as moderators of community violence exposure among inner-

city African American young adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and

Adolescent Psychology, 33 (3), 450-462. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3303_3

Hastings, T. L., & Kelley, M. L. (1997). Development and validation of the Screen for

Adolescent Violence Exposure (SAVE). Journal of Abnormal Child

Psychology, 25 (6), 511-520. doi:10.1023/A:1022641916705

Hoglund, W. L., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2007). Managing threat: Do social-cognitive

processes mediate the link between peer victimization and adjustment

problems in early adolescence? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17 (3),

525-540. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00533.x

Horowitz, K., Weine, S., & Jekel, J. (1995). PTSD symptoms in urban adolescent

girls: Compounded community trauma. Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34 (10), 1353-1361. doi:10.1097/00004583-

199510000-00021

Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of

aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14 (1), 13-24. doi:10.1002/1098-

2337(1988)14:1<13::AID-AB2480140104>3.0.CO;2 -J COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 29 Kokkinos, C. M., & Ioanna, V. (2018). Relational victimization, callous-unemotional

traits, and hostile attribution bias among preadolescents . Journal of School

Violence, 17 (1), 111-122. doi:10.1080/15388220.2016.1222500

Lambert, S. F., Copeland-Linder, N., & Ialongo, N. S. (2008). Longitudinal

associations between community violence exposure and suicidality. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 43 (4), 380-386. doi:10.1111/sltb.12036

Lambert, S. F., Ialongo, N. S., Boyd, R. C., & Cooley, M. R. (2005). Risk factors for

community violence exposure in adolescence. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 36 , 29-48. doi:10.1007/s10464-005-6231-8

Law, H., & Falkenbach, D. (2017). Hostile attribution bias as a mediator of the

relationships of psychopathy and narcissism with aggression. International

Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62 (11), 3355-

3371. doi:10.1177/0306624X17742614.

Nasby, W., Hayden, B., & DePaulo, B. M. (1980). Attributional bias among

aggressive boys to interpret unambiguous social stimuli as displays of

hostility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89 (3), 459-468. doi:10.1037/0021-

843X.89.3.459

Nelson, D. A., Mitchell, C., & Yang, C. (2008). Intent attributions and aggression: A

study of children and their parents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,

36 (6), 793-806. doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9211-7

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

(2002). Hostile attribution of intent and aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis.

Child Development, 73 (3), 916-934. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00447 COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 30 Martinelli, A., Ackermann, K., Bernhard, A., Freitag, C. M., & Schwenck, C. (2018).

Hostile attribution bias and aggression in children and adolescents: A

systematic literature review on the influence of aggression subtype and gender.

Aggression and Violent Behavior, 39 , 25-32. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.01.005

Martinez, P., & Richters, J. E. (1993). The NIMH community violence project: II.

Children’s distress symptoms associated with violence exposure. Psychiatry

Interpersonal & Biological Processes, 56 (1), 22-35.

doi:10.1080/00332747.1993.11024618

Mathieson, L. C., Murray-Close, D., Crick, N. R., Woods, K. E., Zimmer-Gembeck,

M., Geiger, T. C., & Morales, J. R. (2011). Hostile intent attributions and

relational aggression: The moderating roles of emotional sensitivity, gender,

and victimization. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 39 , 977-987.

doi:10.1007/s10802-011-9515-5

McCabe, K. M., Lucchini, S. E., Hough, R. L., Yeh, M., & Hazen, A. (2005). The

relation between violence exposure and conduct problems among adolescents:

A prospective study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75 (4), 575-584.

doi:10.1037/0002-9432.75.4.575

McCart, M. R., Smith, D. W., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H., &

Ruggiero, K. J. (2007). Do urban adolescents become desensitized to

community violence? Data from a national survey. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 77 (3), 434-442. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.77.3.434

McMohan, S. D., Felix, E. D., Halpert, J. A., & Petropoulos, L. A. N. (2009).

Community violence exposure and aggression among urban adolescents: COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 31 Testing a cognitive mediator model. Journal of Community Psychology, 37

(7), 895-910. doi:10.1002/jcop.20339

Meiser-Stedman, R., Smith, P., Glucksman, E., Yule, W., & Dalgleish, T. Parent and

child agreement for acute stress disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and

other psychopathology in a prospective study of children and adolescents

exposed to single-event trauma. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35 (2),

191-201. doi:10.1007/s10802-006-9068-1

Menard, S., & Huizinga, D. (2001). Repeat victimization in a high-risk neighborhood

sample of adolescents. Youth and Society, 32 (4), 447-472.

doi:10.1177/0044118X01032004003

Overstreet, S., & Braun, S. (2000). Exposure to community violence and post-

traumatic stress symptoms: Mediating factors. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 70 (2), 263-271. doi:10.1037/h0087828

Quiggle, N. L., Garber, J., Panak, W. F., & Dodge, K. A. (1992). Social information

processing in aggressive and depressed children. Child Development, 63 (6),

1305-1320. doi:10.2307/1131557

Richters, J. E., & Martinez, P. (1993). The NIMH community violence project: I.

