Mediating Effect of Attributional Biases in the Impulsivity–Aggression Relationship Among Adolescents: Therapeutic Implications

Abstract

Aggression is a multidimensional phenomenon, and for its better understanding, specificity involved in its dynamics must be explored. This article explores the role of attributional bias as a mediator between impulsivity and aggressive tendencies among adolescents. The mediating effect of hostile attributional bias (HAB) on the impulsivity–aggression relationship has not been studied extensively so far, especially in the Indian context. For testing the hypotheses, 320 participants within the age range 12 to 15 years (M age = 13.57 years) were selected and administered relevant standardized questionnaires. Baron and Kenny’s criterion was used for mediation analysis, demonstrating that HAB partially mediates the association between impulsivity and aggression. Findings imply that reducing HAB through some reattribution intervention may be an effective strategy to reduce impulsivity-induced aggression. Specific guidelines to implement such interventions are suggested in the discussion.

Keywords

aggression impulsivity hostile attributional bias mediation

Aggression, no doubt, has been an adaptive behaviour for our ancestors and was instrumental in fulfilling their basic needs. Aggressive behaviour was essential to solve problems relating to survival. It was instrumental for males to gain access to shelter, food, and females. For females, it was useful to protect their offspring and obtain resources. As humans became more social, aggression became less adaptive. Presently, aggression seems maladaptive and a problem more than a solution. Aggressive behaviour is of increasing concern worldwide (World Health Organization, 2002). Clusters of aggressive and antisocial behaviour are predictive of long-term aggressive problems and pose threats to the peace and security of a society (Patterson et al., 1990). Examples abound, to name two, a shocking incident in Haryana, in which a 17-year-old student shot his principal to death (“Yamunanagar School Principal,” 2018) or one recent Florida school shooting (“Florida Shooting,” 2018). Such episodes can shatter the sense of security and trust among students and school authorities. Prevalence of aggressive and violent behaviour around the world is worthy of the attention of a social scientist as aggression is one of the significant predictors of social, psychological, behavioural, and academic problems. It is also a predictor of a broad spectrum of adult adjustment problems (Coie & Dodge, 1998). A study by Kumari et al. (2017) studied the cognitive component of aggressive tendencies among Indian adolescents and found that one third of the adolescents who participated in their study had beliefs supporting aggression. It is noteworthy that 21% (about 243 million) of the Indian population comprises adolescents (United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF], 2011), forming a significant demographic and economic force. At this crucial stage of life, having proaggression belief systems is not a good indicator of the prospective healthy development of a nation. To prevent such developments, we require a thorough understanding of the dynamics associated with aggressive tendencies.

Aggression is a multidimensional phenomenon, and for its better understanding, specificity involved in the dynamics must be explored. In the present article, we take one such perspective and explore the role of attributional bias—a unique social information processing pattern, as a mediator between impulsivity and aggression among adolescents.

Aggression

It has long been recognized that changes in typically developing adolescents (e.g., changes in physical strength, more involvement with friends) may be associated with increased aggressive behaviour (UNICEF, 2011) The antecedents of aggressive behaviour are multifactorial and respond to the interaction of several factors, which can modify the expression of normal human behaviour. Human aggression is generally defined as “any behaviour directed toward another individual that is carried out with the proximate intent to cause harm. Also, the perpetrator must believe that the behaviour will harm the target and that the target is motivated to avoid the behaviour” (Bushman & Anderson, 2001, p. 274). Anderson and Bushman (2002) defined violence as “an act of aggression that has, as its goal, extreme harm such as physical injury or death” (p. 29).

Theoretical perspectives about aggression differ in its nature and causes. Vitiello and Stoff (1997) theorized two types of aggression, that is, controlled–proactive–instrumental–predatory (CPIP) aggression and impulsive–reactive–hostile–affective (IRHA) aggression. Both kinds of aggression are associated with emotional dysregulation; however, the CPIP type is related to low emotional responses (Haller & Kruk, 2006) and the IRHA type is associated with exaggerated emotional reactions (Neumann et al., 2010). In the present article, the focus will be the IRHA type of aggression, which is more prevalent and perceived as posing a greater threat. Levi et al. (2010) stated that the IRHA type of aggression could be described as impulsive, elicited by perceived insults, and is associated with anger, hostility, and inappropriate heightened arousal. It is important to note that IRHA aggression differs from CPIP aggression, which primarily focuses upon the fulfilment of a goal (Levi et al., 2010).

Like any other behaviour, aggression is a complex, multidimensional phenomenon. Different stimuli combine with diverse physiological and mental processes to create distinct forms of aggressive behaviour. Therefore, devising any intervention requires consideration of all risk and protective factors involved. Risk factors for aggression include personality pathology such as empathic deficits (Reidy et al., 2011), substance use (Murray et al., 2008), witnessing violence in the family of origin (Linder & Collins, 2005), evidence of depression, adolescence (Murray et al., 2008), impulsivity (Moffitt et al., 2000), anxiety (Neumann et al., 2010), and experience of early childhood physical abuse. All of these have been associated with an increased risk of overt maladaptive aggressive behaviour, but the impulsive style of behaving may have an edge over others (Vigil-Colet & Codorniu-Raga, 2004).

