Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Attribution of maternal social cues in conduct disordered boys Flessati, Eugene William 1985

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1986_A8 F63.pdf [ 4.79MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096980.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096980-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096980-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096980-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096980-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096980-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096980-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096980-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096980.ris

Full Text

Attribution of Maternal Social Cues in Conduct Disordered Boys By Eugene William Flessati B.Sc. (Honours), The University of Calgary, 1981 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Psychology) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 1985 © E u g e n e William Flessati, 1985 In present ing this thesis in partial fulf i lment of the requ i rements for an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e at the University of British C o l u m b i a , I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for re ference and study. I further agree that permiss ion for extens ive c o p y i n g of this thesis for scholar ly p u r p o s e s may be granted by the h e a d of m y depar tment or by his o r her representat ives. It is u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r publ icat ion of this thesis for f inancial gain shall not b e a l l owed without m y written permiss ion . D e p a r t m e n t of P s y c h o l o g y  T h e Univers i ty of British C o l u m b i a 1956 M a i n Mal l Vancouver , C a n a d a V 6 T 1Y3 Date F e b r u a r y 1 , 1 9 8 6 DE-6(3/81) ii Abstract The purpose of this investigation was to determine the extent to which conduct disordered boys attribute hostile intent to their mothers' behavior following maternal behavior that results in negative, ambiguous, or positive outcomes for the child. Twenty-four conduct disordered and 24 normal boys between the ages of 6 and 11 years were individually presented with a series of hypothetical scenarios that depicted interactions between the boy and his mother. Following each scenario, the children were assessed with respect to the attributions of intent they made regarding their mothers' behavior, as well as their verbal report of behavioral response toward her. Results indicated that conduct disordered and normal boys did not differ with respect to either the attributions they made regarding their mothers' behavior or their verbal report of behavioral response. Results also indicated that attribution of intent was directly related to verbal report of behavioral response. The results were discussed in terms of issues related to mother-child interaction and the specific methodology employed in this study. iii Table of Contents PAGE Abstract ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables vi Acknowledgements vii Introduction 1 Family Interactions of Conduct Disordered 4 Children Role of Social Cognitions and Attributions 9 in Aggression Purpose of the Present Study 16 Hypotheses 17 Method 19 Subjects 19 Maternal Perception of Child Adjustment 22 Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised 23 Stimuli 24 Dependent Measures 25 Procedure 26 Reliability of Measures 27 Results 29 Overview of Analyses 29 Reliabilities 30 Maternal Perception of Child Adjustment Measures 30 iv Analyses of Dependent Variables 34 Responses on the Reported Response Variable 39 under Different Conditions of Assumed Intent Relationship Between Assignment of Intent and 39 Reported Response Correlational Analyses 43 Discussion 48 Hypothesis 1 48 Hypothesis 2 48 Hypothesis 3 49 Hypothesis 4 50 Hypothesis 5 51 Hypothesis 6 52 Conclusions and Directions for Future Research 61 References 64 Appendices 73 Appendix A: Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory 74 Appendix B: Revised Child Behavior Profile 77 Appendix C: Child Behavior Checklist 79 Appendix D: Advertisement for Subjects 82 Appendix E: Transcripts of the Six Scenarios 84 Used in the Study Appendix F: Transcripts of the Original Scenarios 87 and the Results of the Pilot Testing Appendix G: Scoring Criteria for the Dependent Variables 93 Appendix H: Consent Form Appendix I: Correlation Matrices List of Tables Mean Demographic Scores of Conduct Disordered and Normal Groups Mean Maternal Perception Scores on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory and the Revised Child Behavior Profile Mean Scores on Intent Dependent Variable Mean Scores on the Forced Choice Intent Dependent Variable Mean Scores on the Reported Response Dependent Variable Responses on Reported Response Dependent Variable When Benevolent Intent Is Assumed Responses on Reported Response Dependent Variable When Neutral/Accidental Intent Is Assumed Responses on Reported Response Dependent Variable When Hostile Intent Is Assumed Relationship Between Assumed Intent and Reported Response - All Subjects Relationship Between Assumed Intent and Reported Response - Conduct Disordered Subjects Relationship Between Assumed Intent and Reported Response - Normal Subjects vii Acknowledgements I would like to thank the members of my committee, Keith Dobson and Phil Smith, and extend special thanks to my supervisor, Bob McMahon, for his help and support. I would also like to express my appreciation to Miss S. Dinwoodie and the teachers and students of St Mary's School. I would also like to thank the agency personnel of Kincaid Treatment Resource, Surrey School Board, the Child Psychiatry Departments of Vancouver General Hospital and University of British Columbia Health Sciences Hospital, and the Vancouver Health Department. The efforts of John Maddalozzo, Stuart Fine, Jim Schmidt, Anne Maxwell, and Brian Harper are greatly appreciated. I am especially endebted to Mary MacDonald. Without her assistance I would likely still be searching for subjects. Finally, I would like to thank my friends and fellow students for their emotional support and encouragement. 1 Childhood conduct and aggression problems comprise the largest percentage of referrals to child guidance and mental health clinics (Cerreto & Tuma, 1977; Patterson, 1964; Patterson, Reid, Jones, & Conger, 1975; Wing, Baldwin, & Rosen, 1972; Wolff, 1961, 1971). The conduct disordered child is most frequently described as physically aggressive, having temper tantrums, disobedient, physically destructive, impertinent, uncooperative, disruptive, negative, restless, boisterous, and irritable. Other behaviors such as lying, jealousy, inattentiveness, and sulking are less often associated with it (Quay, 1979). There are several features which are sometimes associated with conduct disordered behavior. After reviewing this literature, Wells and Forehand (1985) concluded that children with conduct disorder problems also frequently present with social skills deficits/peer relationship difficulties, reading problems, and/or depression. A significant proportion of children who are labelled as hyperactive (Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity (American Psychiatric Association, 1980)) also experience aggression and conduct disorder problems (e.g., Loney, Langhorne, & Paternite, 1978; Prinz, Connor, & Wilson, 1981; Safer & Allen, 1976; Stewart, Cummings, Singer, & deBlois, 1981). The incidence of conduct disordered behavior is consistently found to be higher in boys than girls (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1981; Feshbach, 1970; Peterson, 1961; Robinson, Eyberg, & Ross, 1980; Rutter, Tizard, & Whitmore, 1970). This difference is reflected in the greater number of male than female referrals (typically three or four to one in favor of males) to child guidance and mental health clinics for conduct disorder problems (Baldwin, Robertson, & Satin, 1971; Rosen, 1979; Stewart, deBlois, Meardon, & Cummins, 1980; Wing et al., 1972; Wolff, 1967). 2 All of the major clinically derived systems of mental disturbance have diagnostic categories that encompass the above constellation of behavioral problems (e.g., American Psychiatric Association, 1980; Rutter, Shaffer, & Shepherd, 1975), and multivariate analyses of childhood behavior problems consistently identify a conduct disorder factor. For instance, in a review of 32 multivariate statistical studies, Quay (1979) found that every study identified a conduct disorder factor. This was true in spite of the diversity of samples, rating methodologies, and informant types that were used, attesting to the validity of this behavioral constellation. Similar conclusions were drawn by Achenbach and Edelbrock (1978) in their review of this research. Loeber and Schmaling (1985a) reviewed 28 factor and cluster analyses of child behavior assessment instruments completed by parents and/or clinicians. The results of multdimensional scaling indicated that conduct disordered behavior problems could be conceptualized as unidimensional and bipolar. One end of the dimension was characterized by overt and confrontative behaviors including hyperactive, screams, stubborn, moody, demanding, argues, poor peer relations, teases, impulsive, attacks people, jealous, sulks, temper tantrums, loud, threatens, irritable, cruel, and fights. The other end of the dimension was characterized by covert descriptors of the child including drug and alcohol use, bad companions, truancy, runs away, in a gang, steals, and sets fires. Disobedience is common to both overt and coverts types of conduct disordered behavior. A later study (Loeber & Schmaling, 1985b) found that boys who engage in specific overt (fighting) and covert (theft) behaviors are more delinquent and are more extensively involved in a wide range of overt and covert conduct disordered behaviors than boys who engage exclusively in fighting or theft behavior. 3 Research cited in the present paper focusses on conduct disordered children whose primary problems are of the overt, as opposed to covert, type. There is consistent evidence that childhood conduct disorder problems are stable over time. For instance, in a review of 16 longitudinal studies of conduct disorder in children and adolescents, Olweus (1979) found that conduct disorder during middle childhood was significantly correlated with conduct disorder during adolescence and early adulthood. The average correlation of conduct disorder at these two time periods was .63. While this correlation tended to decrease as the time interval increased, for intervals from 10 to 18 years the mean correlation was .48. In other reviews of the literature, Loeber (1982) concluded that continuity of conduct disordered behavior was highest for those children who were most deviant, and Loeber and Dishion (1983) found that childhood conduct disorder problems were among the most consistent predictors of later delinquency and recidivism. In a review of follow up studies of child psychopathology, Robins (1970) concluded that conduct disordered children were four times more likely than normal children to be identified as antisocial or sociopathic in adulthood. A later review (Robins, 1979) found that conduct disordered behavior was predictive of adult disturbance within a number of areas of social functioning. For example, after reviewing studies of adult outcome among child referrals to community mental health clinics, she concluded that, "conduct-disorder children had not only more psychiatric hospitalizations as adults but also more difficulties with the law, with their jobs, with their families, and with social relationships of all kinds than either other patients or control children" (p. 503). Clearly, conduct disorder is not a circumscribed or transient problem. The conduct disordered child typically engages in a wide variety of behaviors that are 4 aversive to others in his or her environment. These problems tend not to disappear as the child grows older; rather, they are predictive of later pathology in a number of areas of social functioning. While conduct disordered children experience problems in a number of settings (Johnson, Bolstad, & Lobitz, 1976; Patterson, 1974, 1976), previous researchers have tended to examine various parameters of this disorder within the context of family interactions. Family Interactions of Conduct Disordered Children A number of differences between conduct disordered children and their nonproblem peers have been identified within the family setting. Conduct disordered children have been found to be less compliant to maternal commands (Forehand, King, Peed, & Yoder, 1975; Green, Forehand, & McMahon, 1979; Griest, Forehand, Wells, & McMahon, 1980; Lobitz & Johnson, 1975; Moore & Mukai, 1983), and to engage in a greater amount of annoying, displeasing, and socially aggressive behavior (Delfini Bernal, & Rosen, 1976; Green et al., 1979; Lobitz & Johnson, 1975; Moore & Mukai, 1983; Patterson, 1976, 1982; Snyder, 1977). For example, Patterson (1982) found that conduct disordered children engaged in a greater amount of all 14 categories of aversive behavior that were observed. These behaviors included command negative, cry, disapproval, dependency, destructiveness, high rate, humiliate, ignore, negativism, noncompliance, physical negative, tease, whine, and yell. When conduct disordered children engage in aversive behavior they do so for a longer duration than nonreferred children and are more likely to accelerate the aversive behavior if punished by another family member (Patterson, 1976, 1982; Snyder, 1977). The referred child is also more likely to counterattack another family member's aversive intrusion than a nonref erred child, and a greater proportion of his or her aversive and aggressive 5 behavior is maintained by negative reinforcement (Patterson, 1982). In other words, family members of the conduct disordered child are more likely to withdraw their aversive stimulus (e.g., nagging or teasing) if the child engages in conduct disordered behavior (Patterson, 1982). Approximately one third of the conduct disordered child's episodes of aversive behavior are in response to the initiation of aversive behavior by another family member; the remaining two thirds are unprovoked attacks (Patterson, 1982). Observations of the family members of conduct disordered children have also identified a number of differences relative to nonreferred families. Mothers of referred children give a greater number of total commands (Forehand et al., 1975; Green et al., 1979; Lobitz & Johnson, 1975), poor quality commands (Rickard, Forehand, Wells, Griest, & McMahon, 1981), commands given in a threatening, humiliating, angry, or nagging manner (Delfini et al., 1976), and criticisms (Forehand et al., 1975) to the target child than do mothers of nonreferred children. Mothers of conduct disordered boys are less able to monitor their son's whereabouts and activities, and are more rejecting of their sons than mothers of normal boys (Loeber & Schmaling, 1985b). All family members (i.e., mother, father, and siblings) of the conduct disordered child have been found to be more aversive and aggressive toward the target child than are family members of nonproblem children (Home, 1981; Lobitz & Johnson, 1975; Patterson, 1976, 1982; Snyder, 1977). Family members of conduct disordered children respond to pleasing behavior in each other in a less positive manner (Snyder, 1977). Given displeasing behavior, members of problem families respond less aversively and more positively than do nonproblem families (Snyder, 1977). They are also more likely to persist in displeasing behavior if an aversive consequence is given, and are less likely to 6 persist in prosocial behavior given a positive consequence (Patterson, 1976; Patterson & Cobb, 1971; Snyder, 1977). Conduct disordered children are more likely than nonproblem children to receive aversive consequences from other family members for both socially aggressive and prosocial behaviors (Lobitz & Johnson, 1975; Patterson, 1982). Differences between conduct disordered and normal children regarding aversive behavior interactions have been most clearly documented for the mother-child dyad (e.g., Patterson, 1980, 1982), and the child's mother has been implicated in the maintenance of conduct disordered behavior. For example, Olweus (1980) used path analysis methodology to identify the role of temperamental and early familial factors in adolescent aggression. He found that maternal permissiveness for aggression and maternal negativism were the most significant predictors of peer reports of adolescent aggression level. Other less important predictors included parental use of power assertion techniques and the adolescent's early temperament. Several investigators, most notably Patterson and his associates (e.g., Patterson, 1976, 1979, 1980, 1982; Patterson & Cobb, 1971), have attempted to use social learning concepts to describe and explain the development and escalation of aversive and aggressive behavior within the family setting of conduct disordered children. Patterson uses the concept of coercion, which he describes as the contingent use of aversive and aggressive behavior in order to modify the behavior of other family members, as the central mechanism of this process. He argues that almost all young children, largely through interaction with siblings and peers, have learned a wide variety of aversive and aggressive responses. Most children do not regularly exhibit this aggressive behavior beyond 3 to 4 7 years of age. However, this behavior will tend to occur if the parents engage in unskilled parenting practices such as failing to teach and reinforce prosocial behaviors, reinforcing aversive and aggressive behaviors, or inconsistently punishing such behaviors. These parenting practices are the initial events necessary to develop high-rate conduct disordered and aggressive behavior (Patterson, 1976, 1980, 1982). Patterson (1982) has developed a model which postulates a relationship between crises, family management practices, and child conduct disordered