Children as victims of and witnesses to violence. Psychiatry Interpersonal &

Biological Processes, 56 (1), 7-21. doi:10.1080/00332747.1993.11024617

Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship

processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development

of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132 (1), 98-131. doi:0.1037/0033-

2909.132.1.98 COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 32 Rule, B. G., & Duker, P. (1973). Effects of intentions and consequences on children’s

evaluations of aggressors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

27 (2), 184-189. doi:10.1037/h0034771

Scarpa, A. (2001). Community violence exposure in a young adult sample: Lifetime

prevalence and socioemotional effects. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,

16 (1), 36-53. doi:10.1177/088626001016001003

Seroczynski, A. D., Bergeman, C. S., & Coccaro, E. F. (1999). Etiology of the

impulsivity/aggression relationship: Genes or environment? Psychiatry

Research, 86 (1), 41-57. doi:10.1016/S0165-1781(99)00013-X

Shahinfar, A., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Matza, L. S. (2001). The relation between

exposure to violence and social information processing among incarcerated

adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110 (1), 136-41.

doi:10.1037//0021-843X.110.1.136

Stein, B. D., Jaycox, L. H., Kataoka, S., Rhodes, H. J., & Vestal, K. D. (2003).

Prevalence of child and adolescent exposure to community violence. Clinical

Child and Family Psychology Review, 6 (4), 247-264.

doi:10.1023/B:CCFP.0000006292.61072.d2

Steinberg, M. S., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Attributional bias in aggressive adolescent

boys and girls. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1 (4), 312-321.

doi:10.1521/jscp.1983.1.4.312

Schwab-Stone, M. E., Ayers, T. S., Kasprow, W., Voyce, C., Barone, C., Shriver, T., &

Weissberg, R. P. (1995). No safe haven: A study of violence exposure in an

urban community. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent

Psychiatry, 34 (10), 1342-1352. doi:10.1097/00004583-199510000-00020 COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 33 Terr, L. C. (1991). Childhood traumas: An outline and overview. The American

Journal of Psychiatry, 148 (1), 10-20. doi:10.1176/ajp.148.1.10

Waldman, I. D. (1996). Aggressive boys’ hostile perceptual and response biases: the

role of attention and impulsivity. Child Development, 67 (3), 1015-1033.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01780.x

Weiss, B., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1992). Some consequences of

early harsh discipline: Child aggression and a maladaptive social information

processing style. Child Development, 63 (6), 1321-1335. doi:10.2307/1131558

Weist, M. D., Acosta, O. M., & Youngstrom, E. A. (2001). Predictors of violence

exposure among inner-city youth. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30 (1),

187-198. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3002_6

Widom, C. S. (1989). Child abuse, neglect, and violent criminal behavior.

Criminology, 27 (2), 251-271. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1989.tb01032.x

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational

management. The Academy of Management Review, 14 (3), 361-384.

doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4279067

Yoon, J., Hughes, J., Gaur, A., & Thompson, B. (1999). Social cognition in aggressive

children: A metanalytic review. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 6 (4), 320-

331. doi:10.1016/S1077-7229(99)80051-0

Zinzow, H. M., Ruggiero, K. J., Resnick, H., Hanson, R., Smith, D., Saunders, B.,

Kilpatrick, D. (2009). Prevalence and mental health correlates of witnessed

parental and community violence in a national sample of adolescents. Journal COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 34 of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(4), 441-450. doi:10.1111/j.1469-

7610.2008.02004.x. Epub 2008 Feb 10.