Impulsivity and Aggression

Among other risk factors, impulsivity is generally considered as the main culprit, driving vulnerable individuals to respond aggressively, which may also lead to violent acts (Moffitt et al., 2000). Impulsivity, as defined by American Psychological Association, is a behaviour characterized by little or no forethought, reflection, or consideration of the consequences. Personality research maintains that impulsivity is an enduring propensity to react without thinking or to respond quickly to a given stimulus, without deliberation or evaluation of consequences (White et al., 1994). In Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), impulsivity is defined as an aspect of disinhibition that involves “acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli; acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes; difficulty establishing and following plans; a sense of urgency and self-harming behavior under emotional distress” (p. 823).

In the previous studies, a high level of impulsivity has been found to be leading to various adverse consequences, such as poor academic achievement and impaired performance on reasoning tasks (Lozano et al., 2014), risky driving (Pearson et al., 2013), aggressive behaviour when intoxicated (Klimkiewicz et al., 2014), diminished self-control, and an increased food intake, particularly when experiencing unpleasant emotions (Meule & Kübler, 2014; Van Blyderveen et al., 2016). Impulsivity, as an independent predictor, has also been linked to both verbal and physical aggression (Vigil-Colet & Codorniu-Raga, 2004). Individuals high on impulsivity tend to be more aggressive than their counterparts. The characteristics of impulsive individuals that may account for their aggressive behaviour might be poor behavioural control and the reduced sociocognitive capacities (e.g., information processing; Coie & Dodge, 1998). Low effortful control tends to be associated with aggressive inclinations (Lemery et al., 2002; Murray & Kochanska, 2002).

Models of aggression, ranging from the original frustration–aggression hypothesis (Dollard et al., 1939) to the more modern social-cognitive theories such as the general aggression model (GAM; e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2002), try to explain aggressive behaviour from a different perspective with a varying level of depth. The former might predict that impulsive individuals would become more frustrated quickly and are more prone to engage in aggressive behaviour. The latter accounts for a more complex set of variables and suggest that those with higher levels of impulsivity and inappropriate social information processing might be more prone to aggression. Although aggression and impulsivity have a relational pattern (Gvion & Apter, 2011; Vigil-Colet et al., 2008), clearly not that all impulsive persons engage in aggressive behaviour, because many other factors such as level of physiological arousal or social information processing style play their role. For instance, an individual’s reaction in any adverse social situation may depend on how one encodes and interprets social information in the immediate context. One individual may encode it to have nonhostile emotional cues, interpret others’ actions as accidental or with benign intent, and decide that ignoring others’ behaviour would be the most appropriate action. Another individual may attribute the same behaviour to other’s hostile intent, and decide that insulting others is the most appropriate response. This tendency to attribute hostile intent to others’ behaviour in a negative social encounter was described as “hostile attributional bias” by Nasby et al. (1980). Substantial empirical evidence suggests that maladaptive aggressive behaviour is an outcome of maladaptive attributional style, that is, interpreting any negative situation as deliberately created by someone, without any evidence of the same. Expectations regarding the possibilities of different outcomes, knowledge, and beliefs about how people generally behave in some specific situations, and how much people believe they can respond in a variety of situations, also determine the nature of one’s response in negative social encounters (Dodge, 2011; Huesmann et al., 2011).

Attributional Biases and Aggression

Social-cognitive approaches to aggression (DeWall & Anderson, 2010) have exerted significant influence in recent studies. Dodge and Crick’s Social Information Processing (SIP) Model (Crick & Dodge, 1994) has been one of the most generative models in understanding the individual differences of reactivity processes in social situations. Individual differences in aggression are attributed to a wide range of factors, one of which is hostile attributional bias (HAB), a unique social information processing pattern (Crick & Dodge, 1994) in which individuals attribute any negative, ambiguous situation to the hostile intent of others. Without any relevant cue or evidence, individuals tend to attribute hostile intent and respond accordingly. Such attributional biases further cause aggressive behaviour (Dhaliwal, 2002) and limit nonaggressive interactions (Weiss et al., 1992).

This social information processing pattern has some association with impulsivity too. A child’s response in any social situation may depend on his or her “default” way of processing and responding while confronting a potentially conflictual situation in real life. Less impulsive children tend to consider the unique elements of the scenario at hand; appraise the situation from a new, different perspective; and think about the future consequences of their likely responses. However, impulsive children are less inclined to integrate peripheral information and are less likely to consider long-term future outcomes of their behaviour in a specific situation (Newman & Wallace, 1993).

HAB as a Mediator Between Impulsivity and Aggression

To prove that HAB mediates the relation between impulsivity and aggression, it is necessary to demonstrate the relationship between each possible pair of variables (Baron & Kenny, 1986). First, studies conducted so far have confirmed a consistent association between impulsivity and aggression among adolescents (e.g., Stanford et al., 2003). Studies conducted on an adult sample have mainly explored cognitive and biological dynamics involved in the impulsive–aggression relationship, whereas the research on children and adolescents focused on social cognition, social information processing, peer relations, and emotional dysregulation (Dodge et al., 1997). A majority of the studies conducted so far, on different samples, have concluded that aggression and impulsivity are related.