behavior. Effective family management practices include clearly stating house rules, monitoring the child, implementing contingent consequences, and using appropriate problem solving, crisis management, and negotiation strategies. A number of parental difficulties including illness, poverty, unemployment, marital conflict, psychiatric disturbance, or drug and alcohol dependence may result in a failure to effectively implement these family management practices. Patterson (1982) speculates that disruption of these family management practices is the major mediating variable for child conduct disordered behavior. The resulting child conduct disordered behavior may precipitate further parental difficulty such as marital conflict. Patterson emphasizes the role of two reinforcement mechanisms, negative and positive reinforcement, in explaining the development and escalation of coercive behavior in the family system of the conduct disordered child. The role of negative reinforcement is apparent when the conduct disordered child uses coercive behaviors as a technique for coping with aversive intrusions of other family members. For instance, a mother may make a request of her conduct disordered child. In response the child may behave in an aversive manner. As the interaction progresses, both individuals will likely become increasingly more aversive and 8 aggressive. At some point in this reciprocally escalating interaction, either the child will comply or the mother will cease her demands. If it is the child who complies, he or she is reinforced for compliance because the mother stops her aversive behavior. However, the mother is also reinforced for behaving in an increasingly aversive manner because this behavior results in child compliance. If it is the mother who gives in and ceases her demands, she is reinforced because the child stops his aversive and aggressive behavior upon her withdrawal. The child is also reinforced for being coercive because this behavior results in the child's mother withdrawing her aversive behavior. As a result of these coercive interactions, in the future the child's mother is more likely to place aversive demands on her child, and her child is more likely to behave coercively when she does so. Patterson argues that positive reinforcement also plays a role in the development of coercive child behavior. The victim of the conduct disordered child plays a dual role: providing a cue which sets the occasion for aggressive behavior and responding to the child's aggressive behavior in such a manner so as to reinforce the child for aggression. This reinforcement increases the probability that aggression will occur in the future. The conduct disordered child engages in coercive behavior, and other family members in turn utilize similar types of coercive behavior in a rapidly escalating interaction in which both individuals attempt to force the other to terminate his or her aversive and aggressive behavior. Because of the immediate reinforcement which results from greater and greater levels of coercive behavior, over time all family members of the conduct disordered child become increasingly coercive in their interactions with each other. This results in a higher rate of coercive interactions that also become progressively more intense and extended. Other 9 long term consequences of this cycle of coercion include an increasingly negative family climate, "increases in feelings of anger and hostility or conversely, depression and withdrawal, and a decrease in positive interactions among family members" (Wells & Forehand, 1985, p. 237). Patterson (1982) suggests that a child's daily interactions with his or her parents, siblings, and peers result in a great many minor events in which the outcome is either negative or ambiguous, and the intention of the other person is not entirely clear. Findings which will be reviewed in the following section suggest that in this type of situation the conduct disordered child may attribute hostile or aggressive intent to the family member who was the cause of this outcome. This attribution may in turn result in aggressive behavior. This aggressive behavior, while justified from the conduct disordered child's perspective, will appear unprovoked to others. Patterson (1982) hypothesizes that this may in turn account for the finding that conduct disordered children are eight times more likely than nonreferred children to launch unprovoked attacks on other family members (Liftman & Patterson, cited in Patterson, 1982). While an objective behavioral analysis would not indicate a clearly aversive antecedent to the conduct disordered child's attack, he or she may perceive other family members' actions as indicating hostile intent and aggress against them as a result of this perception. Role of Social Cognitions and Attributions in Aggression The relationship between aggressive behavior and social cognitions has recently received attention from a number of writers who argue that an individual's cognitive appraisal of the stimuli and cues surrounding him play a prominent role in determining the extent to which he will respond aggressively 10 (Bandura, 1973, 1978; Berkowitz, 1973, 1977, 1982; Novaco, 1975. 1976, 1978). A number of studies have examined the relationship between social cognitions and behavior. There is consistent evidence that individuals whose behavior has a negative outcome are evaluated more negatively (e.g., evaluated as meaner, naughtier, more aggressive, and more blameworthy) when they act with purposeful or hostile, as opposed to accidental, intent (Buldain, Crano, & Wegner, 1982; Ferguson & Rule, 1980; 1982; Fincham, 1982; Fincham & Jaspars, 1979; Hewitt, 1975; Holm, 1982; Rotenberg, 1980; Rule & Duker, 1973; Rule, Nesdale, & McAra, 1974). In addition, the levels of anger (Rule & Duker, 1973) and retaliatory aggression (Buldain et al., 1982; Holm, 1982; Horai & Bartek, 1978; Leon, 1982; Nickel, 1974; Shantz & Voydanoff, 1975; Snyder & Swann, 1978) are greater following negative outcome behaviors that are committed with hostile or purposeful, as opposed to accidental, intent. Children as young as five years of age are able to consider intent information in evaluating negative behavior (Harris, 1977). However, older children are more likely than younger children to consider intent information when making these evaluations (Buldain et al., 1982; Shantz & Voydanoff, 1973; Ferguson & Rule, 1980). In a series of studies, Dodge and his associates (Dodge, 1980; Dodge & Frame, 1982; Dodge & Newman, 1981; Milich & Dodge, 1984; Steinberg & Dodge, 1983) sought to examine the influence of social cognitions on peer interaction in aggressive children. The aggressive children in these studies were either students within regular classrooms who were classified as aggressive on the basis of peer sociometric status (Steinberg & Dodge, 1983), or peer sociometric status and teacher report (Dodge, 1980; Dodge & Frame, 1982; Dodge & Newman, 1981); or clients in a mental health clinic who were assessed as experiencing 11 difficulties related to hyperactivity and aggression (Milich & Dodge, 1984). With the exception of Steinberg and Dodge (1983), only boys were assessed. The sociometric method of subject selection used by Dodge has been found to predict actual aggressive behavior in the classroom and on the playground (Dodge & Coie, cited in Dodge & Frame, 1982). Specifically, these studies examined the extent to which aggressive children engage in misattribution of social cues relative to nonaggressive children. They suggested that aggressive children's social cognitions are biased. They engage in cue distortion in which they attribute hostility and aggression to others in situations in which hostile intent is not present. This hypothesis states that the aggressive child, makes a distortion in the perception of intention which is related to his expectation about the intentions of others. If a child strongly expects that a peer will behave with hostile intent, then he may be likely to perceive the peer's behavior as hostile, particularly when the behavior produces a negative outcome. This perception may justify the child's retaliatory aggressive behavior from his own point of view. (Dodge, 1980, p. 163) Among their findings were that boys who were the recipients of a negative outcome (i.e., a puzzle they had worked on was dismantled) behaved more aggressively when the available social cues indicated hostile, as opposed to benign, intent (Dodge, 1980). When the intent of the peer who caused the negative outcome was ambiguous, aggressive children were more likely to attribute hostile intent <£<.09 in Dodge, 1980; £<.05 in Dodge & Frame, 1982; g = .02 in Milich & Dodge, 1984; E< 002 in Steinberg & Dodge, 1983), and to report that they would behave aggressively than the nonaggressive boys (j><.08 in Dodge, 1980; g = .03 in Milich & Dodge, 1984). Further, within the aggressive sample, the more 12 severely aggressive children were significantly more likely to attribute hostile intent than those who were moderately aggressive (Steinberg & Dodge, 1983). In the situation in which the peer's intent regarding his behavior was ambiguous, the aggressive and nonaggressive boys behaved as if the intent was hostile and benign, respectively (Dodge, 1980). Even when the outcome of the peer's behavior was ambiguous (as opposed to negative), the aggressive boys tended to overattribute hostility to the intent of the peer relative to the nonaggressive boys (Dodge & Frame, 1982). Aggressive boys tended to attribute hostile intent significantly more often than the nonaggressive boys only when the outcome was directed toward themselves as opposed to a second peer (Dodge & Frame, 1982). The results of a similar study by Weiss (1984) also found that aggressive males did not attribute hostile intent significantly more often than their nonaggressive peers when the outcome was directed toward a second peer. When the outcome was directed toward themselves, they were significantly more likely than their nonaggressive peers to infer that the peer would behave toward them in an aggressive manner in the future (E<.05 in Dodge, 1980; £ = .07 in Milich & Dodge, 1984), and that they would retaliate against the peer (£<.08 in Dodge & Frame, 1982; £ = .03 in Milich & Dodge, 1984). The aggressive (clinic referred) boys responded similarly to the normal boys on forced-choice questions assessing whether the peer behaved as he did "on purpose" or "by accident", whether the peer was "guilty" or "innocent" regarding the outcome, and in their determination of the appropriate level of punishment for the behavior. The two groups also responded in a similar manner to an open-ended question assessing whether the peer would behave in a prosocial manner in the future (Milich & Dodge, 1984). 13 Attributions of intent played a significant mediating role in the determination of an individual's response. For all groups, in all conditions, there was significantly greater stated retaliation when an attribution of hostility was assumed. The differences in stated aggression between aggressive and nonaggressive boys were found to be accounted for by the differences in the attributions which they made (Dodge, 1980; Dodge & Frame, 1982). This is in accord with other findings which suggest that aggression is more likely when a hostile intent is assumed (e.g., Buldain et al., 1982; Nickel, 1974; Shantz & Voyanoff, 1973; Snyder & Swann, 1978). Complementary results to those of Dodge and his associates were found by Nasby, Hayden, and DePaulo (1980) in a study of "emotionally disturbed" boys in a residential treatment center. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the relationship between aggression and attribution of hostility to facial and/or body cues. They did not find any differences in the ability of more and less aggressive boys to accurately label hostile and nonhostile affective states. However, they found a clear relationship between counsellor reports of aggression level and overattribution of hostility to these cues, as well as a less clear inverse relationship between aggression and overattribution of positive-submissive affective states. In other words, the more aggressive boys were no less accurate than the less aggressive boys in the labelling of affective states. However, the more aggressive boys erred by attributing hostile affective states, and the less aggresive boys erred by attributing nonhostile affective states. These findings, which are in accord with those of Dodge cited above, nonetheless have very limited applicability due to the sample (emotionally disturbed males) that was used. 14 Several investigators have examined attributional processes in children classified as rejected on the basis of peer group sociometric status (Aydin & Markova, 1979; Dodge, Murphy, & Buchsbaum, 1984). Because there is consistent evidence that children identified by peer group sociometrics as rejected behave significantly more aggressively than their more popular peers (e.g., Dodge, 1983; Dodge, Coie, & Brakke, 1982; Gottman, 1977; Masters & Furman, 1981; Milich, Landau, Kilby, & Whitten, 1982; Rubin, Daniels-Bierness, & Hayvren, 1982; Vosk, Forehand, Parker, & Rickard, 1982), it is reasonable to assume that the rejected children in these two studies were also aggressive. It was found that rejected children were significantly more likely than their more popular peers to attribute hostile intent to their peers given ambiguous intent and ambiguous (Aydin & Markova, 1979) or negative (Aydin & Markova, 1979; Dodge et al., 1984) outcome. This was true whether the child was instructed to imagine that the negative outcome was directed towards self (Dodge et al., 1984), or towards others (Aydin & Markova, 1979). Dodge et al. (1984) found that children's reported response following the negative event "varied directly as a function of the type of intention that they identified in the vignette... but did not vary significantly as a function of the type of intention actually portrayed in the vignette" (p. 168). Given the assumption of hostile intent, the children were significantly more likely than base rate to report that they would respond aggressively or with an appeal to authority, and significantly less likely than base rate to report that they would do nothing. Given the assumption of benevolent intent, they were significantly less likely than base rate to report that they would respond aggressively, and significantly more likely to report that they would do nothing. 15 The preceeding evidence suggests the development and existence of a cyclical relationship between attributions and aggressive behavior within peer group systems that have an aggressive child in them. Such a conceptualization appears equally plausible within the context of the family system of the conduct disordered child, and is consistent with Patterson's coercion hypothesis. It is theorized that the conduct disordered child experiences faulty social cognitions regarding the intent underlying other family members' behavior. This attribution of hostility to other family members' behavior is an important catalyst that results in greater and greater levels of coercive behavior within the family system of the conduct disordered child. This tendency to attribute hostility to other family members is related to an increased likelihood that the conduct disordered child will aggress against them. Upon being attacked by the conduct disordered child, other family members are more likely to direct aversive and aggressive behavior toward the child. This further reinforces the conduct disordered child's attributions that the family members' intent was indeed hostile. Family members are given further evidence that the child is aggressive and, as a result, they will be more likely to distrust, reject, and attack the child in the future. This in turn provides further support for the conduct disordered child's attribution that he or she resides within a hostile and aggressive family. This could result in further attribution of hostile intent and unprovoked aggression. Dodge's findings suggest that this hypothesized process occurs within the peer group system of the aggressive child. However, to date there has not been any examination of the existence of biased social cognitions, and their relation to aggression, within the family system of the conduct disordered child. 16 The present study is intended as a preliminary step in the examination of the role of social cognitions within family interactions of conduct disordered children. Purpose of the Present Study The purpose of the present study was to examine the role of attributions of hostility within the context of Patterson's coercion theory. Using Dodge's paradigm (1980, study 2; Dodge & Frame, 1982, study 1; Milich & Dodge, 1984), the study examined the extent to which conduct disordered children attribute hostility to their mothers' behavior. Dodge's findings (1980, Dodge & Frame, 1982; Dodge & Newman, 1981; Milich & Dodge, 1984; Steinberg & Dodge, 1983), as well as the others reviewed earlier, indicate that aggressive boys interpret negative or ambiguous environmental events as indicating hostile intent. However, these results have only been documented within the context of the peer group. There has not been any examination of aggressive children's tendency to infer hostility within a familial context. Given the well-documented findings regarding the coercive nature of interactions within the family setting of the conduct disordered child (e.g., Delfini et al., 1976; Forehand et al., 1975; Home, 1981; Lobitz & Johnson, 1975a; Patterson, 1976, 1982; Snyder, 1977), this supposition seems highly plausible. The present study further broadened the scope of investigation through the examination of the attribution of hostility in situations that result in positive, as well as ambiguous and negative, outcomes. Given the above findings regarding social attributions, and family interactions of conduct disordered children, it is reasonable to expect that conduct disordered children might be more likely than normal children to attribute hostile intent to their mother's behavior even when it results in a positive outcome for the child. 