شناخت اجتماعی کودکان در مورد پرخاشگری کنشی

In this study, 6- and 9-year-old children (N = 258) observed two instances of proactive aggression (one relational and the other direct aggression) that were committed by members of a group toward out-group members. Participants were either members of the group or independent observers. Analyses of participants’ social cognition about the aggressor and the aggression (cause of aggression, moral judgment of aggression, attitudes toward the aggressor, and exclusion of the aggressor) indicated that, overall, group members were more positive toward aggressors than were independent observers. Although intergroup competition was perceived to be the cause of the aggression, participants disapproved of both types of aggression (especially direct aggression), disapproval increased with age, and girls disapproved of relational aggression more than did boys. Group members’ social cognition about the aggressor and the aggression comprised a coherent cognitive process for both types of aggression, but the observers’ process was simpler and differed by aggression type.

The current research was concerned with the development of children’s proactive aggression, that is, aggression that is driven by the personal gains (e.g., popularity, power) that are anticipated to follow the aggressive act (Brendgen, Vitaro, Tremblay, & Lavoie, 2001). Proactive aggression may be enacted in order to steal, tease, scare, or coerce (Dodge, Lochman, Harnish, Bates, & Pettit, 1997), but this form of aggression is typically not accompanied by anger or loss of control—unlike, for example, reactive aggression (Brendgen et al., 2001). The goal of this study was to examine four aspects of children’s social cognition about proactive aggression. First, whereas much of the research on children’s aggression has focused on the motivations and responses of the aggressors (Crick and Dodge, 1996 and Vitaro and Brendgen, 2012), the current research was concerned with the responses of observers of proactive aggression. Second, whereas much of the research has focused on individual protagonists aggressing against particular targets (Arsenio & Lemerise, 2010), the current research was concerned with proactive aggression in a group context. That is, the observers responded to aggression that was enacted by members of a social group toward children who were out-group members when the observer was or was not a member of the aggressor’s group. Third, whereas an increasing amount of research has addressed the role played by aggressors’ social cognitive processes, including their impressions and memories of others, cause and intent attributions, goal and outcome expectations, and response evaluations and selection ( Arsenio and Lemerise, 2004 and Crick and Dodge, 1996), the current research sought to examine additional social cognitive processes such as moral judgments and intra- and intergroup attitudes and beliefs of observers of proactive aggression. Fourth, the study assessed whether participants’ social cognitive processes relating to the observed aggression were differentiated by the gender and/or age of participants. Examining observers’ reactions to proactive aggression Research on children’s aggression and bullying during middle childhood and early adolescence has revealed that up to 80% or more of these episodes typically involve a number of peers, many of whom are present as interested observers (Frey et al., 2005 and O’Connell et al., 1999). Furthermore, as children increase in age, proactive aggression gradually supplants reactive aggression (Lansford et al., 2002 and Vitaro et al., 2006), proactive (but not reactive) aggression is more accepted by peers, and those who engage in proactive rather than reactive aggression have more friends (Poulin & Boivin, 2000). These findings underpin the importance of gaining an increased understanding of the nature of the social cognitive responses instigated in children who observe episodes of proactive aggression. On the one hand, such understanding might serve to sharpen our appreciation of why children engage in proactive aggression; on the other hand, it might provide a stronger basis for encouraging observers to intervene and support the victims of proactive aggression and bullying (Ahmed, 2008 and Polanin et al., 2012). To shed as much light as possible on observers’ reactions to proactive aggression, two different types of proactive aggression were included in the current study. The observers were shown an episode of relational aggression (i.e., excluding a peer by asking others to refrain from talking to him or her) as well as an episode of direct aggression (i.e., pushing a peer and calling him or her clumsy) (Vitaro et al., 2006). Based on previous findings, we expected that observers would view both aggressive episodes negatively rather than positively but that direct aggression would be judged more harshly than relational aggression because the former is considered to be more harmful (Galen & Underwood, 1997).

The current study has revealed that children as young as 6 years, when faced with episodes of relational or direct aggression, are capable of making judgments about the possible causes of aggressive episodes, deciding whether such behaviors are right or wrong in the particular context, forming attitudes toward the aggressor, and determining whether the aggressor should be excluded from the group. The current research also indicated that such judgments, decisions, and attitudes are quite likely to systematically differ according to whether the observer is a member of the group that includes the aggressor or is an independent observer. The current findings also provide good support for the information processing model tested in the current study as well as the types of models outlined by Crick and Dodge (1996) and Arsenio and Lemerise (2004). However, although the findings relating to the possibility of a mediating role for a social cognitive process are encouraging, it must also be recognized that the current study focused only on four such social cognitions: cause of aggression, moral judgments of aggression, attitudes toward the aggressor, and exclusion of the aggressor. It is certainly possible that other as yet untested variables may also play an equal, or more important, role in predicting observers’ responses. In addition, the study tested only one cognitive sequence, albeit an intuitively plausible one. Furthermore, although the study sought to test a mediation hypothesis by considering the extent to which cause of aggression, moral judgments of aggression, and attitudes toward the aggressor predicted participants’ exclusion decisions, the latter, as we recognized, actually comprises yet another social cognitive response, albeit one that might be seen to have behavioral implications. Finally, although the analyses revealed considerable similarity between the processes underpinning the group members’ exclusion responses relating to both the relational and direct aggression episodes, the analyses revealed greater differences between the observers’ responses to the relational and direct aggression episodes. Overall, the novel findings from this study provide new evidence that children’s social cognition about peer encounters involving proactive aggression are complex and warrant further investigation. Future research should examine participants’ responses to other instances of proactive (as well as reactive) aggression given that the current study addressed only two such episodes of proactive aggression in order to reduce the load on participants. Extending the current paradigm to encompass different intergroup categories, degrees of aggression, and cultural contexts would also help to increase our understanding of proactive and reactive aggression and provide a basis for developing programs to reduce the negative consequences of aggressive encounters during childhood.