Second, studies in the last two decades have reported a positive association between HAB and aggressive behavioural responses (e.g., Burgess et al., 2006). More specifically, aggression is related to hypervigilance to hostile cues, that is, difficulty shifting the attention from aggressive cues, attribution of hostile intent in ambiguous situations (Orobio de Castro et al., 2002; Runions & Keating, 2007), and aggressive response generation (Green et al., 2008).

Third, findings in clinical and personality psychology research show that impulsivity somehow links with social-cognitive processes. Hence, while deciding how to react in an aversive situation, impulsive individuals tend to take the decision instantly without any deliberation (Crick & Dodge, 1994). Gagnon et al. (2015) studied the significance of social information processing models for understanding impulsivity with more emphasis on HAB. The findings suggested that individuals with a high sense of urgency are more vulnerable to attribute hostile intentions to others in an ambiguous negative situation. They are vulnerable to react impulsively to a perceived social provocation. Lynam and Miller (2004) also found that negative urgency was explicitly associated with hostile attributions. These findings imply that to understand impulsivity better, it is essential to understand the active social-cognitive processes in impulsive behaviours.

The studies discussed so far indicate that all three constructs are interrelated. However, mediation does not exist until HAB accounts for a significant portion of the relation between impulsivity and aggressive behaviour (Baron & Kenny, 1986). At present, the contribution of social-cognitive processing biases and impulsivity in explaining aggressive behaviour have rarely been studied in the Indian context. However, there are studies available in Western countries in which some subdimensions of aggression and impulsivity were explored in relation to HAB (e.g., Gagnon et al., 2015; Gagnon & Rochat, 2017). As per our best knowledge, no such studies on adolescents have examined whether HAB mediates the relation between impulsivity and aggression in the Indian context.

The chief objective of the present study is to determine the potential mediating role of HAB in the impulsivity-induced aggression. Although prior research has examined relationships separately among impulsivity, aggression, and HAB, the relationship between these three variables in a single study has not been explored in the Indian context. In the current study, we hypothesize that impulsivity and HAB would be positively associated with aggression scores. We also hypothesize that HAB mediates the relationship between impulsivity and aggression in such a way that higher levels of HAB would be associated with a stronger relationship between aggression and impulsivity.

Method

Participants

For the present research work, a total of 320 participants (146 females) within the age range of 12 to 15 years (M age = 13.57 years, SD = 1.01 years) were selected randomly from various, geographically distant, public schools of Patiala and Chandigarh (Punjab, India). One or two sections (two sections were selected in only two schools) of eighth and ninth standards were selected randomly from each school. As per the school administration, these sections were created arbitrarily, and no specific criterion was used for classification. Selections were made by making slips representing each section and drawing one or two sections, keeping equal probability for each section of being selected. After obtaining the due consent of the respective school authorities, parents, and respondents, the standardized questionnaires were administered in groups of five to seven students at one time. A sample of 320 participants includes almost equal representation of both genders, and different attributes concerning socioeconomic status, academic achievement, and locality. The detailed description of the sample is given in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Sample and Mean Scores on Each Measure.

Demographic characteristics	N	Percentage	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis
Age	320		12	15	13.57	1.01
Gender
Male	174	54.4
Female	146	45.6
Class
Eighth	164	51.3
Ninth	156	48.7
Locality
Rural	177	55.3
Urban	58	18.1
Semi-urban	85	26.6
Aggression			50	134	90.91	15.32	−0.023	−0.056
Impulsivity			17	99	63.03	15.42	−0.445	−0.004
Hostile attributional bias			18	93	52.00	13.70	0.086	−0.371

Measures

Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11)

BIS-11 (Patton et al., 1995) has been used to assess impulsivity. It is a 30-item self-report questionnaire, developed on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (rarely/never) to 3 (almost always/always), where higher scores indicate greater levels of impulsiveness. In the present study, a total score of all 30 items was used as an indicator of impulsivity. With high internal consistency (.71–.83) and high test–retest reliability, the scale is found to be a valid measure across multiple samples (Lane et al., 2003; Stanford et al., 2009). It has been used in India with adolescents (Menon et al., 2015) and its shorter version has also been validated on Indian adolescents (N = 1,806). It has been found to have satisfactory reliability (Cronbach’s α = .79) and validity (Bhat et al., 2018).

Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ)

The BPAQ is a 29-item self-report survey (Buss & Perry, 1992). The items are distributed unevenly among four subdimensions, that is, anger (seven statements: Numbers 1, 9, 12, 18, 19, 23, and 28), physical aggression (nine statements: Numbers 2, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16, 22, 25, and 29), hostility (eight statements: Numbers 3, 7, 10, 15, 17, 20, 24, and 26), and verbal aggression (five statements: Numbers 4, 6, 14, 21, and 27). For the present purpose, the total score was used as an indicator of aggression. The BPAQ uses a 5-point Likert-type scale, and higher scores indicate high aggressiveness. It has moderate to high internal consistency (.70–.85) and is a valid measure across multiple samples (Becker, 2007; Liu et al., 2009). This questionnaire has been used widely in the Indian setting and is considered a reliable and valid scale for measuring aggression among Indian adolescents (Shaheen & Jahan, 2014; Sharma & Marimuthu, 2014).