17 The present study was limited to examination of the child's attributions and his reported response following behavior of his mother as opposed to other family members. There are two main reasons for examining these questions within the context of mother-child interaction. Because of the primary caretaking role that mothers have in our society, past studies of family interaction have most often studied mother-child interaction. In addition, the differences between conduct disordered and normal children regarding interactional behavior has been most clearly documented for the mother-child dyad (e.g., Patterson, 1982). Only boys were used due to their greater frequency of referral for conduct disorder problems (e.g., Baldwin et al., 1971; Rosen, 1979). Hypotheses 1. Conduct disordered boys would be more likely to attribute hostile intent to their mothers' behavior than normal boys. 2. Conduct disordered boys would be more likely to report that they would respond in an aggressive manner to their mothers' behavior than normal boys. 3. Conduct disordered boys would be more likely to attribute hostile intent given a negative or ambiguous, as opposed to positive, outcome. The outcome of the mothers' behavior, negative versus ambiguous, would not influence the conduct disordered boys' attribution of intent. However, normal boys would be more likely to attribute hostile intent given a negative, as opposed to ambiguous or positive, outcome. The outcome of the mothers' behavior, positive as opposed to ambiguous, would not influence the normal boys' attribution of intent. 4. Conduct disordered boys would be more likely to report that they would respond aggressively given a negative or ambiguous, as opposed to positive, outcome. The outcome of the mothers' behavior, negative versus ambiguous, would 18 not influence the conduct disordered boys' reported response. However, normal boys would be more likely to report that they would respond aggressively given a negative, as opposed to ambiguous or positive, outcome. The outcome of the mothers' behavior, positive as opposed to ambiguous, would not influence the normal boys' reported response. 5. Attribution of intent would be directly related to reported response for the total sample, and for each of the two subject groups. For example, boys who attribute hostile intent would be more likely to report that they would respond aggressively than benevolently. 6. Conduct disordered boys would be more likely to attribute purposeful intent to their mothers' behavior, given a negative outcome than normal boys. Conduct disordered boys would be more likely to attribute accidental intent to their mothers' behavior, given a positive outcome, than normal boys. ! I i 19 Method Subjects Forty-eight boys (24 conduct disordered and 24 normal) between the ages of 6 and 11 years participated in the present study. All children who participated in the study resided with their mothers and had a standard score of 80 or greater on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R) (Dunn & Dunn, 1981). The conduct disordered sample consisted of children referred by their parents or other adults such as physicians, teachers, or social workers with the Government of British Columbia Ministry of Human Resources, for assessment and/or treatment of conduct disorder problems within the home and/or school. Referral sources included social service agencies in the Lower Mainland such as the Division of Child Psychiatry at Vancouver General Hospital (n = 6) and University of British Columbia Health Sciences Center (n = 1), Kincaid Treatment Resource (n = 5), and the Surrey School Board (n = 12). Children who met this criterion were then required to meet a second set of criteria based on their scores on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) (Eyberg & Ross, 1978; Appendix A), and the Aggression factor of the Revised Child Behavior Profile (RCBP) (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983; Appendix B). Factor scores on the RCBP are derived from responses on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (Achenbach, 1978; Appendix C). Both the CBCL and ECBI were completed by the child's mother. To be included in the conduct disordered sample, children had a T-score of 70 or greater on the 23 item Aggression factor of the RCBP (placing the child in the top 2 percent for his age and sex). Children also had to score 11 or greater on the Problem scale and 127 or greater on the Intensity scale of the ECBI. These cutting scores on the ECBI have been recommended in order to achieve maximum discrimination between 20 conduct disordered and normal children (Eyberg & Robinson, 1983; Eyberg & Ross, 1978). Children in the normal group were recruited through advertisements placed in libraries, recreation centers, and newspapers (see Appendix D). To be included in this group, children had no history of referral for behavior problems, a T-score of 65 or less on the Aggression factor of the CBP, and scored below the previously mentioned cut-off points on the two scales of the ECBI. A total of 29 children were recruited for inclusion in the conduct disordered group, and 27 children were recruited for inclusion in the normal group. However, the data for five children in the conduct disordered group and three children in the normal group were not included in the present study because their scores on the maternal perception measures were not within the previously defined guidelines. The conduct disordered and normal samples were compared on various demographic variables (age of child, scale score on the PPVT-R, and socioeconomic status (SES)). SES was calculated using the index developed by Blishen and McRoberts (1976). This index is based on a ranking of all occupations categorized in the Statistics Canada Canadian Classification and Directory of Occupations  (1971). The means and standard deviations of the two groups on these variables are presented in Table 1. The results of a series of univariate t-test analyses indicated that the two groups were not significantly different in terms of age of the child, (t(46) = 0.59, £>.55), PPVT-R scale score (t(46) - 0.98, £>.30), and SES (t(46) = 1.33, £>.15). A male spouse, either legal or common law, resided in the family home in 15 of the 24 families in the conduct disordered group, and in 18 of the 24 families in the normal group. A test of proportions indicated that the two groups did not differ in terms of the number of families in which a male spouse resided, Z •= 0.93, £>.35. 2 1 T a b l e 1 Mean Demographic V a r i a b l e S c o r e s of Conduct D i s o r d e r e d and  Normal Groups Group Demographic Conduct Normal V a r i a b l e D i s o r d e r e d M SD M SD Age 104.3 17.7 107.5 20.6 PPVT-R 101.4 12.6 105.1 13.7 SES 46.0 14.5 5 2 . 5 1 9 . 0 No t e . Age of the c h i l d i s s t a t e d i n months. PPVT-R r e f e r s t o s c a l e s c o r e s on t h e Peabody P i c t u r e V o c a b u l a r y T e s t - R e v i s e d . SES was c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g the i n d e x d e v e l o p e d by B l i s h e n and M c R o b e r t s ( 1 9 7 6 ) . 22 All children were paid $5 for their participation in the study. Maternal Perception of Child Adjustment Two screening instruments were used to assess maternal perception of the child's adjustment: the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) (Eyberg & Ross, 1978; Appendix A) and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (Achenbach, 1978; Appendix C). The ECBI consists of a 36-item list of the most typical problem behaviors reported by parents of conduct disordered children. These items are assessed on two scales: the Problem scale, which indicates which of the specified behaviors are a problem with the child; and the Intensity scale, which indicates the extent to which each of the behaviors occurs. The CBCL is comprised of 118 behavior problems and 20 social competence items. Only the behavior problem scales of the Revised Child Behavior Profile (RCBP) were used in the present study. Separate norms based on the responses of a randomly selected sample of parents of non-referred children have been developed for each sex at ages 4 to 5, 6 to 11, and 12 to 16 years. The RCBP consists of a number of factors which were obtained through factor analysis of checklists completed by parents of children referred for mental health services. These factors for the RCBP of interest (6 to 11 year old boys), include Schizoid, Depressed, Uncommunicative, Obsessive-Compulsive, Somatic Complaints, Social Withdrawal, Hyperactive, Aggressive, and Delinquent. The items which load heaviest on the Aggression factor include: argues a lot; disobedient at home; temper tantrums or hot temper; stubborn, sullen, or irritable; gets in many fights; and, cruelty, bullying, or meanness to others (Achenbach, 1978). Second order factor analyses have found that these narrow band factors form two broad band factors labelled Externalizing and Internalizing. It is also possible to calculate a 23 Total Behavior Problem score which is the sum of responses on the behavior problem items. Both inventories were designed to assess parental perception of the child in a behaviorally specific manner. High test-retest and inter-parent reliabilities, the ability to discriminate between non-referred children and those who have been referred for behavior problems, and sensitivity to the effects of treatment have been reported for both inventories (Achenbach, 1978; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1981; Eyberg & Robinson, 1982, 1983; Eyberg & Ross, 1978; Garbarino, Sebes, & Schellenbach, 1984; Robinson, Eyberg, & Ross, 1980). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised The PPVT-R (Dunn & Dunn, 1981) is an individually administered, norm-referenced test of receptive language abilities. There are two parallel forms of the test, each containing five training items followed by 175 test items arranged in order of increasing difficulty. Each item has four simple line drawings arranged in multiple-choice format. The subject's task is to select the picture considered to best illustrate the meaning of a stimulus word presented orally by the examiner. The test is designed for persons aged 2.5 through 40 years who can see and hear "reasonably" well and understand standard English to some degree. The testing procedure takes approximately 10 to 20 minutes. Scores on the PPVT-R are converted to normalized standard scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Test items were drawn from Webster's New Collegiate  Dictionary. Items were selected to cover a cross-section of 19 content categories (e.g., actions, animals, clothing, descriptors, food). Immediate retest alternate forms reliabilities ranged from r = .72 to .89, and delayed (nine to 31 days) 24 alternate forms reliabilities ranged from r = .61 to .90 for groups aged 6 through 11 years (Dunn & Dunn, 1981). Stimuli The stimuli which were presented to the subjects consisted of audiotaped narrations of six scenarios involving the child and his mother. Two of the scenarios have outcomes which, from the child's perspective, are clearly negative; two have outcomes which are ambiguous; and two have outcomes which are clearly positive. In all of the scenarios, the mother's behavior is the cause of the outcome. Each scenario is narrated by an adult male, and is 25 to 35 seconds in duration. See Appendix E for transcripts of the six scenarios. Prior to using these six scenarios in the study, a pool of 12 scenarios (four with negative outcomes, four with ambiguous outcomes, and four with positive outcomes) were pilot tested with groups of boys in six regular classrooms (one class in each of grades one through six). Each scenario was presented to the children in a random order, and the children were then asked to rate on a 3-point scale whether or not they would like to have the outcome of the scenario happen to them. Children were asked to respond "yes", "no", or "maybe, it depends" to the question, "Would you like this to happen to you?" The children's responses to each scenario were subjected to a chi square analysis which compared the number of assignments to the predicted category with the number of assignments to the other two categories. The two scenarios with the largest chi square values in each of the three outcome types were chosen as stimuli. This procedure was undertaken in order to ensure that the negative, ambiguous, and positive outcome scenarios were actually perceived by children in this manner. See Appendix F for transcripts of the 12 scenarios and the results of the statistical analyses. 25 Dependent Measures The measures employed included the following: 1. The child's response to the question regarding the intent of his mother's behavior. A scoring system based on Dodge (1980, 1982) was devised so as to score responses as indicating benevolent, neutral/accidental, or hostile intent. Benevolent responses were assigned a score of one, neutral/accidental responses were assigned a score of two, and hostile responses were assigned a score of three. The first dependent variable was comprised of the sum of scores on the two scenarios on this question within each of the three outcome types. 2. The child's response to the forced-choice question regarding whether his mother performed the target behavior on purpose or by accident. Responses indicating accidental intent were assigned a score of one, and responses indicating purposeful intent were assigned a score of two. The second dependent variable was comprised of the sum of scores on the two scenarios on this question within each of the three outcome types. 3. The child's response to the question regarding his behavioral response following his mother's behavior. A scoring system based on Dodge (1980, 1982) was devised so as to score responses as either benevolent, no response, or aggressive toward the mother. Benevolent responses were assigned a score of one, non-mother directed responses were assigned a score of two, and aggressive responses were assigned a score of three. The third dependent variable was comprised of the sum of scores on the two scenarios on this question within each of the three outcome types. See Appendix G for a description of the scoring criteria used in coding responses on the three measures. 26 Procedure The child and his mother were escorted to the waiting room by the experimenter, a male in his mid-twenties, and the procedure was briefly explained to the mother. She was then asked to sign the consent form (Appendix H). The child was escorted to the testing room, seated across from the experimenter, and given his $5 stipend. A standardized series of questions regarding friendships, school, and hobbies/sports were then asked of the child in order to help build rapport and relax the child. He was then administered the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R). Upon its completion, the child was given a 2-minute break in the waiting room. After the child returned to the testing room, the following instructions were given to the child by the experimenter: I am going to have you listen to some stories about a boy and his mom. I want you to pretend that you are the boy in the story, and that the mom in the story is your mom. I want you to try really hard to pretend that you and your mom are really there in the story. I want you to pay close attention so that you can imagine just what it is like to be in the story. After each story, I am going to ask you some questions about the story. There are no right or wrong answers to the questions and I won't tell anyone your answers. I want you to tell me what you really think. Remember to pay close attention, and listen carefully. Do you have any questions? The experimenter then answered any of the child's questions and stated that, "I want you to listen to the first story. Remember to listen closely." After presentation of the first scenario, the E stated, "Remember, I won't tell anyone your answers. Tell me what you really think when you answer the questions." 27 Depending on the specific scenario presented, the experimenter asked one of the following questions: "Why did your mom bump you with the vacuum cleaner?"; "Why did your mom let go of the screen door?"; "Why was your mom holding your sweater?"; "Why did your mom tell you that she would not be taking you to the movie that you wanted to see?"; "Why was your mom serving your favorite dessert?"; "Why did your mom give you five extra cents?" The child was probed in a nonleading manner (e.g., "Tell me more about why your mom bumped you with the vacuum cleaner.") until he responded in a manner that could be scored as indicating either hostile, neutral/accidental, or benevolent intent. The child was then asked, "Did your mom (perform the target behavior) on purpose or by accident?" Following the child's response to this question, he was asked "What would you do to your mom after she (performed the target behavior)?" Again, his response was probed until he responded in a manner that could be scored as indicating either benevolent response, no response, or aggressive response toward his mother. Presentation of the next five scenarios proceeded in the same manner as the first presentation. The order of presentation of the six scenarios was randomly determined with the proviso that each scenario was presented once, and each of the two blocks of three scenarios consisted of one negative, one ambiguous, and one positive outcome. Each subject was then randomly assigned to one of these six scenario presentation orders. Reliability of Measures Twenty-five percent of the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventories and the Child Behavior Checklists were randomly selected to be re-scored by a second coder who was blind to the subjects' status. 