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 35 Table 1. Community Violence Exposure by Sample Type Total Community College Violence exposure (%) (%) (%) Indirect Exposure I have seen someone carry a gun. 20.4 20.8 20.0 I have seen the police arrest someone. 67.7 69.6 66.0 I have seen a kid hit a grownup. 43.8 54.3 34.0 I have seen a grownup hit a kid. 50.0 65.2 35.4 I have heard about someone getting shot. 50.0 56.8 43.8 I have seen someone carry a knife. 35.1 44.4 26.5 I have seen people scream at each other. 80.0 82.9 77.8 I have seen someone get beat up. 56.3 65.2 48.0 I have heard about someone getting killed. 50.0 57.1 43.8 I have heard about someone getting attacked by a knife. 42.7 51.1 34.7 I have heard about someone getting beat up. 66.3 74.4 59.2 I hear gun shots. 35.1 42.6 28.0 I have run for cover when someone started shooting. 15.5 19.1 12.0 I have heard of someone carrying a gun. 34.0 45.5 24.0

Physical and Verbal Abuse Grownups beat me up. 4.0 6.1 2.0 Someone my age has threatened to beat me up. 25.5 41.3 10.4 Grownups hit me. 2.0 2.1 2.0 Grownups threaten to beat me up. 5.1 8.2 2.0 Someone my age hits me. 17.2 26.5 8.0 Grownups scream at me. 20.8 33.3 8.3

Traumatic Violence Someone has pulled a gun on me 3.1 4.1 2.0 I have seen someone get killed. 9.1 16.3 2.0 Someone has pulled a knife on me. 5.1 8.2 2.0 I have had shots fired at me. 5.1 8.2 2.0 I have seen someone get shot. 5.1 10.2 0 I have been shot. 0 0 0 I have seen someone pull a gun on someone else. 7.1 12.2 2.0 I have seen someone pull a knife on someone else. 12.1 20.4 4.0 I have been badly hurt. 9.1 14.3 4.0 I have seen someone get attacked with a knife. 7.1 10.2 4.0 I have seen someone get hurt badly. 22.2 32.7 12.0 I have been attacked with a knife. 2.0 2.0 2.0

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGERSSIVE BEHAVIOR

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics Total Sample Community Adolescents College Students N (%) M SD N (%) M SD N (%) M SD Community Violence 99 15.68 14.93 49 20.33 16.12 50 11.13 12.20 Indirect 99 13.35 11.80 49 16.57 12.43 50 10.20 10.32 Abuse 99 1.09 1.86 49 1.67 2.03 50 .52 1.49 Traumatic 99 1.26 2.81 49 2.08 3.44 50 .46 1.70

Home Violence 99 9.09 9.17 49 8.92 8.83 50 9.26 9.58 Indirect 99 7.83 7.04 49 6.10 6.61 50 7.54 7.43 Abuse 99 1.62 2.44 49 2.04 2.78 49 1.20 1.98 Traumatic 99 .65 1.64 49 .69 1.72 49 .61 1.57

Delinquency 100 10.62 13.00 49 16.21 1.43 51 7.61 7.99 AggPers 100 1.27 2.14 49 2.55 1.33 51 .69 1.46 Note: AggPers=Aggression against people subscale of the Self-reported Delinquency measure

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 37

Table 3. Correlational analysis 1 1A 1B 1C 2 2A 2B 2C 3 3A 1. Community Violence 1 A. Tr auma .7 5** 1 B. Abuse .69 ** .47 ** 1 C. Indirect .98 ** .65 ** .61 ** 1 2. Home Violence .34 ** .20 ** .26 * .3 5** 1 A. Trauma .23 * .17 .07 .2 5* .6 1** 1 B. Abuse .3 0** .15 .45** .27 ** .6 2** .27 ** 1 C. Indirect .3 0** .18 .17 .3 1** .9 5** .4 8** .40 ** 1 3. Delinquency .47** .4 3** .3 6** .43** .3 8** .2 5* .39** .31** 1 A. AggPers .5 4** .5 0** .49 ** .49** .42 ** .27** .4 4** .33 ** .7 5** 1 *p<.05, ** p<.01 Note: AggPers=Aggression against people subscale of the Self-reported Delinquency measure

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 38

Table 4. Hostile Attribution Bias Total Sample Community Adolescents College Students (N=100) (N=49) (N=51 ) HAB+ HAB- (%) HAB+ HAB- (%) HAB+ HAB- (%) Either A or D 13 87 13 8 41 16.3 5 46 9.8

Vignette A 9 91 9 4 45 8.2 5 46 9.8 Vignette D 6 94 6 6 43 12.2 0 51 0 Both A and D 2 98 2 2 47 4.1 0 51 0

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS 39

Table 5. Logistic regression of violence exposure on hostile attribution bias Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Variable B SE OR B SE OR B SE OR Constant -.107 2.121 .899 -.848 2. 24 0 .428 -.848 2. 268 .428 Sex .451 .6 40 1.570 .325 .65 7 1. 385 .292 .664 1. 339 Age -.137 .12 3 .8 72 -.1 13 .12 7 .8 93 -.1 10 .12 8 .8 96 Race .205 .233 1.227 .191 .238 1.210 .192 .239 1.212 CV .02 2 .0 20 1.0 22 .025 .022 1.02 6 HV -.01 2 .0 38 .98 8