Hostile Attribution of Intent Explorer (HAIE)

For the present study, five hypothetical negative social scenarios, based on the “hypothetical social scenarios” framed by Graham et al. (1992) and Hudley and Graham (1993), were formulated to assess HAB. All these scenarios present an ambiguous negative outcome for the respondent. Four causes for each scenario were given that have to be rated on a 5-point scale. One such scenario of this questionnaire is

Suppose you are riding a new bicycle on the highway. There is not much traffic on the road, suddenly one of your school-mate crosses you and stops in front of you, and your bicycle gets hit by his/her bicycle and gets damaged.

For this scenario, respondents are presented with four different causes, for example, “He or she did it intentionally to hurt you,” “Somebody else stopped his or her car in front of his or her bicycle,” “He or she wanted to damage your new bicycle,” and “His or her bicycle broke down.” Participants have to rate each cause according to their perception of causality in each scenario. For each scenario, two explanations show benign intent, and the other two show hostile intent. If participants choose strongly agree option for a statement with hostile intent, it depicts more HAB. Participants who select strongly agree for a benign statement show less HAB. Thus, reverse scoring is done for these benign statements. The total score was used as an indicator of HAB. A higher score on this scale shows high HAB.

Procedure

After selecting the participants, all questionnaires were administered to all the participants by the researcher himself. All participants were given general guidelines and specific instructions beforehand, including the confidentiality concerns regarding the information obtained through these questionnaires. All questionnaires were administered, in a fixed order, to groups of five to seven randomly selected students from a selected class at one time. A brief period of rest was given to all participants after the completion of each questionnaire. In the end, all participants were debriefed and were appreciated for their cooperation.

Statistical Analysis

Baron and Kenny’s (1986) criterion was used to study mediational effects. According to this criterion, the following conditions must be there to test and prove mediational effect: (a) significant correlation between the predictor (i.e., impulsivity) and the mediator (i.e., HAB), (b) the predictor relates significantly to the outcome/criterion variable (i.e., aggression), (c) the mediator relates significantly to the outcome/criterion variable, and (d) the association between predictor and outcome variable must be reduced to nonsignificance (in the case of full mediation) or substantially reduced in magnitude (in the case of partial mediation) when the mediator is entered into the equation. For this, correlations between HAB, impulsivity, and aggression were examined, and the first criterion for mediation analyses is met. For mediation testing, hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. Then, the Sobel test was applied to see whether the indirect effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable through the mediator variable was significant or not (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Overall and gender-wise descriptive statistics were also calculated.

Results

The findings of the present study are summarized in Tables 1 to 4. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the sample and overall descriptive statistics. As shown, values of skewness and kurtosis are within the normal range. Therefore, all the variables met standards of univariate normality as described by Kline (2005). Table 2 includes gender-wise means and standard deviations of all variables. No significant differences have been observed between males and females in any of the studied variables.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics in Relation to Gender.

Variables	Boys (n = 174)		Girls (n = 146)		t ratio
Variables	M	SD	M	SD	t ratio
Age	13.58	0.97	13.55	1.05	0.30
Aggression	91.66	15.60	90.02	14.97	0.95
Impulsivity	63.93	15.23	61.95	15.62	1.14
Hostile attributional bias	53.36	13.09	50.38	14.29	1.94

Table 3.

Correlation Coefficients among Aggression, HAB, and Various Personality Characteristics.

Variables	1	2	3
Aggression (1)	1.00
Impulsivity (2)	.76*	1.00
HAB (3)	.63*	.74*	1.00

Note. HAB = hostile attributional bias.

p < .01.

Table 4.

Mediating Analysis Using Hierarchical Regression.

Variables	Model 1			Model 2
	Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients
	B	SE (B)	β	B	SE (B)	β
Impulsivity	0.753	0.036	.758*	0.637	0.05	.641*
Hostile attribution of intent bias				0.177	0.06	.158*
Change in impulsivity						.112
R	0.758			0.765
R ²	0.575			0.586
F	429.47*			224.22*
Sobel test statistic	11.88*

p < .01.

As no gender differences in the studied variables were observed for the present sample, analyses were carried out on the sample as a whole. Bivariate correlation coefficients for all variables are shown in Table 3. As shown, significant positive correlations have been observed among HAB, aggression, and impulsivity. Impulsivity is positively correlated with both aggression (r = .76, p < .01) and HAB (r = .74, p < .01). Aggression also came out to be positively related to HAB (r = .63, p < .01).

Having all the conditions met, mediation analysis was performed on the data using regression analysis. As depicted in Table 4, initially, aggression was regressed on impulsivity, and then, HAB was added in Step 2. Overall, the model was significant, F(2, 317) = 224.22, p < .01. The variance explained by the predictor (impulsivity) in the first step has also been found significant (R² = .575, p < .01). When HAB was included into the equation, the effect of impulsivity on aggression was substantially reduced from β = .758 (p < .01) to β = .641 (p < .01) but that reduction was not able to make it statistically nonsignificant. It shows that HAB, as a potential mediator, is partially significant, but when we conducted the Sobel test on the data, the indirect effect came out to be statistically significant (z = 11.88, p < .01). Thus, we can say that the relation between impulsivity and aggression was certainly, though partially, mediated by HAB. Findings of the study are depicted in Figure 1 also.