28 The experimenter scored the children's responses on the dependent measures during the interview. The children's responses to the interview questions were audiotaped in order that all of their responses could be scored by one of two independent coders. Both of the independent coders were blind to the group status of the children, the hypotheses of the study, and the scores assigned by the experimenter. Separate percentage agreement values for each of the dependent variables were calculated. For each dependent variable, a comparison between the experimenter and independent coders in the scoring of responses was made. Reliability was calculated according to the following formula: Percentage Agreement = Number of responses agreed upon by coders X 100. Total number of responses coded 29 Results Overview of Analyses Several sets of analyses were undertaken in order to address the hypotheses of the study. The following results will be presented in this section: 1. Comparisons between the experimenter and independent coders in the scoring of responses on the ECBI, CBCL, and dependent measures. 2. A series of comparisons examining differences between boys in the conduct disordered and normal groups on the maternal perception of adjustment measures. 3. An analysis of differences on the three dependent variables using a two (Group) X three (Scenario Outcome) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the second factor. 4. A series of chi square analyses examining the pattern of responses on the reported response dependent variable for boys in the conduct disordered and normal groups under each of the three conditions of assumed intent. 5. A series of chi square analyses examining the relationship between the intent assumed by the child and his reported response. 6. A series of correlations examining the relationship between scores on the secondary screening criteria (i.e., scores on the two scales on the ECBI and the Aggression factor of the RCBP) and the three dependent variables. For all analyses of the dependent variables, the data from the independent coders, who were naive regarding the subjects' status, the hypotheses of the study, and scores assigned by the experimenter were utilized. The only exception to this was when technical difficulties prevented the independent coders from scoring the audiotaped responses. This occurred for two data points on the 30 reported response dependent variable. The experimenter's data were substituted on these two occasions. Reliabilities Percentage agreement between the two scorers was 87.5 percent on the CBCL, and 100 percent on the ECBI. When there was disagreement between the experimenter and the independent scorer in the scoring of responses on the CBCL, the experimenter's data were used. Percentage agreement was 93.1 percent for the intent dependent measure, 99.3 percent for the forced choice intent dependent variable, and 92.4 percent for the reported response dependent variable. Maternal Perception of Child Adjustment Measures The distributions of scores on the two scales of the ECBI and the Aggression factor of the RCBP for the conduct disordered and normal groups were completely nonoverlapping by virtue of the selection criteria. Therefore, inferential statistics were not calculated on these variables. Mothers of boys in the conduct disordered group perceived their sons as having more behavior problems on the ECBI, reported that these behavior problems were more intense on the ECBI, and perceived their sons as being more aggressive on the RCBP than mothers in the normal group. Refer to Table 2 for a presentation of mean scores on the two maternal perception inventories. The conduct disordered and normal groups were also compared on the basis of their scores on the remaining narrow band factors, the two broad band factors, 2 and their total behavior problem score on the RCBP. An Hotelling's T analysis indicated that mothers of boys in the conduct disordered group perceived their sons as significantly more deviant than mothers of boys in the normal group, T (11, 36) = 88.07, £<.0001. Univariate t-tests were conducted to determine T a b l e 2 M e a n M a t e r n a l P e r c e p t i o n S c o r e s o n t h e E y b e r g C h i l d B e h a v i o r I n v e n t o r y a n d t h e R e v i s e d C h i l d B e h a v i o r P r o f i l e G r o u p S c a l e E C B I a I n t e n s i t y P r o b l e m 3 R C B P S c h i z o i d D e p r e s s e d U n c o m m u n i c a t i v e O b s e s s i v e - C o m p u l s i v e S o m a t i c C o m p l a i n t s S o c i a l W i t h d r a w a l H y p e r a c t i v e A g g r e s s 1 o n D e l i n q u e n t I n t e r n a l i z i n g E x t e r n a l i z i n g C o n d u c t D i s o r d e r e d M S D 1 4 8 . 7 1 6 . 6 6 3 . 7 6 7 . 9 6 6 . 6 6 4 . 7 6 4 . 3 7 0 . 5 6 9 . 9 7 5 . 2 7 2 . 5 6 9 . 2 7 4 . 0 2 5 . 5 5 . 5 6 . 9 7 . 5 1 0 . 9 7 . 5 8 . 1 5 . 1 7 . 9 5 . 6 6 . 5 8 . 5 6 . 4 N o r m a l M 5 6 . 6 5 7 . 9 5 9 . 3 6 0 . 6 5 9 . 3 6 0 . 2 5 9 . 1 5 5 . 2 5 9 . 7 5 8 . 9 5 7 . 4 S D 9 9 . 7 2 1 . 7 5 . 8 4 . 0 8 . 0 9 . 8 1 1 . 9 7 . 6 7 . 9 9 . 0 8 . 2 8 . 5 8 . 5 1 0 . 0 9 . 5 32 T o t a l B e h a v i o r 70.3 18.4 37.7 18.3 Prob1ems No t e . S c o r e s on the ECBI and the T o t a l B e h a v i o r P r o b l e m S c a l e r e f e r t o raw s c o r e s . S c a l e s c o r e s on t h e r e m a i n i n g RCBP f a c t o r s r e f e r t o T - s c o r e s . 3 S u b j e c t s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a . 33 whether this difference was statistically significant for each of the comparisons. Using the Bonferroni procedure, the experimentwise error rate was set at(X = -05, and the critical significance level for each univariate t-test was calculated as .05/11 = .0045. Mothers of boys in the conduct disordered group perceived their sons as significantly more deviant on the Schizoid (t(46) = -3.31, £<.002), Depressed (t(46) = -3.98, £<.0003), Social Withdrawal (t(36.5) - -4.90, £<.0001), Hyperactive (t(46) = -4.65, £<.0001), and Delinquent (t(43.0) = -5.86, £<.0001) narrow band factors. Boys in the conduct disordered group were not perceived as more deviant than boys in the normal group on the Uncommunicative (t(46) = -2.21, E = .03), Obsessive-Compulsive (t(46) = -1.88, £ = .07), and Somatic Complaints (t(46) = -2.17, £ = .04) factors. However, group differences on all three factors suggested non-significant trends for boys in the conduct disordered group to be perceived as more deviant than the boys in the normal group. Mothers of boys in the conduct disordered group perceived them as having greater externalizing behavior problems (t(46) = -7.11, £<.0001), internalizing behavior problems (t(46) =-3.85, £<.0005), and total behavior problems (t(46) = -6.17, £ <0001). An examination of the mean scores on the ECBI and RCBP scales indicated that as well as scoring above the recommended cutting scores on the two scales of the ECBI and the Aggression factor of the RCBP, the mean score for boys in the conduct disordered group was at or above a T-score of 70 (placing the child in the top 2 percent for his age and sex) on the Social Withdrawal (M = 70.5, SD = 5.1), Delinquent (M = 72.5, SD = 6.5), and Externalizing (M = 74.0, SD = 6.4) factors. The mean T-score of the conduct disordered group on the Hyperactive factor was 69.9 (SD = 7.9). The mean scores of the normal group were within the normal range on all scales. 34 Analyses of Dependent Variables Each of the three dependent variables was analysed with a two (Group) X three (Scenario Outcome) analysis of variance, with repeated measures on the second factor. These analyses are appropriate as analysis of variance procedures have been mathematically (e.g., Gaito, 1980) and empirically (e.g., Glass, Peckham, & Sanders, 1972) justified with categorical data. Results of this analysis on the intent variable indicated a significant main effect for Scenario Outcome, F(2, 92) = 100.35, £<.0001. However, this effect was qualified by a significant Group X Scenario Outcome interaction, F(2, 92) = 4.27, £<.02. The main effect for Group Status was not significant, F(l, 46) = 1.53, £>.20. Refer to Table 3 for a presentation of mean scores on the intent dependent variable. To control the problem of escalating Type I error, the overall error rate was set at .15 (the sum of .05 error rates for each of the two main effects, and for the interaction of the two main effects) and, using the simultaneous test procedure (Kirk, 1982), each simple effect was evaluated at .15/5 = .03 level of significance. Tests of simple main-effects were conducted to determine the basis of the interaction. Simple main-effects indicated that there was a significant effect due to scenario outcome type in the conduct disordered group (F(2, 138) = 70.46, £<.001) and in the normal group (F(2, 138) = 34.15, £<.001). An examination of the differences between means using a series of Tukey multiple comparison tests revealed that, in the conduct disordered group, significantly greater hostile intent was assumed in the negative outcome scenarios than in the ambiguous (£<.005) or positive <£<.005) outcome scenarios, and significantly greater hostile intent was assumed in the ambiguous outcome scenarios than in the positive outcome scenarios (£<.005). In the normal group, significantly greater hostile intent was assumed in the negative outcome 35 T a b l e 3 Mean S c o r e s on I n t e n t Dependent V a r i a b l e Group Sc enar i o Conduc t Normal Outcome Di s o r d e r e d M SD M SD N e g a t i v e 4.54 0.78 4.25 0.53 Ambiguous 3.62 0.88 3 . 92 0.72 P o s i t i v e 2.29 0.46 2.75 0 . 68 N o t e . P o s s i b l e r a n g e of s c o r e s i s from 2 to 6. L a r g e r mean v a l u e s r e f e r t o more h o s t i l e / l e s s b e n e v o l e n t a s s i g n m e n t s of i n t e n t . 36 scenarios than in the positive outcome scenarios (£<.005), and in the ambiguous outcome scenarios compared with the positive outcome scenarios (£<.005). There was not a significant difference between the negative and ambiguous outcome scenarios regarding the hostility of assumed intent for the normal group (£>.10). None of the other simple main-effects were significant, £>.03. The analyses of the subjects' responses on the forced choice intent variable indicated a marginally significant Group difference, F(l, 46) = 3.76, £<.06. Inspection of the means suggested a trend for boys in the conduct disordered group (M = 2.90) to be more likely to define their mothers' behavior as accidental than boys in the normal group (M = 3.10). Refer to Table 4 for a presentation of mean scores on the forced choice intent variable. There was a significant effect for Scenario Outcome, F(2, 92) = 97.84, £<.0001. An examination of the differences between means using a series of Tukey multiple comparison tests revealed that negative outcome scenarios (M = 2.17) were defined as significantly more likely to be the result of an accident on the part of the mother than either ambiguous (M «= 3.44; £<.005), or positive (M = 3.40; £<.005) outcome scenarios. Furthermore, the ambiguous and positive outcome scenarios were found not to differ in the extent to which accidental or purposeful intent was attributed to the mother's behavior (£>.10). The Group X Scenario Outcome interaction was not significant, F(2, 92) = 0.84, £>.40. The analyses of the reported response variable indicated a significant main effect for Scenario Outcome, F(2, 92) = 129.09, £<.0001. Refer to Table 5 for a presentation of mean scores on the reported response variable. An examination of the differences between means using a series of Tukey multiple comparison tests revealed that the boys reported that they were more likely to respond in an 37 T a b l e 4 Mean S c o r e s on F o r c e d C h o i c e I n t e n t Dependent V a r i a b l e Group S c enar i o Conduct Normal Outcome D i s o r d e r e d M SD M SD N e g a t i v e 2.04 0.20 2.29 0 . 46 Arabiguou s 3.29 0.55 3 . 58 0.65 Pos i t i v e 3 . 38 0.58 3.42 0.65 N ote. P o s s i b l e range of s c o r e s i s f rom 2 to 4 . L a r g e r mean v a l u e s r e f e r t o more p u r p o s e f u l a s s ignmen t s of i n t e n t 38 T a b l e 5 Mean S c o r e s on R e p o r t e d Response Dependent V a r i a b l e Group S c e n a r i o C onduct Normal Outcome Di s o r d e r e d M SD M SD Negat i v e 4.42 0 .83 4 .00 0.98 Ambi guou s 3 .88 1.12 3 .88 0.54 P o s i t i v e 2.25 0.44 2.17 0 . 38 N o t e . P o s s i b l e range of s c o r e s i : s f r om 2 to 6. L a r g e r mean v a l u e s r e f e r t o more a g g r e s s i v e / l e s s b e n e v o l e n t r e p o r t e d r e s p o n s e s . 39 aggressive manner toward their mothers in both the negative (M = 4.21; E<.005) and ambiguous (M = 3.88; £<.005) outcome scenarios than in the positive (M = 2.21) outcome scenarios. They also reported that they would respond in a significantly more aggressive manner toward their mothers given a negative outcome as opposed to an ambiguous outcome, £<.05. The main effect for Group Status was not significant, F(l, 46) = 1.10, £>.25, nor was the Group X Scenario Outcome interaction, F(2, 92) = 1.37, £>.25. Responses on the Reported Response Variable Under Different Conditions of  Assumed Intent A series of chi square analyses examining the pattern of responses on the reported response variable (i.e., benevolent response, non-mother directed response, aggressive response) for boys in the conduct disordered and normal groups under each of the three conditions of assumed intent was conducted. Refer to Tables 6, 7, and 8 for a description of the two groups' frequency of responding within each category of reported response under each of the three possible assumptions of intent. It was found that there were no differences between the two groups in terms of their patterns of responses when benevolent intent or hostile intent N = 28) = 1.27, £>.50) was assumed. In other words, boys in the two groups did not differ in their tendency to report that they would respond toward their mothers in a certain way (i.e., benevolently, non-mother directed response, or aggressively) given that they perceived her intent similarly. Relationship Between Assignment of Intent and Reported Response A series of chi square analyses examining the relationship between the intent assumed by the child and his reported response were conducted. It was found that neutral/accidental intent (^ (2, N = 167) = 2.90, £>.20), 40 T a b l e 6 R e s p o n s e s on R e p o r t e d Response Dependent V a r i a b l e When B e n e v o l e n t I n t e n t Is Assumed Group R e p o r t e d Conduc t Normal Re s ponse Di s o r d e r e d B e n e v o l e n t 39 30 (40.06) (28.93) No 1 1 7 Res ponse (10.45) (7.55) Aggre s s i ve 4 2 (3.48) (2.52) Note. V a l u e s not i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t o b s e r v e d f r e q u e n c i e s of r e s p o n d i n g on the r e p o r t e d r e s p o n s e d ependent m e a s u r e s . V a l u e s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c i e s of r e s p o n d i n g on t h e s e m e a s u r e s . 41 T a b l e 7 R e s p o n s e s on R e p o r t e d Response Dependent V a r i a b l e When  N e u t r a 1 / A c c i d e n t a 1 I n t e n t Is Assumed Group Re por t e d Conduct Normal Res pons e Di s o r d e r e d B e n e v o l e n t 1 9 25 (19.76) (24.24) No 44 60 Response (46.71) (57.29) A g g r e s s i v e 1 2 7 (8.53) (10.47) Note. V a l u e s not i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t o b s e r v e d f r e q u e n c i e s of r e s p o n d i n g on the r e p o r t e d r e s p o n s e dependent m e a s u r e s . V a l u e s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c i e s of r e s p o n d i n g on t h e s e m e a s u r e s . 42 T a b l e 8 R e s p o n s e s on R e p o r t e d Response Dependent V a r i a b l e When H o s t i l e I n t e n t Is Assumed Group R e p o r t e d C onduct Norma1 Response Di s o r d e r e d B e n e v o l e n t 1 2 (1.61) (1.39) No 1 1 10 Re s pons e (11.25) (9.75) A g g r e s s i v e 3 1 (2.14) (1.86) N o t e . V a l u e s not i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t o b s e r v e d f r e q u e n c i e s of r e s p o n d i n g on the r e p o r t e d r e s p o n s e d ependent m e a s u r e s . V a l u e s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c i e s of r e s p o n d i n g on t h e s e m e a s u r e s . 43 there was a significant relationship between assumed intent and reported response for the total sample, X2(4, N = 288) - 68.76, £<.0001. Furthermore, this relationship was true for both the conduct disordered ( ;xf(4, N - 144) - 36.81, E<.0001) and the normal ( ^ ( A , N - 144) - 29.28, £<.0001) groups. See Tables 9, 10 and 11 for a description of the cell frequencies. An inspection of the cell frequencies suggested that the same general pattern of results occurred in each of the three samples (i.e., the total sample, the conduct disordered sample, and the normal sample). Given the assumption of benevolent intent, subjects were more likely than expected to report that they would respond benevolently, and less likely than expected to report that they would respond in a neutral manner toward their mothers. Given the assumption of neutral or accidental intent, subjects were less likely than expected to respond benevolently, and more likely than expected to respond in a neutral manner toward their mothers. Given the assumption of hostile intent, subjects were less likely than expected to respond in a benevolent manner, and their frequency of neutral or aggressive responding was approximately as expected. Subjects' frequency of aggressive responding was approximately as expected in each of the three possible intent assumption types. Correlational Analyses A series of correlational analyses were conducted separately for the conduct disordered and normal groups. A total of 27 correlations between the scores on the two scales of the ECBI and the Aggression factor of the RCBP, and the scores on the three dependent variables for each of the three levels of intent were calculated for each group. Using the Bonferroni procedure, the alpha level was set at .05, and the critical significance level for each correlation was calculated as .05/27 = .002. Without exception, these correlations were relatively low, ranging 44 T a b l e 9 R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Assumed I n t e n t and R e p o r t e d Response - A l l S u b j e c t s R e p o r t e d Response Assumed B e n e v o l e n t No A g g r e s s i v e I n t e n t Response B e n e v o l e n t 69 18 6 (37.46) (46. 