Nagelkerke 5.4% 7.8% 8.1% 2.652, df =3, p=.448 3.899, df =4, p=.420 4.007, df =5, p=.548 *p<0.05, **p<0.01 Running head: COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGERSSION 40

Appendix A

Screen for Adolescent Violence Exposure

Direction: For each statement, please circle the number that best describes how often these things have happened. For example, if you “have seen someone beat up...in your neighborhood” sometimes you would circle the number 2. Remember seen means in-person, do NOT count things you have seen in the media. In My neighborhood… (this includes your school)

Hardly Some Almost Item Never Always Ever times Always I have seen someone carry a gun. 0 1 2 3 4 I have seen the police arrest someone. 0 1 2 3 4 I have seen a kid hit a grownup. 0 1 2 3 4 I have seen a grownup hit a kid. 0 1 2 3 4 I have heard about someone getting shot. 0 1 2 3 4 I have seen someone carry a knife. 0 1 2 3 4 I have seen people scream at each other. 0 1 2 3 4 I have seen someone get beat up. 0 1 2 3 4 I have heard about someone getting killed. 0 1 2 3 4 I have heard about someone getting attacked by a knife. 0 1 2 3 4 I have heard about someone getting beat up. 0 1 2 3 4 I hear gun shots. 0 1 2 3 4 I have run for cover when someone started shooting. 0 1 2 3 4 I have heard of someone carrying a gun. 0 1 2 3 4 Someone has pulled a gun on me 0 1 2 3 4 I have seen someone get killed. 0 1 2 3 4 Someone has pulled a knife on me. 0 1 2 3 4 I have had shots fired at me. 0 1 2 3 4 I have seen someone get shot. 0 1 2 3 4 I have been shot. 0 1 2 3 4 I have seen someone pull a gun on someone else. 0 1 2 3 4 I have seen someone pull a knife on someone else. 0 1 2 3 4 I have been badly hurt. 0 1 2 3 4 I have seen someone get attacked with a knife. 0 1 2 3 4 I have seen someone get hurt badly. 0 1 2 3 4 Grownups beat me up. 0 1 2 3 4 Someone my age has threatened to beat me up. 0 1 2 3 4 Grownups hit me. 0 1 2 3 4 Grownups threaten to beat me up. 0 1 2 3 4 Someone my age hits me. 0 1 2 3 4 Grownups scream at me. 0 1 2 3 4 I have been attacked with a knife. 0 1 2 3 4

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSION 41

Appendix B

Evaluation of Everyday Situations – Adolescent Version Situation A You walk into the cafeteria during lunch and notice that the table you usually sit at is full. You sit at another table. When you sit down, another kid asks you your name.

1. Why do you think they asked your name? Do you think it was because the person is: (circle one) a. interested in meeting you b. suspicious of you c. being nice to you d. being mean to you e. challenging you f. (or, it’s not about you)

2. If this happened to you, how would you feel? (circle one) a. worried or nervous b. angry or mad sad or mad c. sad or down d. happy or excited e. scared or afraid f. neutral

3. What are you most likely to do in this situation? (What you would do, not what you should do) ______

4. For the response given in #3, what would be your goal? (circle one) a. work out the situation / be polite b. ignore the situation c. communicate that you’re angry or upset d. show that it’s not a big deal e. protect your reputation / save face f. stand your ground g. to be respected h. other, specify ______

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSION 42

Situation B Your parents are having a dinner party. You’re in your room on the computer, when your mother comes in and tells you to join everyone downstairs and interact with the guests.

1. Why do you think she did this? Do you think it was because: (circle one) a. they are interested in meeting you b. she is suspicious of you c. she is being nice to you d. she is being mean to you e. she is challenging you f. (or, it’s not about you)

2. If this happened to you, how would you feel? (circle one) a. worried or nervous b. angry or mad sad or mad c. sad or down d. happy or excited e. scared or afraid f. neutral

3. What are you most likely to do in this situation? (What you would do, not what you should do) ______

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSION 43

Situation C

You are in your math class when the teacher calls you to go to the board and answer a question. When you go up and start to write on the board you hear a classmate whisper.

1. Why do you think they whispered? Do you think it was because the person is: (circle one) a. interested in meeting you b. suspicious of you c. being nice to you d. being mean to you e. challenging you f. (or, it’s not about you)

2. If this happened to you, how would you feel? (circle one) a. worried or nervous b. angry or mad sad or mad c. sad or down d. happy or excited e. scared or afraid f. neutral

3. What are you most likely to do in this situation? (What you would do, not what you should do) ______

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSION 44

Situation D You get on the bus to head home after school and you take a seat. At one of the stops, someone gets on and sits right next to you. As they sit, their bag bumps your knees.