Figure 1.

Effect of impulsivity with and without HAB on aggression.

Discussion

The primary objective of this study was to examine whether social-cognitive processing in the form of HAB mediates the relation between impulsivity and aggression. Based on previous studies, it was hypothesized that impulsivity and HAB would positively relate to aggression. However, as substantial empirical evidence is not available, it is unclear whether HAB will mediate the relation between impulsivity and aggression.

As far as the direct relationships among studied variables are concerned, the finding of the present study is consistent with previous work and extends support to the hypothesis that impulsivity and aggression are interrelated and impulsivity is a significant predictor of aggression. For example, Bousardt et al. (2018) recently found a significant relationship between self-reported negative urgency (a subdomain of impulsivity) and aggressive tendencies, stressing the importance of this factor in aggression management. Piko and Pinczés (2014) also found similar results and concluded that impulsivity is a significant risk factor for aggression and its various facets. In one other study, Eisenberg and Morris (2002) concluded that individuals prone to externalizing behavioural problems are low on effortful control (i.e., attentional control and voluntary repression or activation of adaptive behaviour). These deficits would account for the aggressive individual’s lack of behavioural control and reduced sociocognitive capacities (Coie & Dodge, 1998).

As hypothesized for direct relation, HAB has come up as a significant predictor of aggression and this finding is also supported by many previous researchers. Although conducted outside India, the social information processing model has generated a significant amount of research that linked specific social-cognitive tendencies and aggression. Aggressive individuals have been found to differ from their less aggressive peers at all stages of the social information processing model (Crick & Dodge, 1994). Moreover, at the cue interpretation step of processing, aggressive individuals have been found to show a bias toward making hostile attributions regarding the behaviour of others. This bias is more evident when the social situation is ambiguous. However, it can also occur when the situation explicitly supports accidental or prosocial intent (Dodge, 2011; Dodge et al., 2003).

The main concern of the present study was to examine the mediation or indirect effect of HAB on the impulsivity–aggression relationship. Mediation analysis revealed that HAB partially mediates the association between impulsivity and aggression as the introduction of HAB into regression model did not make impulsivity nonsignificant, but a reduction in the standardized beta value of impulsivity was observed. For assessing the statistical significance of the indirect effect of HAB, the Sobel test was conducted, and the effect is statistically significant (z = 11.88, p < .01). It indicates the partial mediation of HAB on the impulsivity–aggression relationship.

This finding suggests that impulsivity–aggression relationship is stronger for the individuals who are high on HAB. One possible explanation for the finding might be that individuals higher on HAB fail to regulate their arousal level. After making hostile intent attributions, which may trigger their impulsive nature, they are more inclined to react aggressively than others who are low on HAB. After making hostile attributions, individuals tend to ignore relevant cues available in a provocative situation, avoid evaluating alternative responses, and fail to consider the consequences of their behaviours (Chen et al., 2012). Taking a different perspective, Gagnon et al. (2015) asserted that HAB mediates the relationship between negative urgency and various impulsive behaviours following a social provocation. Their findings suggested that high urgency individuals are more prone to attribute hostile intentions to others in an ambiguous negative context, and similarly to react impulsively to a perceived social provocation. This finding is consistent with other previous studies (e.g., Lynam & Miller, 2004) showing that negative urgency was significantly associated with HAB.

Effortful control and HAB are two critical mechanisms regulating impulsive–aggressive behaviours. Impulsive individuals, apart from facing other problems, have difficulties in self-regulating their hostile thoughts. Once automatic hostile inferential processes are in play, they would fail to control their behaviour. With cognitive strategies, such as reappraisal, it is possible to replace hostile interpretation, but such strategies are not generally used by impulsive individuals (Wilkowski & Robinson, 2008).

The findings, to some extent, relate with the GAM also (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). According to this model, input from personal and situational characteristics produce internal states, which further influence the outcomes. Based on the outcomes of appraisal or reappraisal, people are compelled to act in either thoughtful or impulsive ways. As a consequence of hostile intent attributions, hostile feelings, anger, or physiological arousal may upsurge, leading to impulsive actions. These actions enter a feedback circle that becomes part of the input for the next episode.

Dodge (2006) presented a model depicting the development of HAB, which provides a cue to prevent the development of HAB. He stated that it is universal to match an act with the intention of the actor. In the early stages of cognitive development, any negative outcome is attributed to a consistent intention, for example, aggression and hostility. The tendency to attribute benign or inconsistent intent in bad-outcome circumstances begins with cognitive development. A fundamental task of social interaction is to learn to identify cues that signal benign attribution rather than malevolent. However, due to some factors, all children are not able to develop a regular pattern of attributing benign intent to others’ behaviour and continue to have a pattern of stable HAB. Dodge (2006) asserted that it is important to create an early rearing healthy environment to foster a benign attributional pattern. In other words, this model suggests that the tendency to attribute benign intent can be learned and can replace hostile intent attributions.