18) (9.36) N e u t r a l / A c c i d e n t a l 44 104 19 (67.26) (82.92) (16.82) H o s t i l e 3 21 4 ( 1 1 .28) ( 13.90) (2.92) N o t e . V a l u e s not i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t o b s e r v e d f r e q u e n c i e s of r e s p o n d i n g on the r e p o r t e d r e s p o n s e dependent measures w i t h i n each c a t e g o r y of assumed i n t e n t . V a l u e s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c i e s o f r e s p o n d i n g on t h e s e m e a s u r e s . 45 T a b l e 10 R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Assumed I n t e n t and R e p o r t e d Response  Conduct D i s o r d e r e d S u b j e c t s R e p o r t e d Response Assumed B e n e v o l e n t No Aggr e s s i v e I n t e n t Response B e n e v o l e n t 39 1 1 4 (22.12) (24.75) ( 7 . 12) N e u t r a l / A c c i d e n t a l 19 44 1 2 (30.73) (34.38) ( 9 . 90 ) Host i l e 1 1 1 3 (6.15) (6.88) ( 1 • 98 ) Not e. V a l u e s n o t i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t o b s e r v e d f r e q u e n c i e s o f r e s p o n d i n g on the r e p o r t e d r e s p o n s e dependent measures w i t h i n e ach c a t e g o r y of assumed i n t e n t . V a l u e s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c i e s o f r e s p o n d i n g on t h e s e m e a s u r e s . 46 T a b l e 11 R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Assumed I n t e n t and R e p o r t e d Response  Normal S u b j e c t s R e p o r t e d Response A s s umed B e n e v o l e n t No Agg r e s s i ve I n t e n t Response B e n e v o l e n t 30 7 2 (15.44) (20.85) (2.71) N e u t r a l / A c c i d e n t a l 2 5 60 7 (36.42) (49.19) (6.36) H o s t i l e 2 10 1 (5.15) (6.95) (0.90) N o t e . V a l u e s not i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t o b s e r v e d f r e q u e n c i e s of r e s p o n d i n g on the r e p o r t e d r e s p o n s e dependent measures w i t h i n each c a t e g o r y o f assumed i n t e n t . V a l u e s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c i e s of r e s p o n d i n g on t h e s e m e a s u r e s . from r = -.36 to .44, and nonsignificant, all £s>.03. Refer to Appendix I for presentation of the two correlation matrices. 48 Discussion The purpose of the present study was to investigate the extent to which conduct disordered and normal boys attribute hostile intent to their mothers following maternal behavior that resulted in either negative, ambiguous, or positive outcomes for the child. The study also examined differences between conduct disordered and normal boys in their verbal report of behavioral response toward their mothers following maternal behavior that resulted in either negative, ambiguous, or positive outcomes for the child. The third purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between attributions of hostile intent and verbal report of behavioral response in conduct disordered and normal boys. Finally, the present study examined the extent to which conduct disordered boys attributed accidental versus purposeful intent to their mothers' behavior following maternal behavior that resulted in either negative, ambiguous, or positive outcomes for the child. The present study evaluated a number of hypotheses. They will be discussed in turn. Hypothesis 1 The hypothesis that conduct disordered boys would be more likely than normal boys to attribute hostile intent to their mothers' behavior was not supported. Conduct disordered and normal boys did not differ in the attributions of hostility that they made toward their mothers following her behavior. Hypothesis 2 The hypothesis that conduct disordered boys would be more likely than normal boys to report that they would behave in an aggressive manner following their mothers' behavior was not supported. Conduct disordered and 49 normal boys did not differ in their reported behavioral response toward their mothers. Hypothesis 3 This hypothesis pertains to the attribution of intent in situations that differ in terms of the outcome (negative versus ambiguous versus positive) for the child. This hypothesis is a composition of several related hypotheses. With respect to the conduct disordered boys, of primary interest was the hypothesis that they would attribute similar intent to maternal behavior whether it resulted in negative or ambiguous outcomes. It was also hypothesized that conduct disordered boys would be more likely to attribute hostile intent to their mothers' behavior in those scenarios (i.e., those with negative or ambiguous outcomes), as opposed to scenarios with positive outcomes. The results did not confirm the primary hypothesis, but provided partial support for the secondary hypothesis. The results showed that conduct disordered boys attributed greater hostility to maternal behavior that resulted in negative, as opposed to ambiguous or positive outcomes. They also attributed greater hostility to maternal behavior that resulted in ambiguous, as opposed to positive, outcomes. With respect to the normal boys, of primary interest was the hypothesis that they would be more likely to attribute hostile intent to their mothers' behavior when it resulted in negative, as opposed to ambiguous or positive, outcomes. Normal boys would attribute similar intent to maternal behavior that resulted in either ambiguous or positive outcomes. The results did not confirm these hypotheses, and were contrary to the expected findings. Normal children attributed greater hostility to their mothers' behavior when it resulted in negative or ambiguous, as opposed to positive, outcomes. However, normal boys 50 attributed similar intent to maternal behavior that resulted in negative or ambiguous, outcomes. In general, the results were opposite to those expected. The conduct disordered boys tended to respond as hypothesized for the normal boys, and the normal boys responded as hypothesized for the conduct disordered boys. Hypothesis 4 This hypothesis pertains to verbal reports of behavioral response in situations that differ in terms of the outcome (negative versus ambiguous versus positive) for the child. This hypothesis is a composite of several related hypotheses. With respect to the conduct disordered boys, of primary interest was the hypothesis that they would report that they would behave similarly following maternal behavior that resulted in either negative, or ambiguous, outcomes. It was also hypothesized that conduct disordered boys would be more likely to report that they would behave aggressively toward their mothers following maternal behavior that resulted in negative or ambiguous, as opposed to positive, outcomes. The results did not confirm the primary hypothesis, but provided partial support for the secondary hypothesis. Conduct disordered boys were more likely to report that they would behave aggressively following maternal behavior that resulted in negative, as opposed to ambiguous or positive, outcomes. They also were more likely to report that they would respond more aggressively following maternal behavior that resulted in ambiguous, as opposed to positive, outcomes. With respect to the normal boys, of primary interest was the hypothesis that they would be more likely to report that they would behave aggressively toward their mothers following maternal behavior that resulted in negative, as opposed to ambiguous or positive, outcomes. Normal boys would report that they would 51 behave similarly following maternal behavior that resulted in either positive or ambiguous outcomes. The results provided support for the primary hypothesis, but did not support the secondary hypothesis. Normal boys responded similarly to the conduct disordered boys. They were more likely to report that they would behave aggressively following maternal behavior that resulted in negative, as opposed to ambiguous or positive outcomes; and following maternal behavior that resulted in ambiguous, as opposed to positive, outcomes. Hypothesis 5 The hypothesis that attribution of intent would be directly related to verbal report of behavioral response for the total sample and for each of the two subject groups was, for the most part, supported. The results showed that the normal and conduct disordered groups did not differ in their reported response toward their mothers given that they perceived her intent similarly. When the children attributed benevolent intent to their mothers' behavior, regardless of the actual outcome of her behavior, they were more likely than expected to report that they would respond benevolently, and less likely than expected to report that they would not respond toward their mother. When the children attributed neutral or accidental intent to their mothers' behavior, regardless of the actual outcome of her behavior, they were less likely than expected to report that they would respond in a benevolent manner and more likely than expected to report that they would respond in a neutral manner. When they attributed hostile intent to their mothers' behavior, regardless of the actual outcome of her behavior, they were less likely than expected to report that they would respond in a benevolent manner. Contrary to expectations, the report of aggressive responding was approximately as expected given each of the three possible assumptions of intent. 52 Hypothesis 6 The hypothesis that conduct disordered boys would be more likely than normal boys to attribute purposeful intent to their mothers' behavior when it resulted in a negative outcome, and more likely to attribute accidental intent given a positive outcome, was not supported. The results showed that conduct disordered and normal boys did not differ in their attributions of accidental versus purposeful intent. Both groups were more likely to identify negative outcomes as accidental than either ambiguous or positive outcomes. The two groups perceived negative, ambiguous, and positive outcomes similarly with respect to the extent that accidental versus purposeful intent was attributed to their mothers. With the exception of the findings regarding the relationship between the attribution of intent and verbal report of behavioral response (Hypothesis 5), the results of the present study do not support the original hypotheses, and are incongruent with Dodge's results (1980, study 2; Dodge & Frame, 1982, study 1; Milich & Dodge, 1984; Steinberg & Dodge, 1983). There are several factors that may account for the discrepancy between the present findings and those of Dodge Five general categories will be considered: assessment of aggressive and conduct disordered behavior, scenario content, coding criteria, age of the subjects, and inconsistency in Dodge's results. This will be followed by a more general discussion of possible factors influencing the findings of the current study. With respect to the assessment of child aggression and conduct disorder, the discrepancy between the results of Dodge (1980; Dodge & Frame, 1982; Milich & Dodge, 1984; Steinberg & Dodge, 1983) and the results of the present study does not appear to be due to systematic differences between the samples of children used in these studies. Dodge, Dodge and Frame, and Steinberg and Dodge defined 53 their samples on the basis of peer sociometric status and teacher report of aggressiveness. Children identified as rejected and/or aggressive using peer sociometric status methodology are more aggressive than their peers in the classroom and on the playground (Dodge & Coie, cited in Dodge & Frame, 1982; Dodge, Coie, & Brakke, 1982; Gottman, 1977). A recent study has suggested that rejected children are also perceived by their parents as significantly more deviant than popular or average children (French & Wass, 1985). They found that parents of rejected children perceived their children as significantly more deviant than did parents of normal children on the Social Withdrawal behavior problem factor and all of the externalizing behavior problem factors (i.e., Hyperactive, Aggressive, Delinquent, and Externalizing factors) on the Revised Child Behavior Profile (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). The mean T-scores for the rejected sample ranged from 62 to 65. These scores are below the cutting score usually used to indicate clinically significant behavior problems. The mean T-scores on these five factors for the conduct disordered sample of the present study are higher than those obtained by the rejected children, and are above the previously mentioned cutting score. These results sugest that the aggressive children selected by Dodge on the basis of peer sociometric status were perceived as deviant by their mothers on externalizing factors including aggression. However, unlike the children in the present study, they were not perceived as behavior disordered to a clinically significant extent. The hyperactive/aggressive sample used by Milich and Dodge (1984) consisted of a sample of children referred to a mental health clinic who scored above the median of the total clinic population of referred children on Aggression and Hyperactive factors derived from ratings made on the basis of psychological, 54 psychiatric, and educational evaluations, as well as parent and teacher reports (Milich, Loney, & Landau, 1982). The present study selected boys on the basis of referral for conduct disorder problems and maternal report of conduct disorder problems. Both the present study and Milich and Dodge relied on perceptions of child behavior, as opposed to systematic behavioral observations of the child, to assess behavior problems. Milich and Dodge relied on multiple informants. The present study relied exclusively on the children's mothers for the formal assessment data. The results of several studies suggest that maternal personal adjustment may play a role in determining maternal perception of child behavior (Griest et al., 1980; Rickard et al., 1982). Their findings suggest that mothers of normal children accurately perceive their children's behavior. However, mothers who refer their children to clinics because of complaints of conduct disordered behavior may not objectively evaluate their children's behavior if they are currently experiencing personal adjustment problems including anxiety or depression. As there was not systematic and independent confirmation that children in the present study were correctly categorized, it is possible that maternal personal adjustment problems may have resulted in some of the boys being incorrectly categorized as conduct disordered. Several factors tend to mitigate this possibility. The referral sources were explicitely instructed to refer children who were currently experiencing problems related to conduct disordered behavior at home. It is likely that the referral sources considered additional variables, other than maternal report, in determining that the child was conduct disordered. As well, at least 71 percent of the conduct disordered sample (n = 17) were sufficiently conduct disordered within the school setting that they were placed in special classrooms for conduct disordered children at the time of 55 testing. These factors suggest that children in the conduct disordered sample were actually conduct disordered. Unlike Milich and Dodge, the present study did not require children to be both aggressive and hyperactive. However, an examination of responses on the Hyperactive factor of the Revised Child Behavior Profile shows that many of the children in the present study who were in the conduct disorderd sample were perceived as hyperactive as well as aggressive. Because noncomparable assessment criteria were used by Dodge (1980; Dodge & Frame, 1982; Milich & Dodge, 1984; Steinberg & Dodge, 1983) and the present study, it is impossible to precisely determine the extent to which the populations overlap. However, there do not appear to be any large systematic differences between the samples employed with the exception that children identified as aggressive on the basis of peer sociometric status (Dodge, 1980; Dodge & Frame, 1982; Steinberg & Dodge, 1983) may be less conduct disordered than the conduct disordered children in the present study. With respect to the scenarios used by Dodge (1980; Dodge & Frame, 1982; Milich & Dodge, 1984) and those used in the present study, the scenarios differ on two dimensions: the specific content of the scenarios, and the target person in the scenario. The scenarios used by Dodge depicted peer interactions that resulted in negative outcomes. Dodge and Frame, and Milich and Dodge used an additional two scenarios. These two scenarios appear to have been arbitrarily classified as ambiguous by Dodge and Frame, and as negative by Milich and Dodge. The necesssary procedures were not undertaken by Dodge and his associates to confirm that the outcomes of their scenarios were perceived by the boys as they were intended. Pilot testing of the scenarios used in the present study confirmed that the outcomes were actually perceived by boys as they were intended. The 56 present study also included two additional scenarios with positive outcomes. This addition would not likely account for the discrepancy in results obtained by Dodge and his associates and the present study. The major difference between the scenarios used by Dodge (1980; Dodge & Frame, 1982; Milich & Dodge, 1984) and those used in the present study relates to the focus of the interaction - peer versus mother-child. The results suggest that the attributional process that Dodge argues exists within the peer group system of the aggressive child may not apply to mother-child interactions. Researchers in the area of child socialization agree that peer group relationships are fundamentally different from parent-child relationships (e.g., Damon, 1983; Hartup, 1979; Youniss, 1980). Peer relationships are based on equality, and they occur within a framework of cooperative activity and reciprocity. On the other hand, parent-child relationships tend to be complementary and assymetrical (Youniss, 1980). Parents are the agents of power and authority in their relationships with children. Cooperation on the part of the child in these relationships includes obedience and respect for the parent's authority. In contrast, cooperation in peer relationships includes reciprocal sharing and helping (Damon, 1983). Peer and parent-child relationships meet different needs of the child. Peers are most able to offer the child opportunities for companionship, affection, and social play, while parents meet the child's needs for protection, care, and instruction (Damon, 1983). Given the large difference in the nature of parent-child and peer relationships, it is not unreasonable to expect that discrepancies in attributional processes may occur between these two relationship types. 