1. Why do you think the person bumped you? Do you think it was because the person is: (circle one) a. interested in meeting you b. suspicious of you c. being nice to you d. being mean to you e. challenging you f. (or, it’s not about you)

2. If this happened to you, how would you feel? (circle one) a. worried or nervous b. angry or mad sad or mad c. sad or down d. happy or excited e. scared or afraid f. neutral

3. What are you most likely to do in this situation? (What you would do, not what you should do) ______

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSION 45

Appendix C

Self-Report Delinquency Scale

Directions: This questionnaire contains a number of questions about your behavior in the last year. Please answer all of the questions as accurately as you can. Do not try to look good or bad. All the information you provide is totally confidential and will not be shown to your parents, teachers, or anyone else. In the last year, how many times have you:

Item 10 or 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 more purposely damaged or destroyed property belonging to your 0 1 2 3 4 parents or other family members. purposely damaged or destroyed property belonging to a 0 1 2 3 4 school. purposely damaged or destroyed other property that did not 0 1 2 3 4 belong to you (not counting family or school property). stolen (or tried to steal) a motor vehicle, such as a car or 0 1 2 3 4 motorcycle. stolen (or tried to steal) something worth more than $50. 0 1 2 3 4 knowingly bought, sold or held stolen goods (or tried to do any of these 0 1 2 3 4 things). thrown objects (such as rocks, snowballs, or bottles) at cars or 0 1 2 3 4 people. ran away from home. 0 1 2 3 4 lied about your age to gain entrance or to purchase something; for example, lying about your age to buy liquor or get into a 0 1 2 3 4 movie. carried a hidden weapon other than a plain pocket knife. 0 1 2 3 4 stolen (or tried to steal) things worth $5 or less 0 1 2 3 4 attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting or killing 0 1 2 3 4 him/her. been paid for sexual favors. 0 1 2 3 4 been involved in gang fights. 0 1 2 3 4 sold marijuana or hashish (“pot”, “[weed]”, “hash"). 0 1 2 3 4 cheated on school tests. 0 1 2 3 4 hitchhiked where it was illegal to do so. 0 1 2 3 4 stolen money or other things from your parents or other 0 1 2 3 4 members of your family. hit (or threatened to hit) a teacher or other adult at school. 0 1 2 3 4 hit (or threatened to hit) one of your parents. 0 1 2 3 4 hit (or threatened to hit) other students. 0 1 2 3 4 been loud, rowdy, or unruly in a public place (disorderly 0 1 2 3 4

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE, SOCIAL COGNITION AND AGGRESSION 46

conduct). sold hard drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, or LSD. 0 1 2 3 4 taken a vehicle for a ride (drive) without the owner’s 0 1 2 3 4 permission. had (or tried to have) sexual relations with someone against 0 1 2 3 4 their will. used force (strong-arm methods) to get money or things from 0 1 2 3 4 other students. used force (strong-arm methods) to get money or other things 0 1 2 3 4 from a teacher or other adult at school. used force (strong-arm methods) to get money or other things 0 1 2 3 4 from other people (not students or teachers). avoided paying for such things as movies, bus rides, and food. 0 1 2 3 4 been drunk in a public place. 0 1 2 3 4 stolen (or tried to steal) things worth between $5 and $50. 0 1 2 3 4 stolen (or tried to steal) something at school, such as someone's coat from 0 1 2 3 4 a classroom, locker, cafeteria, or a book from the library. broken into a building or vehicle (or tried to break in) to steal 0 1 2 3 4 something or just look around. begged for money or things from strangers. 0 1 2 3 4 skipped classes without an excuse. 0 1 2 3 4 failed to return extra change that a cashier gave you by 0 1 2 3 4 mistake. been suspended from school. 0 1 2 3 4 made obscene telephone calls, such as calling someone and 0 1 2 3 4 saying dirty things. used alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, hard liquor). 0 1 2 3 4 used marijuana – hashish (“weed,” “grass,” “pot,” “hash”) 0 1 2 3 4 used hallucinogens (“Mushrooms,” “LSD,” “Mescaline,” 0 1 2 3 4 “Acid”) used methamphetamines (“Meth,” “Ice”) or amphetamines 0 1 2 3 4 (“Uppers,” “Speed,” “Whites”). used barbiturates (“Downers,” “Reds”). 0 1 2 3 4 used heroin (“Horse,” “Smack”). 0 1 2 3 4 used cocaine (“Crack,” “Coke”). 0 1 2 3 4