As HAB emerged as a significant mediator of impulsivity–aggression relationship, it is pertinent to replicate and cross-validate this study to ascertain the mediation effect of HAB. With sufficient empirical evidence, specific interventions targeting HAB should be devised and implemented on the relevant population to assess its efficacy in reducing aggression. Some possible implications of the present study are mentioned in the following section.

Implications for Applied Practice

As social-cognitive processes have been found to be associated with maladaptive aggression, some specific social-cognitive interventions should be devised to modify faulty social cognitions and must be a part of the academic curriculum. In such interventions, student’s dysfunctional attributional style should be targeted, which may help them to see the aggression-provoking scenario from a new perspective and react accurately. In the curriculum of the social-cognitive intervention, the following elements can be included to alter cognitive biases:

The significance of an individual’s beliefs and thoughts in his or her behaviour.

How perception guides, as well as misguides subsequent behaviour.

The self-fulfilling prophecy of the attitudes.

How accurately perception facilitates healthy interpersonal relationships.

Introduction to the concept of intent; types of intent, for example, accidental, prosocial, and hostile intent; kind of mistakes people make in negative social encounters, for example, wrongly attributing negative intent to others’ behaviour with no clear evidence of the same. The causes of such mistakes, for example, nature of ambiguous situation and inattention to relevant social cues present at the time of encounter.

Introduction to the concept of an ambiguous situation with the main emphasis on the possibility that negative, ambiguous situations may be accidental.

The role of uncontrolled and unintentional situational factors in the negative social ambiguous situation.

Introduction to the concept of “Thinking Time” in which participants can be trained to take appropriate time in analysing different social situations, especially negative ones.

How to decide upon an appropriate response in ambiguous situations, for example, considering feelings at that time, nonverbal cues, and the tone of voice.

Home assignments to collect instances of inappropriate behaviour created by the inaccurate perception of a social situation.

Limitations

The findings of this study must be interpreted and generalized cautiously because of several inherent limitations. The measures used in this study are self-report measures, so the chances of socially desirable responses cannot be ruled out. However, several studies suggested that self-report method should be preferred as individuals can identify their behavioural tendencies better than the external observers (Little et al., 2003; Raine et al., 2006). Although the sample size was relatively large, the findings of this article warrant replication with an even larger sample of adolescents in this age group and late adolescence. One related limitation of this study is the use of hypothetical scenarios used to assess HAB instead of some real-life situations. In future research, self-reported HAB in hypothetical vignettes should be compared with HAB assessed through experimental manipulation of ambiguous peer scenarios. What should also be examined is under which conditions impulsivity directly leads to aggressive behaviour and under which conditions it indirectly influences via HAB.

Conclusion

The antecedents of aggressive behaviour are multifactorial and respond to the interaction of several factors. Among other factors, impulsivity and social-cognitive processes, for example, attributional biases, are considered as significant direct predictors of aggressive reactions. In the current study, the mediating effect of HAB on the impulsivity–aggression relationship has been explored. The analysis revealed that HAB partially mediates the association between impulsivity and aggression. The findings support the existing related literature that social-cognitive approach is a strong determinant of one’s reaction to any situation. By modifying the social-cognitive processing styles, subsequent aggressive tendencies can be altered.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Parwinder Singh

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

Anderson

C. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Becker

(2007). The Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire: Some unfinished business. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 434–452.

Bhat

N. A.

Roopesh

B. N.

Bhaskarapillai

Benegal

(2018). Validation of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale–Short Form among Indian adolescents. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 37, 172–177.

Bousardt

A. M. C.

Noorthoorn

E. O.

Hoogendoorn

A. W.

Nijman

H. L. I.

Hummelen

J. W.

(2018). On the link between emotionally driven impulsivity and aggression: Evidence from a validation study on the Dutch UPPS-P. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 2329–2344.

Burgess

K. B.

Wojslawowicz

J. C.

Rubin

K. H.

Rose-Krasnor

Booth-LaForce

(2006). Social information processing and coping strategies of shy/withdrawn and aggressive children: Does friendship matter? Child Development, 77, 371–383.

Bushman

B. J.

Anderson

C. A.

(2001). Is it time to pull the plug on the hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological Review, 108, 273–279.

Buss

A. H.

Perry

M. P.

(1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459.

10.

Chen

Coccaro

E. F.

Jacobson

K. C.

(2012). Hostile attributional bias, negative emotional responding, and aggression in adults: Moderating effects of gender and impulsivity. Aggressive Behaviour, 38, 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21407

11.

Coie

J. D.

Dodge

K. A.

(1998). Aggression and antisocial behaviour. In Damon

Eisenberg

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personality development (5th ed., pp. 779–862). John Wiley.

12.

Crick

N. R.

Dodge

K. A.

(1994). A review and reformulation of social information processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.

13.

DeWall

C. N.

Anderson

C. A.

(2010). The general aggression model. In Shaver

Mikulincer

(Eds.), Human aggression and violence: Causes, manifestations, and consequences (pp. 15–33). American Psychological Association.

14.