57 With respect to the coding criteria used to score responses, it is unclear whether or not the coding criteria used by Dodge (1980; Dodge & Frame, 1982; Milich & Dodge, 1984) and the criteria used in the present study would categorize responses in an identical manner. The present study used the same categories as Dodge to score the children's responses. However, based on the coding criteria made available by Dodge, scoring parameters for each category were more explicitly defined in the present study. With respect to possible age differences between Dodge's subjects (Dodge, 1980; Dodge & Frame, 1982; Milich & Dodge, 1984) and the subjects used in the present study, the age range of children in these studies is, for the most part, comparable. Dodge, and Dodge and Frame selected children who were in kindergarten through Grade 6. This age range is equivalent to the age range of children in the present study. The sample used by Milich and Dodge is somewhat older (mean age of 11.8 years for the aggressive/hyperactive sample) than children in the present study; however, there is a great deal of overlap between the two samples. Dodge's findings regarding the attribution of intent and verbal report of behavioral response are not entirely consistent. Dodge's results clearly indicate that when children are placed in an actual conflict situation, aggressive children are more likely than nonaggressive children to attribute hostile intent to their peers (Steinberg & Dodge, 1983). When children respond to hypothetical scenarios, the findings are less robust. Dodge and Frame (1982) found a significant difference between aggressive and nonaggressive children regarding their attributions of intent <£<.05); however, the findings of Dodge (1980) were only suggestive of a group difference (£<.09). Milich and Dodge (1984) reported 58 that their aggressive/hyperactive sample attributed significantly greater hostile intent than the nonclinic group (p_ = .02). However, Milich and Dodge analysed a large number of dependent variables (18) using a series of univariate analyses of covariance. More stringent control of the Type I error rate would have likely resulted in nonsignificant group differences on this particular dependent variable. Dodge and his colleagues' findings regarding group differences on the verbal report of behavioral response are even less consistently supportive of significant differences between aggressive and nonaggressive children. Aggressive boys responded similarly to normal boys on a dependent variable asessing purposeful versus accidental intent using a forced-choice format (Milich & Dodge, 1984). Milich and Dodge also presented descriptive data for a sample of boys classified as aggressive but not hyperactive. They did not calculate the significance of mean differences between this group and the normal group. However, an inspection of scores on dependent variables assessing attribution of intent, verbal report of behavioral response, and children's prediction of future peer aggressive behavior suggests that the exclusively aggressive boys responded in a very similar manner to the normal children. This suggests that Dodge's results are even less robust for clinic-referred boys who are aggressive but not hyperactive. In summary, it is unlikely that methodological differences concerning the identification of boys as conduct disordered/aggressive, the specific coding criteria used, or the age/grade composition of the samples can account for the discrepancy between Dodge's (1980; Dodge & Frame, 1982; Milich & Dodge, 1984) findings and the findings of the present study. The most important difference between the research conducted by Dodge and his associates and the present study was with respect to the focus of the interaction. Dodge focussed on peer 59 interactions, and the present study focussed on mother-child interactions. This suggests that the occurrence of attributional bias in conduct disordered boys in reponse to hypothetical peer group interactions may not occur in response to hypothetical mother-child interactions. The results of the present study suggest that conduct disordered boys do not differ from normal boys with respect to either the intent attributed to their mothers' behavior, or their behavioral response following maternal behavior that directly affects the child when presented with hypothetical situations. However, several alternative explanations of the present findings should be considered prior to accepting this interpretation of the obtained results. It is possible that real group differences between conduct disordered boys and normal boys regarding the intent attributed to their mothers' behavior, or their behavioral response toward her during actual behavioral interactions in the home environment, would not be detected in the present study if the methodology used was not a sensitive or valid approach to use to study these processes as they occur in the family environment. Several methodological factors in the present study may have suppressed any real group differences that exist in the context of in vivo mother-child interaction. This study relied on verbal responses to hypothetical situations depicting interactions between a boy and his mother. The results of the present study showed that on the attribution of intent and verbal report of behavioral response dependent measures the boys' responses were much less frequently scored as indicating hostile intent or aggressive behavioral response than the other categories regardless of the outcome of the mothers' behavior. Boys in both the conduct disordered group and the normal group responded in a similar manner. 60 One possible explanation for this similarity is that the intent of the mothers' behavior was not sufficiently ambiguous to detect individual differences. Individual differences in responding are most likely when attributions or other judgements are based on ambiguous information (Metalsky & Abramson, 1981). It is possible that the intent of the mother portrayed in the scenarios was clearly discernible and, as a result, similar responses were especially salient for children in both groups. The fact that the scenarios were pilot tested does not ensure that the intent underlying the mothers' behavior was sufficiently ambiguous to allow individual differences to be detected. In vivo mother-child interactions are much more complex than the scenarios presented to children in the present study. As a result of this increased complexity, there is likely a much greater opportunity for individual differences in the attribution of intent underlying behavior to occur. A second methodological factor relating to socially desirable response styles should be considered. The experimenter was likely perceived as an agent of the mother and, in the case of the conduct disordered sample, the referring agency. Although the experimenter assured the child that his responses would remain confidential, it is possible that the children reasoned that their mothers would be informed. It may have been quite threatening for children to critically report on their mothers' behavior. A third methodological factor that may facilitate an understanding of the results relates to the affective state of the children at the time they were interviewed. Research on mood state suggests that both positive and negative affective states have general influences on attributions and behavior. In a review of this literature, Clark and Isen (1982) concluded that individuals in a positive 61 affective state perceive self and their environment, including others around them, more favorably. They are also more likely to behave in a more benevolent manner toward others. On the other hand, negative affective states generally have the opposite effect. The boys in the present study were likely in a positive affective state at the time of the interview due to the experimenter's attempts at rapport and the $5 stipend that they received prior to the beginning of testing. This may have positively biased their responses and prevented individual differences from being detected. These factors suggest that the specific methodology employed in the present study may partially explain the pattern of results that were obtained. The results suggest that there are not any differences between conduct disordered and normal boys on the dependent measures. However, it is possible that the obtained results may not be an accurate indication of these processes as they occur in mother-child interactions within the home environment or other naturalistic settings. Conclusions and Directions for Future Research Conduct disordered and normal boys were found to respond similarly with respect to the attributions they made for their mothers' behavior, and their verbal report of behavior toward her, following maternal behavior that resulted in either negative, ambiguous, or positive outcomes for the child. These processes were assessed within the context of hypothetical scenarios that were verbally presented to the child. The findings of the present study do not support the hypothesis that conduct disordered children overattribute hostility to their mothers' behavior relative to normal children (Patterson, 1982). Howeveesis that they would be more likely to attribute hostile intent to their mothers' behavior when it resulted in negativuct disordered and normal boys. 62 Future researchers should attempt to examine attributional processes in mother-child relationships using methodologies that will more closely approximate attributional processes as they occur in in vivo mother-child interactions. Previous research suggests that the responses of children with respect to tasks assessing social cognition are influenced by the specific methodology employed, including the medium of presentation (Chandler, Greenspan, & Barenboim, 1973). Future researchers may find it useful to assess attributional processes with more ecologically valid methods. For example, having children respond to videotape scenarios depicting actual mother-child interaction may result in greater understanding of attributional processes in conduct disordered and normal children. It would be especially useful to examine these processes within the context of ongoing mother-child interaction which occurs in the home environment or other naturalistic setting. Despite the findings of the present study, it is premature to assume that attributional biases do not play a role in the etiology and/or maintenance of conduct disordered behavior in the family setting. There is evidence that cognitive biases may play a role in a number of psychological problems including depression (Abramson & Martin, 1981), child abuse (Larrance & Twentyman, 1983), and conflict in close adult relationships (Fincham, in press). It is not unreasonable to assume that cognitive biases may also play a role in explaining the occurrence of conduct disordered behavior within the family system of conduct disordered boys. Further research using more naturalistic assessment procedures will help to clarify the role of attributional processes. Future research concerning attributional processes in conduct disordered children and members of their families may help further our understanding of the 63 difficulties experienced by these individuals. This knowledge will likely increase our ability to develop effective treatment strategies to lessen the conflict experienced by these families. 64 References Abramson, L. Y., & Martin, D. J. (1981). Depression and the causal inference process. In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in  attribution research (Vol. 3) (pp. 117-168). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Achenbach, T. M. (1978). The child behavior profile: Boys aged 6-11. Journal of  Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 46. 478-488. Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1978). The classification of child psychopathology: A review and analysis of empirical efforts. Psychological  Bulletin. 85, 1275-1301. Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1981) Behavior problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 46. (1, serial No. 188). Achenbach, T., & Edelbrock, C. (1983). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist  and Revised Child Behavior Profile. Burlington, Vt.: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont. American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of  mental disorders (3rd. ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Aydin, O., & Markova, I. (1979). Attribution tendencies of popular and unpopular children. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 18, 291-298. Baldwin, J. A., Robertson, N. C , & Satin, D. G. (1971). The incidence of reported deviant behavior in children. International Psychiatry Clinics. 8, 161-175. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of  Communication. 28. 12-29. Berkowitz, L. (1973). Words and symbols as stimuli to aggressive responses. In J. F. Knutson (Ed.), The control of aggression (pp. 113-143). Chicago: Aldine. Berkowitz, L. (1977). Situational and personal conditions governing reactions to aggressive cues. In D. Magnussen & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the  crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 165-171). New York: Wiley. Berkowitz, L. (1982). Aversive conditions as stimuli to aggression. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 15) (pp. 249-288). New York: Academic Press. 65 Blishen, B. R., & McRoberts, H. A. (1976). A revised socioeconomic index for occupations in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology. 13, 71-79. Buldain, R. W., Crano, W. D., & Wegner, D. M. (1982). Effects of age of actor and observer on the mood judgements of children. Journal of Genetic  Psychology. 141. 261-270. Chandler, M. J., Greenspan, S., & Barenboim, C. (1973). Judgements of intentionality in response to videotaped and verbally presented moral dilemmas: The medium is the message. Child Development. 44. 315-320. Cerreto, M. C , & Tuma, J. M. (1977). Distribution of DSM III diagnoses in a child psychology setting. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 5, 147-155. Clark, M. S., & Isen, A. M. (1982). Toward understanding the relationship between feeling states and social behavior. In A. H. Hastorf & A. M. Isen (Eds.), Cognitive social psychology (pp. 73-108). New York: Elsevier. Damon, W. (1983). Social and personality development. New York: Norton. Delfini, L. F., Bernal, M. E., & Rosen, P. M. (1976). Comparison of deiant and normal boys in home settings. In E. Mash, L. Hamerlynck, & L. Handy (Eds.), Behavior modification and families (pp. 228-248). New York: Brunner/Mazel. Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognitions and children's aggressive behavior. Child  Development. 51, 162-170. Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child  Development. 54, 1386-1399. Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Brakke, N. P. (1982). Behavior patterns of socially rejected and neglected preadolescents: The roles of social approach and aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 10. 389-410. Dodge, K. A., & Frame, C. L. (1982). Social cognitive biases and deficits in aggressive boys. Child Development, 53. 620-635. Dodge, K. A., Murphy, R. R., & Buchsbaum, K. (1984). The asessment of intention-cue detection skills in children: Implications for developmental psychopathology. Child Development. 55. 163-173. Dodge, K. A., & Newman, J. P. (1981). Biased decision making processes in aggressive boys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 90, 375-379. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, Mn.; American Guidance Service. 66 Eyberg, S. M., & Robinson, E. A. (1982). Parent-child interaction training: Effects on family functioning. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 11, 130-137. Eyberg, S. M., & Robinson, E. A. (1983). Conduct problem behavior: Standardization of a behavioral rating scale with adolescents. Journal of  Clinical Child Psychology. 12, 347-354. Eyberg, S. M., & Ross, A. W. (1978). Assessment of child behavior problems: The validation of a new inventory. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 7, 113-116. Ferguson, T. J., & Rule, B. G. (1980). Effects of inferential set, outcome severity, and basis for responsibility on children's evaluations of aggressive acts. Developmental Psychology. 16. 141-146. Ferguson, T. J., & Rule, B. G. (1982). Influence of inferential set, outcome intent, and outcome severity on children's moral judgements. Developmental  Psychology. 18, 843-851. Feshbach, S. (1970). Aggression. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of  child psychology (3rd ed.), (Vol. 1, pp. 159-259), (3rd. ed.). New York: Wiley. Fincham, F. (1982). Moral judgement and the development of causal schemas. European Journal of Social Psychology. 12, 47-61. Fincham, F. D. (in press). Attributions in close relationships. In J. Harvey & G. Weary (Eds.), Contemporary attribution theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum. Fincham, F., & Jaspars, J. (1979). Attribution of responsibility to the self and other in children and adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37, 1589-1602. Forehand, R., King, H. E., Peed, S., & Yoder, P. (1975). Mother-child interactions: Comparison of a non-compliant clinic group and a non-clinic group. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 13, 79-84. French, D. C , & Waas, G. A. (1985). Behavior problems of peer-neglected and peer-rejected elementary age children: Parent and teacher perspectives. Child Development. 56, 246-252. Gaito, J. (1980). Measurement scales and statistics: Resurgence of an old misconception. Psychological Bulletin, 87. 564-567. Garbarino, J., Sebes, J., & Schellenbach C. (1984). Families at risk for destructive parent-child relations in adolescence. Child Development, 55. 174-183. 67 Glass, G. V., Peckham, P. D., & Saunders, J. R. (1972). Consequences of failure to meet the assumptions underlying the fixed effects analysis of variance and covariance. Review of Educational Research. 42, 237-288. Gottman, J. M. (1977). Toward a definition of social isolation in children. Child  Development. 48, 513-517. Green, K. D.( Forehand, R., & McMahon, R. J. (1979). Parental manipulation of compliance and noncompliance in normal and deviant children. Behavior  Modification. 3, 245-266. Griest, D. L., Forehand, R., Wells, K. C , & McMahon, R. J. (1980). An examination of differences between nonclinic and behavior-problem clinic-referred children and their mothers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 497-500. Harris, B. (1977). Developmental differences in the attribution of responsibility. Developmental Psychology, 13, 257-265. Hartup, W. (1979). The social worlds of childhood. American Psychologist. 34, 944-950. Hewitt, L. S. (1975). The effects of provocation, intentions, and consequences on children's moral judgements. Child Development. 46, 540-544. Holm, O. (1982). The effects of intent, reason, and harm on attribution of aggressiveness. Journal of Psychology. 110. 49-52. Horai, J., & Bartek, M. (1978). Recommended punishment as a function of injurious intent, actual harm done, and intended consequences. Personality  and Social Psychology Bulletin. 4, 575-578. Home, A. M. (1981). Aggressive behavior in normal and deviant members of intact versus mother-only families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 9, 283-290. Johnson, S. M., & Bolstad, O. D. Methodological issues in naturalistic observations: Some problems and solutions for field research. In L. A. Hamerlynck, L. C. Handy, & E. J. Mash (Eds.), Behavior change:  Methodology, concepts, and practice, (pp. 7-68). Champaign, 111.: Research Press. Johnson, S. M., Bolstad, O. D., & Lobitz, G. K. (1976). Generalization and contrast phenomena in behavior modification with children. In E. Mash, L. Hamerlynck, & L. Handy (Eds.), Behavior modification and families (pp. 160-188). New York:Brunner/Mazel. Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth. 68 Larrance, D. T., & Twentyman, C. T. (1983). Maternal attributions and child abuse. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 92. 449-457. Leon, M. (1982). Rules in children's moral judgements: Integration of intent, damage, and rationale information. Developmental Psychology. 18, 835-842. Lobitz, G. K., & Johnson, S. M. (1975). Normal versus deviant children: A multimethod comparison. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 3, 353-374. Loeber, R. (1982). The stability of antisocial and delinquent child behavior: A review. Child Development. 53, 1431-1446. Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review. Psychological Bulletin. 94, 68-99. Loeber, R., & Schmaling, K. B. (1985a). Empirical evidence for overt and covert patterns of antisocial conduct problems: A metaanalysis. Journal of  Abnormal Child Psychology. 13, 337-352. Loeber, R., & Schmaling, K. B. (1985b). The utility of differentiating between mixed and pure forms of antisocial child behavior. Journal of Abnormal  Child Psychology. 13, 315-336. Loney, J., Langhorne, J. E., Jr., & Paternite, C. E. (1978). An empirical basis for subgrouping the hyperkinetic/minimal brain dysfunction syndrome. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 431-441. Masters, J. C , & Furman, W. (1981). Popularity, individual friendship selection, and specific peer interaction among children. Developmental  Psychology. 17, 344-350. Metalsky, G. I., & Abramson, L. Y. (1981). Attributional styles: Toward a framework for conceptualization and assessment. In P. C. Kendall & S. Hollon (Eds.), Assessment strategies for cognitive-behavioral  interventions (pp. 13-58). New York: Academic Press. Milich, R., & Dodge, K. A. (1984). Social information processing in child psychiatric populations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 12, 471-489. Milich, R., Landau, S., Kilby, G., & Whitten, P. (1982). Preschool peer perceptions of the behavior of hyperactive and aggressive children. Journal  of Abnormal Child Psychology. 10, 497-500. Milich, R., Loney, J., & Landau, S. (1982). Independent dimensions of hyperactivity and aggression: A validation with playroom observation data. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 91, 183-198. Moore, D. R., & Mukai, L. H. (1983). Aggressive behavior in the home as a function of the age and sex of control-problem and normal children. Journal  of Abnormal Child Psychology, 11, 257-272. 69 Nasby, W., Hayden, B., & DePaulo, B. M. (1980). Attributional bias among aggressive boys to interpret unambiguous social stimuli as displays as hostility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 89, 454-468. Nickel, T. W. (1974). The attribution of intention as a critical factor in the relation between frustration and aggression. Journal of Personality. 42, 482-492. Novaco, R. W. (1975). Anger control: The development and evaluation of an  experimental treatment. Lexington, Mass.: D.C.Heath. Novaco, R. W. (1976). The functions and regulation of the arousal of anger. American Journal of Psychiatry. 133. 1124-1128. Novaco, R. W. (1978). Anger and coping with stress: Cognitive behavioral interventions. In J. P. Foreyt & D. P.Rathjen (Eds.), Cognitive behavior  therapy (pp. 135-173). New York: Plenum. Olweus, D. (1979). Stability of aggressive reaction patterns in males: A review. Psychological Bulletin. 86, 852-875. Olweus, D. (1980). Familial and temperamental determinants of aggressive behavior in adolescent boys: A causal analysis. Developmental Psychology. 16, 644-660. Patterson, G. R. (1964). An empirical approach to the classification of disturbed children. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 20, 326-337. Patterson, G. R. (1974). Interventions for boys with conduct problems: Multiple settings, treatments, and criteria. Journal of Consulting and Clinical  Psychology. 42, 471-481. Patterson, G. R. (1976). The aggressive child: Victim and architect of a coercive system. In E. Mash, L. Hamerlynck, & L. Handy (Eds.), Behavior modification  and families (pp. 267-316). New York: Brunner/Mazel. Patterson, G. R. (1979). A performance theory for coercive family interaction. In B. Cairns (Ed.), The analysis of social interactions: Methods, issues, and  illustrations (pp. 119-162). New York: John Wiley. Patterson, G. R. (1980). Mothers: The unacknowledged victims. Monographs of  the Society for Research in Child Development. 45. (5, serial No. 186). Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, Or.: Castalia. Patterson, G. R., & Cobb, J. A. (1971). A dyadic analysis of "aggressive" behaviors. In J. P. Hill (Ed.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 5) (pp. 72-129). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 70 Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., Jones, R. R., & Conger, R. E. (1975). A social  learning approach to family intervention: Families with aggressive children (Vol. 1). Eugene, Or.: Castalia. Peterson, G. R. (1961). Behavior problems of middle childhood. Journal of  Consulting Psychology, 25, 205-209. Prinz, R., Connor, P., & Wilson, C. (1981). Hyperactive and aggressive behaviors in childhood: Intertwined dimensions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 9, 191-202. Quay, H. C. (1979). Classification. In H. C. Quay & J. S. Werry (Eds.), Psychopathological disorders of childhood (2nd. ed.) (pp. 1-42). New York: John Wiley. Reid, J. B. (Ed.). (1978). A social learning approach to family intervention Vol. II. Observation in home settings. Eugene, Or.: Castalia Publishing Co. Rickard, K. M., Forehand, R., Wells, K. C , Griest, D. L. & McMahon, R. J. (1981). Factors in the referral of children for behavioral treatment: A comparison of mothers of clinic-referred deviant, clinic-referred non-deviant and non-clinic children. Behavior Research and Therapy. 19, 201-205. Robins, N. N. (1970). The adult development of the antisocial child. Seminars in  Psychiatry. 2, 420-434. Robins, L. N. (1979). Follow-up studies. In H. C. Quay & J. S. Werry (Eds.), Psychopathological disorders of childhood (2nd. ed.), (pp. 483-513). New York: John Wiley. Robinson, E. A., Eyberg, S. M., & Ross, A. W. (1980). Inventory of child behavior problems: The standardization of an inventory of child conduct problem behaviors. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 9, 22-29. Rosen, B. M. (1979). An overview of the mental health delivery system in the United States and services to children. In I. H. Berlin & L. A. Stone (Eds.), Basic handbook of child psychiatry (Vol. 4) (pp. 485-500). New York: Basic. Rotenberg, K. (1980). Children's use of intentionality in judgements of character and disposition. Child Development. 51. 282-282. Rubin, K. R., Daniels-Bierness, T., & Hayvren, M. (1982). Social and social-cognitive correlates of sociometric status in preschool children. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 14, 338-349. Rule, B. G., & Duker, P. (1973). Effects of intentions and consequences on children's evaluations of aggressors. Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology. 27, 184-189. Rule, B. G., Nesdale, A. R., & McAra, M. J. (1974). Children's reactions to 71 information about intention underlying an aggressive act. Child  Development. 45, 794-798. Rutter, M. L., Shaffer, D., & Shepherd, M. (1975). A multi-axial classification  scheme for psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence. Geneva: World Health Organization. Rutter, M., Tizard, J., & Whitmore, R. (1970). Education, health and behavior. New York: John Wiley. Safer, D. J., & Allen, R. P. (1976). Hyperactive children: Diagnosis and  management. Baltimore: University Park Press. Shantz, D. W., & Voydanoff, D. A. (1973). Situational effects of retaliatory aggression at three age levels. Child Development. 44, 149-153. Snyder, J. J. (1977). Reinforcement analysis of interaction in problem and nonproblem families. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 528-535. Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1978). Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 36. 1202-1212. Steinberg, M. S., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Attributional bias in aggressive adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 1. 312-321. Stewart, M. A., Cummings, C , Singer, S., & deBlois, C. S. (1981). The overlap between hyperactive and unsocialized aggressive children. Journal of Child  Psychology and Psychiatry. 22. 35-45. Stewart, M. A., deBlois, C. S., Meardon, J., & Cummings, C. (1980). Aggressive conduct disorder of children. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 168. 604-610. Vosk, B., Forehand, R., Parker, J. B., & Rickard, K. (1982). A multimethod comparison of popular and unpopular children. Developmental Psychology. 18. 571-575. Weiss, E. (1984). Learning disabled children's understanding of social interactions of peers. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 17. 612-615. Wells, K. C , & Forehand, R. (1985). Conduct and oppositional disorders. In P. H. Bornstein & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Handbook of clinical behavior therapy  with children (pp. 218-265). Homewood, IL.: Dorsey Press. Wing, L., Baldwin, J. A., & Rosen, B. M. (1972). The use of child psychiatry services in three urban areas: An international case-registry study. , In J. K. Wing & A. M. Hailey (Eds.), Evaluating a community psychiatric  service: The Camberwell Register 1964-1971. London: Oxford University Press. Wolff, S. (1961). Symptomatology and outcome of preschool children with behavior disorders attending a child guidance clinic. Journal of Child  Psychology and Psychiatry. 2, 269-276. Wolff, S. (1967). Behavioral characteristics of primary school children referred to a psychiatric department. British Journal of Psychiatry. 113, 885-893. Wolff, S. (1971). Dimensions and clusters of symptoms in disturbed children. British Journal of Psychiatry. 118. 421-427. Youniss, J. (1980). Parents and peers in social development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 73 Appendices 74 Appendix A Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory EYBERG CHILD BEHAVIOUR INVENTORY Leaves 75-76 not filmed; permission not obtained. For further information, contact Dr. Sheila Eyberg, University of Oregon Health Sciences Center. 15 R c l a t i o n s n i p t o C m Ici , - C h i ; c i s -Xv —,—, —. F.Y8ERG CHILD B t H A V I O R INVEM TORY D i r e c t i o n s : B e : o w d'V a w n e s i«he j>c:. t h . i ! d-se.i\r.- :- c n n c . n l u - ' t a v •>• r 'teajr ; ' ' c m it. the m. f i i ' .w i d e s c r i b i n g h o w of tun t h e b e b a v : o t c u r r e n t l y o c c i . i s v / i t i - v. '-.- ' c h > h l . - n n ' {2> ciscM: I ' . i ' n ' i " v : o r " n u ' U.I ..• r j t . w ' t . - t h e r t h e :>e'»«iv.oi is c u r r e n t l y a p r o b l e m . H o w o f t e n does this o c c u r w i th y o u c h i l d ' Is this a p r o b l e m f o r y o u ? 'Veer?/ Scuiotn Sometimes Q'ten Always 1. D a i v o or, r t q ^ K i n a d r c s v . 1 ! ' 1 2 3 4 u 7 Y e s N o 2 . D a w d l e s o i l i i v j e i s at n i t . J i n n i : 2 5 6 i Y e s N o 3 . H j ! p o o r t a b l e • n a n n n % 1 2 3 1 •-* 6 7 Y e s N o 4 . R e u s e s t o ea t f o o d p r e s ^ n e ' ! 1 2 3 4 b G 7 Y e s N o 5 . R e f u s e s t o o o c h o r e ' , w l w i a s k e d -i 3 4 6 7 V e s N o 6 . S l o w i n g e t t r n t i r e a d y l o r b e d 1 3 ^ 5 G 7 Y e s N o 7 . R e f u s e s t o g o In b e d o i l i m e ;? 3 4 r. f; -y Y e s N o 8 . D o e s n o t o b e y h o - . i w r u l e s o n h i s o w e 1 2 4 r, 6 ~i 1 Y e s " ' N o 9 . R e f u s e s t y o o e y u n t i l t ' ^ ' i a t c p f d vv : t ' -p u n i s h m - n t 2 3 , i 1 y , N o 1 0 . A c t s d e f i a n t w h e n t o l d t o d o somr . - t h .n t j 1 3 4 5 6 7 Y e s N o 1 1 . A r q u e s w i t h p a r e n t s a b o u t r u l e s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Y e s N o 1 2 . G e t s a n r j r y w h e n d o e s n ' t q c t h .s o v w n i.i , i v 1 3 4 6 ~J Y e s N o 1 3 . H a s t e m p e r t a n t r u m s 1 2 3 4 5 6 ~~i I Y e s N o 1 4 . S a s s e s a o u t t s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Y e s N o 1 5 . W h i n e s 1 2 3 r- 0 Y e s N o 1 6 . C r i e s e a s i l y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Y e s N o 1 7 . Y e l l s o r s c r e a m s 1 2 3 4 5 6 i Y e s N o I S . H i t s p a r e n t s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Y e s N o 1 9 . D e s t r o y s t o y s a n d o t h e r o b i e c t s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Y e s N o 2 0 . Is c a r e l e s s w i t h t o y s a n d o t h e r o b j e c t s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Y e , N o 2 1 . S t e a l s 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 Y e s N o 2 2 . L i e s 1 2 3 4 5 ' 6 7 Y e s N o 2 3 . T e a s e s o r p r o v o k e s o t h e r c h i l d r e n 1 2 3 4 5 fi 7 Y e s N o 2 4 . V e r b a l l y f i g h t s w i t h f r i e n d s h i s o w n a g e 1 2 i 4 5 G 7 Y e s N o 2 5 V e r b a l l y f i g h t s w i t h s i s t e r s a n d b r o t h e r s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Y e s N o 2 6 . P h y s i c a l l y f i r i h t s w i t h f r e n d s h i s o w n age 1 2 3 4 6 7 Y e s N o 2 7 . P h y s i c a l l y f i g h t s w i t h s i s t ' - r s a n d b r o t h . - i s 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 Y e s N o 2 8 . C o n s t a n t l y s e e k s a t t e n t i o n i 2 3 4 5 6 7 Y e s N o HSC 28A 1 0 0/PO O V E R Page 2 H o w o f t e n d o e s t h i s o c c u r w i t h y o u r c h i l d ? i s t h i s a p r o b l e m f o r Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always interrupts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yes No Is easily distracted 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 Yes No Has short attention span 1 o 3 4 . 5 6 7 Yes No Fails to finish tasks or projects 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yes No Has diff iculty entertaining himself alone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yes No Has diff iculty concentrating on one thing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yes No Is overactive or restless 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yes No Wets the bed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yes No i Eyberg, Ph.D. rsity of Oregon Health Sciences Center Appendix B Revised Child Behavior Profile 77a REVISED CHILD BEHAVIOUR PROFILE BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS—BOYS AGED 6 - 1 1 Leaf 78 not filmed; permission not obtained. For further information, contact Dr. Thomas Achenbach, University Associate in Psychiatry, University of Vermont, 1 South Prospect Street, Burlington, VT, USA 0 5 ^ + 0 1 . Internalizing REVISED CHILD BEHAVIOR PROFILE Behavior Problems-Boys Aged 6-11 Externalizing I II III • IV V VI VII VIII IX — 18 34 16 3? 18 16 22 • 46 24 17 33 31 45 3? 15 17 21 ,. , 44 23 16 30 ' • 15 43 22. 31 29 16 IS 30 14 28 " n. 42 - 21 79 15 M 41 20 27 19 : 40 23 13 26 • •'• 39 ' 19 14 27 25 14 13 38 18 24 18 37 13 . 26 12 13 17 12 25 23 12 " " ' 17 , 36 24 22 12 35 16 11 11 21 34 15 23 It 11 36 '. 33 22 10 20 32 . . 14 10 21 19 10 i s 31 ' ' i 3 18 10 - 30 9 20 9 9 12 19 17 . 14 29 8 18 16 8 9' 28 • ' • 11 8 15 13 . ' 27 10 1? 14 26 7 7 8 25 ' 9 IE 7 13 12 24 8 6 15 12 6 - 14 S 11 • 7 11 23 7 — 5 13 5 22 6 10 21 -- 12 5 19 _ 4 11 10 5 10 5 g 3 9 8 17-18 4 -— 9 * 7 16 3 _ 8 J 3 7 4 2 15 . — 6 ' 3 . 6 . ' 6 13-14 2 5 — 2 5 3 • 12 • — 4 1 ' 5 11 — 4 • 10 ' — 0-1 0-3 0 2 0-3 0 0-3 0-9 0 T Score 100 — 85 t SCHIZOID OR ANXIOUS _ 11. Clings to adults _ 29. Feats ' _ 30. Fears school _ 40. Huts • things _ 47. Nightmares _ 50. An*ious 59. Plays #. Stt part) in public _ 70. Sees Wings _ 75. Sh,, timid Total <ft> T.M. Achenbach, P h . D . " M!