Dhaliwal

G. K.

(2002). Affective aggression in adult male prisoners: the role of prior exposure to violence, psychopathy, hostile attribution bias and anger. PhD thesis. Ottawa, ON: Carleton University.

15.

Dodge

K. A.

(2006). Translational science in action: Hostile attributional style and the development of aggressive behaviour problems. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 791–814.

16.

Dodge

K. A.

(2011). Social information processing patterns as mediators of the interaction between genetic factors and life experiences in the development of aggressive behavior. In Shaver

Mikulincer

(Eds.), Human aggression and violence: Causes, manifestations, and consequences (pp. 165�185). American Psychological Association.

17.

Dodge

K. A.

Lansford

J. E.

Burks

V. S.

Bates

J. E.

Pettit

G. S.

Fontaine

Price

J. M.

(2003). Peer rejection and social information-processing factors in the development of aggressive behaviour problems in children. Child Development, 74, 374–393.

18.

Dodge

K. A.

Lochman

J. E.

Harnish

J. D.

Bates

J. E.

Pettit

G. S.

(1997). Reactive and proactive aggression in school children and psychiatrically impaired chronically assaultive youth. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 37–51.

19.

Dollard

Doob

L. W.

Miller

N. E.

Mowrer

O. H.

Sears

R. R.

(1939). Frustration and aggression. Yale University Press.

20.

Eisenberg

Morris

A. S.

(2002). Children’s emotion-related regulation. In Kail

(Ed.), Advances in child development and behaviour (Vol. 30, pp. 189–229). Academic Press.

21.

Florida shooting: At least 17 dead in high school attack. (2018, February 15). BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43066226

22.

Gagnon

McDuff

Daelman

Fournier

(2015). Is hostile attributional bias associated with negative urgency and impulsive behaviours? A social-cognitive conceptualization of impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.011

23.

Gagnon

Rochat

(2017). Relationships between hostile attribution bias, negative urgency, and reactive aggression. Journal of Individual Differences, 38(4), 211–219.

24.

Graham

Hudley

Williams

(1992). Attributional and emotional determinants of aggression among African-American and Latino young adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 731–740.

25.

Green

V. A.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

Rechis

Patterson

M. M.

Hughes

J. M.

(2008). Social problem solving and strategy use in young children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 169, 92–112.

26.

Gvion

Apter

(2011). Aggression, impulsivity, and suicide behaviour: A review of the literature. Archives of Suicide Research, 15, 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2011.565265

27.

Haller

Kruk

M. R.

(2006). Normal and abnormal aggression: Human disorders and novel laboratory models. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.01.005

28.

Hudley

Graham

(1993). An attributional intervention to reduce peer-directed aggression among African-American boys. Child Development, 64, 124–138.

29.

Huesmann

L. R.

Dubow

E. F.

Boxer

(2011). The transmission of aggressiveness across generations: Biological, contextual, and social learning processes. In Shaver

Mikulincer

(Eds.), Human aggression and violence: Causes, manifestations, and consequences (pp. 123–142). American Psychological Association.

30.

Klimkiewicz

Jakubczyk

Wnorowska

Klimkiewicz

Bohnert

Ilgen

M. A.

. . . Wojnar

(2014). Violent behaviour and driving under the influence of alcohol: Prevalence and association with impulsivity among individuals in treatment for alcohol dependence in Poland. European Addiction Research, 20, 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1159/000356192

31.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

32.

Kumari

Kishore

Mandal

R.K.

(2017). A Cross-Sectional Study of Aggression among School Adolescents in Karnataka, India. Indian Journal of Youth and Adolescent Health, 4, 4–9.

33.

Lane

S. D.

Cherek

D. R.

Rhoades

H. M.

Pietras

C. J.

Tcheremissine

O. V.

(2003). Relationships among laboratory and psychometric measures of impulsivity: Implications in substance abuse and dependence. Addictive Disorders & Their Treatment, 2, 33–40.

34.

Lemery

K. S.

Essex

M. J.

Smider

N. A.

(2002). Revealing the relation between temperament and behaviour problem symptoms by eliminating measurement confounding: Expert ratings and factor analyses. Child Development, 73, 867–882.

35.

Levi

M. D.

Nussbaum

D. S.

Rich

J. B.

(2010). Neuropsychological and personality characteristics of predatory, irritable, and nonviolent offenders: Support for a typology of criminal human aggression. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 633–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810362342

36.

Linder

Collins

(2005). Parent and peer predictors of physical aggression and conflict management in romantic relationships in early adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 252–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.252

37.

Little

T. D.

Jones

S. M.

Henrich

C. C.

Hawley

P. H.

(2003). Disentangling the “whys” from the “whats” of aggressive behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/0165025024400128

38.

Liu

Zhou

(2009). Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire in adolescents. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 17, 449–451.

39.

Lozano

J. H.

Gordillo

Pérez

M. A.

(2014). Impulsivity, intelligence, and academic performance: Testing the interaction hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.013

40.

Lynam

D. R.

Miller

J. D.

(2004). Personality pathways to impulsive behaviour and their elations to deviance: Results from three samples. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20, 319–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-004-5867-0

41.

Menon

Sarkar

Kattimani

Mathan

(2015). Do personality traits such as impulsivity and hostility-aggressiveness predict severity of intent in attempted suicide? Findings from a record based study in South India. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 37, 393–398.

42.

Meule

Kübler

(2014). Double trouble. Trait food craving and impulsivity interactively predict food-cue affected behavioural inhibition. Appetite, 79, 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.014

43.

Moffitt

T. E.

Krueger

R. F.

Caspi

Fagan

(2000). Partner abuse and general crime: How are they the same? How are they different? Criminology, 38, 201–235.

44.

Murray

K. T.

Kochanska

(2002). Effortful control: Factor structure and relation to externalizing and internalizing behaviours. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 503–514.

45.

Murray

R. L.

Chermack

S. T.

Walton

M. A.

Winters

Booth

B. M.

Blow

F. C.

(2008). Psychological aggression, physical aggression, and injury in non-partner relationships among men and women in treatment for substance use disorders. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 69, 896–905.

46.

Nasby

Hayden

DePaulo

B. M.

(1980). Attributional bias among aggressive boys to interpret unambiguous social stimuli as displays of hostility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 459–468.

47.

Neumann

I. D.

Veenema

A. H.

Beiderbeck

D. I.

(2010). Aggression and anxiety: Social context and neurobiological links. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 4, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2010.00012

48.

Newman

J. P.

Wallace

J. F.

(1993). Psychopathy and cognition. In Kendall

Dobson

(Eds.), Psychopathy and cognition (pp. 293–349). Academic Press.

49.

Orobio de Castro

Veerman

J. W.

Koops

Bosch

J. D.

Monshouwer

H. J.

(2002). Hostile attribution of intent and aggressive behaviour: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 73, 916–934.

50.

Patterson

C. J.

Kupersmidt

J. B.

Griesler

P. C.

(1990). Children’s perceptions of self and of relationships with others as a function of sociometric status. Child Development, 61, 1335–1349.

51.

Patton

J. H.

Stanford

M. S.

Barratt

E. S.

(1995). Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 768–774.

52.

Pearson

M. R.

Murphy

E. M.

Doane

A. N.

(2013). Impulsivity-like traits and risky driving behaviours among college students. Accidents Analysis and Prevention, 53, 142–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.01.009

53.

Piko

B. F.

Pinczés

(2014). Impulsivity, depression and aggression among adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.008

54.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.

55.

Raine

Dodge

Loeber

Gatzke-Kopp

Lynam

Reynolds

, et al. (2006). The Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire: Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behaviour, 32, 159–171.

56.

Reidy

D. E.

Shelley-Tremblay

J. F.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

(2011). Psychopathy, reactive aggression, and precarious proclamations: A review of behavioural, cognitive, and biological research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 512–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.06.002

57.

Runions

K. C.

Keating

D. P.

(2007). Young children’s social information processing: Family antecedents and behavioural correlates. Developmental Psychology, 43, 838–849.

58.

Shaheen

Jahan

(2014). Role of self-esteem in the development of aggressive behaviour among adolescent. International Journal of Education and Psychological Research, 3(4), 54–57.

59.

Sharma

M. K.

Marimuthu

(2014). Prevalence and psychosocial factors of aggression among youth. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 36, 48–53.

60.

Stanford

M. S.

Houston

R. J.

Mathias

C. W.

Villemarette-Pittman

N. R.

Helfritz

L. E.

Conklin

S. M.

(2003). Characterizing aggressive behaviour. Assessment, 10, 183–190.

61.

Stanford

M. S.

Mathias

C. W.

Dougherty

D. M.

Lake

S. L.

Anderson

N. E.

Patton

J. H.

(2009). Fifty years of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale: An update and review. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.008

62.

United Nations Children’s Fund. (2011). The state of the world’s children 2011: Adolescence an age of opportunity. UNICEF.

63.

Van Blyderveen

Lafrance

Emond

Kosmerly

O’Connor

Chang

. (2016). Personality differences in the susceptibility to stress-eating: The influence of emotional control and impulsivity. Eating Behaviors, 23, 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2016.07.009

64.

Vigil-Colet

Codorniu-Raga

M. J.

(2004). Aggression and inhibition deficits, the role of functional and dysfunctional impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1431–1440.

65.

Vigil-Colet

Morales-Vives

Tous

(2008). The relationships between functional and dysfunctional impulsivity and aggression across different samples. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11, 480–487.

66.

Vitiello

Stoff

D. M.

(1997). Subtypes of aggression and their relevance to child psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 307–315.

67.

Weiss

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, 1321–1335.

68.

White

J. L.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

Bartusch

D. J.

Needles

D. J.

Stouthamer-Loeber

(1994). Measuring impulsivity and examining its relationship to delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 192–205.

69.

Wilkowski

B. M.

Robinson

M. D.

(2008). The cognitive basis of trait anger and reactive aggression: An integrative analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307309874

70.

World Health Organization. (2002). World report on violence and health. World Health Organization.

71.

Yamunanagar school principal shot dead by class XII boy. (2018, January 21). The Tribune. http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/haryana/yamunanagar-school-principal-shot-dead-by-class-xii-boy/531807.html