(] Psychiatry •i><miiy ot Vermont ..lingloii, VI 05401 DEPRESSED . 12. Loneij . 14. Cues much . 18. Harms « i ! . 31. Fears o*n . 32. Needs to be petltcl . 33. Fetls unloved . 34. Fetls persecuted . 35. Fetls worthless . 45 Nervous 50 Annoui . 52 fttl i ju.lt> _ 13 Contused _ 65. Won't talk _ 69. Secretive _ 71. Self-_ 75. Shj. timid _ 80. Stares blankly _ 86. Stubborn 103. Sad _total _ 71 _ 88. Sulks _ 89. Suspicious _ 91. Suicidal talk 103- Sad 112. Wording 9 Obsessions 3 Canlused 7. Oaydreams 6 T*ifcties 7. Nightmares rO. Aimous r4. Owtued Compulsions Sleeps litlle 80. Stares blankly 83. Hoarding 84 String; benavior 85 Strange ideas 92 Walks, talks tn iieeo 93. £icess talk 100. Can't sleep Total _ 49. Constipated _ 51. Qwiiness _ 54. Overtired _ 56a Pains „ 56b Headaches _ 56c. Nausea _ 66t. Stomach problems _ 56g. Vomits ._ 77. Much sleep -Total VI SOCIAL HTTHORKHM. __ 25, Poor peer relations _ 34, Feels persecuted _ 38, Is teased _ 42. Likes to be alone _ 48. Unliked _ 64. Pteters young kids _102. Sto*-moving Withdraw -_Totjl HYPERACTIVE _ 1. Acts too young „ 8. Can't concentrate _ 10. H,per-active 13, Contused _ 17. Daydreams _ 20. Don ays out) tnmjs 41 Impulsive _ 61 Pea schoolwork _ 62. Clumsy _ 64 Prefers .oo nj tidi „ 79, Speecfi problem _Totil 3. Argues 7. Iraf* _ 16. Cruel to others „ 19. Demands • attention _ 22. Disobeys at home „ 23. Disobeys at school _ 25. Poor peet relations 27. lejlous _ 37. Fignts _ 43. lies, cheats _ 48. Unliked _ 57, Attacks people _ 68. Sere* mi _ 74. Shows off . _ 86. Stubborn _ 87. Moody _ 88. Sulks _ 90. Swearing _ 93. Eicess talk _ 94. Teases _ 95. Temper _ 97. Trtieatens JO* Loud loiai DEtlKQUEfU _ 20 Destroys o*t! things _ 21. Destroys otners' things . _ 23. Diwbeys at school _ 39 Bad titends _ 43 lies irieats . 67. .  Runs a*ay 72 Sets lues 81 Steals al home 82. Steals out-side home Swearing 101- ruant _106 Vjndalis Appendix C Child Behavior Checklist CHILD BEHAVIOUR CHECKLIST Section V111, pp. 3-k Leaves 80-81 not filmed; permission not obtained. For further information, contact Dr. Thomas Achenbach, University Associate in Psychiatry, University of Vermont, 1 South Prospect Street, Burlington, VT, USA 05^1. VIII. B e l o w is a l ist of i t ems that d e s c r i b e ch i l d ren . F o r e a c h i tem that d e s c r i b e s your c h i l d now or within the past 6 months, p l e a s e c i r c l e the 2 if t he i tem is very true o r often true of you r ch i l d . C i r c l e the 1 if the i tem is somewhat o r sometimes true of y o u r c h i l d . If the i tem is not true of your ch i l d , c i r c l e the 0. P l e a s e a n s w e r al l i t ems a s we l l a s y o u c a n , even if s o m e d o not s e e m to a p p l y to you r c h i l d . 0 = NotTrue(as fa rasyouknow) 1 = Somewhat or Somet imes True 2 = Very True or Often True 0 1 2 1. A c t s t o o y o u n g fo r h i s / h e r a g e 16 0 1 2 31. F e a r s h e / s h e m i g h t t h i nk or d o s o m e t h i n g 0 1 2 2. A l l e r g y ( d e s c r i b e ) : b a d 0 1 2 32. F e e l s h e / s h e h a s to b e p e r f e c t 0 1 2 33. F e e l s or c o m p l a i n s tha t n o o n e l o v e s h i m / h e r 0 1 2 3. A r g u e s a lot • 0 1 2 4. A s t h m a 0 1 2 34. F e e l s o t h e r s a re ou t t o g e t h i m / h e r 0 1 2 35. F e e l s w o r t h l e s s o r i n f e r i o r 50 0 1 2 5. B e h a v e s l i k e o p p o s i t e s e x 20 A i 0 1 2 6. B o w e l m o v e m e n t s o u t s i d e to i l e t u 1 £. u c i b n u n ct I U I , d O L i u c i i i-pi u i its 0 1 2 37. G e t s in m a n y f i g h t s 0 1 2 7. B r a g g i n g , b o a s t i n g 0 1 2 38. G e t s t e a s e d a lot 0 1 2 8. C a n ' t c o n c e n t r a t e , c a n ' t p a y a t t e n t i o n for l o n g 0 1 2 39. H a n g s a r o u n d w i t h c h i l d r e n w h o ge t in t r o u b l e 0 1 2 9. C a n ' t ge t h i s / h e r m i n d of f c e r t a i n t h o u g h t s ; n h s f i s s i o n s ( d e s c r i b e ) : 0 1 2 40. H e a r s t h i n g s tha t a r e n ' t t h e r e ( d e s c r i b e ) : 0 1 2 10. C a n ' t s i t s t i l l , r e s t l e s s , o r h y p e r a c t i v e 25 55 0 1 2 41. I m p u l s i v e o r a c t s w i t h o u t t h i n k i n g 0 1 2 11. C l i n g s to a d u l t s or t o o d e p e n d e n t 0 1 2 12. C o m p l a i n s of l o n e l i n e s s 0 1 2 42. L i k e s to b e a l o n e 0 1 2 43. L y i n g o r c h e a t i n g 0 1 2 13. C o n f u s e d o r s e e m s to b e in a f o g 0 1 2 14. C r i e s a lo t 0 1 2 44. B i t e s f i n g e r n a i l s t 0 1 2 45. N e r v o u s , h i g h s t r u n g , o r t e n s e 60 0 1 2 15. C r u e l t o a n i m a l s 30 0 1 2 16. C r u e l t y , b u l l y i n g , o r m e a n n e s s to o t h e r s 0 1 2 46. N e r v o u s m o v e m e n t s o r t w i t c h i n g ( d e s c r i b e ) : 0 1 2 17. D a y - d r e a m s o r g e t s l o s t i n h i s / h e r t h o u g h t s 0 1 2 18. ' D e l i b e r a t e l y h a r m s s e l f o r a t t e m p t s s u i c i d e 0 1 2 47. N i g h t m a r e s 0 1 2 19. D e m a n d s a lot o f a t t e n t i o n 0 1 2 48. N o t l i k e d by o t h e r c h i l d r e n 0 1 2 20. D e s t r o y s h i s / h e r o w n t h i n g s 35 0 t 2 49. C o n s t i p a t e d , d o e s n ' t m o v e b o w e l s 0 1 2 21. D e s t r o y s t h i n g s b e l o n g i n g to h i s / h e r f a m i l y 0 1 2 50. T o o f e a r f u l o r a n x i o u s 65 o r o t h e r c h i l d r e n 0 1 2 51. F e e l s d i z z y 0 1 2 22. D i s o b e d i e n t at h o m e 0 1 2 52. F e e l s t o o g u i l t y 0 1 2 23. D i s o b e d i e n t at s c h o o l 0 1 2 53. O v e r e a t i n g 0 1 2 24. D o e s n ' t ea t w e l l 0 1 2 54. O v e r t i r e d 0 1 2 25. D o e s n ' t ge t a l o n g w i t h o t h e r c h i l d r e n 40 0 1 2 55. O v e r w e i g h t 70 0 1 2 26. D o e s n ' t s e e m to fee l a u i l t v a f te r m i s b e h a v i n a P h y s i c a l p r o b l e m s w i t h o u t k n o w n m e d i c a l 56. 0 1 2 27. E a s i l y j e a l o u s c a u s e : 0 1 2 28. E a t s o r d r i n k s t h i n g s t ha t a r e no t f o o d 0 1 2 a . A c h e s o r p a i n s 0 1 2 b. H e a d a c h e s ( d e s c r i b e ) : 0 1 2 c . N a u s e a , f e e l s s i c k 0 1 2 d . P r o b l e m s w i t h e y e s ( d e s c r i b e ) : 0 1 2 29. F e a r s c e r t a i n a n i m a l s , s i t u a t i o n s , o r p l a c e s , 0 1 2 e. R a s h e s o r o t h e r s k i n p r o b l e m s 75 o t h e r t h a n s c h o o l ( d e s c r i b e ) : 0 1 2 f. S t o m a c h a c h e s o r c r a m p s 0 1 2 g . V o m i t i n g , t h r o w i n g u p o 1 2 h O t h e r ( d e s c r i b e ) : 0 1 2 30. F e a r s g o i n g to s c h o o l 45 Please see other side 0 = Not True (as far as you know) 1 = Somewhat or Sometimes True 2 = Very True or Often True 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 2 2 57. 58. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. Physically attacks people Picks nose, skin, or other parts of body (describe): 59. Plays with own sex parts in public 60. Plays with own sex parts too much Poor school work Poorly coordinated or clumsy Prefers playing with older children Prefers playing with younger children Refuses to talk Repeats certain acts over and over; compulsions (describe): 67. Runs away from home 68. Screams a lot 69. Secretive, keeps things to self 70. Sees things' that aren't there (describe): 71. Self-conscious or easily embarrassed 72. Sets fires 73. Sexual problems (describe): 80 16 20 25 30 74. Showing off or clowning 75. Shy or timid 76. Sleeps less than most children 77. Sleeps more than most children during day and/or night (describe): 78. Smears or plays with bowel movements 35 79. Speech problem (describe): 80. Stares blankly 81. Steals at home 82. Steals outside the home 83. Stores up things he/she doesn't need (describe): 40 0 1 2 84. Strange behavior (describe):. 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 85. Strange ideas (describe): 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 101. 0 1 2 102. 0 1 2 103. 0 1 2 104. 0 1 2 105. 0 1 2 106. 0 1 2 107. 0 1 2 108. 0 1 2 109. 0 1 2 110. 0 1 2 111. 0 1 2 112. 113. 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 45 86. Stubborn, sullen, or irritable 87. Sudden changes in mood or feelings 88. Sulks a lot 89. Suspicious 90. Swearing or obscene language 91. Talks about killing self 92. Talks or walks in sleep (describe): 93. Talks too much 94. Teases a lot 50 2 95. Temper tantrums or hot temper 2 96. Thinks about sex too much 2 97. Threatens people 2 98. Thumb-sucking 55 2 99. Too concerned with neatness or cleanliness 2 100. Trouble sleeping (describe): 60 Uses alcohol or drugs (describe): Vandalism 65 that were not listed above: 70 Appendix D Advertisement for Subjects Appendix E Transcripts of the Six Scenarios Used in the Study 85 Negative Outcome 1: It is Saturday morning. You are at home in the living room with your mom, helping her do the housework. Your mom asks you to dust the furniture. She gets the dusting cloth and hands it to you. You go over to the table and start to dust it. You look at the table which is now very shiny. The table is so shiny that you can see yourelf. You are looking at yourself and the next thing you know, you feel a pain in your foot and leg and you are knocked forward into the table. Your mom has bumped you with the vacuum! Negative Outcome 2: One of your friends is over at your house playing with you. You are both having lots of fun but it is time for your friend to go home. You and your friend walk to the back door. Your friend puts on his coat and shoes. Your mom comes to say good bye to your friend. Your mom opens the back door and holds it open as you and your friend step outside. You are talking with your friend just outside the door and then you feel a pain on your arm and shoulder. Your mom let go of the screen door and it hit you on the arm! Ambiguous Outcome 1: You are playing by yourself in the living room with your toys. You have been playing for quite awhile, and are having lots of fun. You are kind of warm, so you take off your sweater. You lay your sweater beside you, and keep playing with your toys. You decide that you want to do something else, and you get up to phone one of your friends to see if they want to play. Your friend asks you to come over, and you say that you will ask your mom. You go to get your sweater in the living room. Your mom is standing in the living room. She is holding your sweater in her hand. 86 Ambiguous Outcome 2: It is Saturday afternoon. You are at home in the living room watching T.V. You are quite excited because yesterday your mom told you that she would take you to the movie that you have been waiting to see for a long time. You are very happy about going to see this movie. You are watching the end of your T.V. program and your mom walks into the room. Your mom walks over to you and tells you that you will be going to see a movie, however, she is not sure which movie you will be going to see. Positive Outcome 1: You are eating supper with your family. Everyone is at the table, talking and eating. You are so hungry that you are having seconds of everything. All of the food tastes so good tonight. Everyone is just about finised eating and your mom says that it is time for dessert. You don't know what is for dessert, but you hope that it is one of your favorites. Your mom comes back to the table. She is carrying your favorite dessert. Positive Outcome 2: You want to go to the store to buy some candy. You count up your money. You need five more cents to buy what you want. You really want to buy some candy so you go and ask your mom if you can have five cents. Your mom says ok and goes and gets her purse. She gives you some pennies. You thank your mom and walk away. You then count the pennies. Your mom gave you ten pennies instead of five pennies. She gave you five extra cents. Appendix F Transcripts of the Original Scenarios and the Results of Pilot Testing 88 Negative Outcome 1: You have just gotten home from school, and you decide that you want a snack before you watch some T.V. You go into the kitchen. Your mom is in there getting supper ready. You pour yourself a big glass of milk and then put the glass on the counter while you go over and get some cookies. You take the cookies, go over to the kitchen table, and sit down. The next thing you know, you feel something hit your shoulder and you are all wet with cold milk which is running down the back and front of your shirt. Your mom dropped a glass of milk on you! Negative Outcome 2: It is Saturday morning. You are at home in the living room with your mom, helping her do the housework. Your mom asks you to dust the furniture. She gets the dusting cloth and hands it to you. You go over to the table and start to dust it. You look at the table which is now very shiny. The table is so shiny that you can see yourelf. You are looking at yourself and the next thing you know, you feel a pain in your foot and leg and you are knocked forward into the table. Your mom has bumped you with the vacuum! Negative Outcome 3: You are playing with your toys in the middle of the living room. You are having lots of fun playing. You are building a tower out of blocks. You are building your tower taller and taller. Your tower is now very tall. You are excited about how tall your tower is. You call your mom to come and see your tower. She walks into the living room, and comes toward you. Your mom walks up to the tower and touches it. The tower falls down. 89 Negative Outcome 4: One of your friends is over at your house playing with you. You are both having lots of fun but it is time for your friend to go home. You and your friend walk to the back door. Your friend puts on his coat and shoes. Your mom comes to say good bye to your friend. Your mom opens the back door and holds it open as you and your friend step outside. You are talking with your friend just outside the door and then you feel a pain on your arm and shoulder. Your mom let go of the screen door and it hit you on the arm! Ambiguous Outcome 1: It is Saturday afternoon, and you come into the house after playing with your friends. You go into the kitchen to make a sandwich, and take it to the kitchen table. You are just about to take a bite out of the sandwich when the door bell rings. You go to the door. It is one of your friends, and you tell them to come in. You walk back to the kitchen and see your mom standing at the table. She is holding your sandwich in her hand. Ambiguous Outcome 2: You are playing by yourself in the living room with your toys. You have been playing for quite awhile, and are having lots of fun. You are kind of warm, so you take off your sweater. You lay your sweater beside you, and keep playing with your toys. You decide that you want to do something else, and you get up to phone one of your friends to see if they want to play. Your friend asks you to come over, and you say that you will ask your mom. You go to get your sweater in the living room. Your mom is standing in the living room. She is holding your sweater in her hand. 90 Ambiguous Outcome 3: You are playing with one of your friends in your bedroom. Your mom comes in and says that she would like you and your friend to play somewhere else as she is going to clean your bedroom now. You and your friend go outside to play. A little while later your mom comes out ond tells you that she is finished cleaning your bedroom. She asks you to go and see your room. You go into the bedroom. Your mom has re-arranged all of the furniture in your bedroom. Ambiguous Outcome 4: It is Saturday afternoon. You are at home in the living room watching T.V. You are quite excited because yesterday your mom told you that she would take you to the movie that you have been waiting to see for a long time. You are very happy about going to see this movie. You are watching the end of your T.V. program and your mom walks into the room. Your mom walks over to you and tells you that you will be going to see a movie, however, she is not sure which movie you will be going to see. Positive Outcome 1: You are just walking in the door to your house after school. You take your shoes off and walk into the house. You do not see any of your family as you come into the house. You walk through the house with your school books. You take your school books and you put them on your bed in the bedroom. You walk out of your bedroom. You are going to go and watch television before supper. Your mom is walking toward you. She comes up to you and gives you a hug. Positive Outcome 2: You are eating supper with your family. Everyone is at the table, talking and eating. You are so hungry that you are having seconds of everything. All of the 91 food tastes so good tonight. Everyone is just about finished eating and your mom says that it is time for dessert. You don't know what is for dessert, but you hope that it is one of your favorites. Your mom comes back to the table. She is carrying your favorite dessert. Positive Outcome 3: You are in the living room watching your favorite T.V. show. Your mom comes into the room and asks you to take the garbage, which is in the kitchen, outside. You ask your mom if you can take the garbage out at the next commercial. She says that this is ok. The commercial comes on and you get up to take the garbage outside. You go into the kitchen. The garbage is gone. You ask your mom what happened to the garbage. Your mom says that she took it out by herself. Positive Outcome 4: You want to go to the store to buy some candy. You count up your money. You need five more cents to buy what you want. You really want to buy some candy so you go and ask your mom if you can have five cents. Your mom says ok and goes and gets her purse. She gives you some pennies. You thank your mom and walk away. You then count the pennies. Your mom gave you ten pennies instead of five pennies. She gave you five extra cents. Each chi square analysis compared the number of assignments to the predicted category with the number of assignments to the other two categories. The results of these analyses are as follows: Negative Outcome 1: O C 2 (1, N = 68) - 56.9, £<.001 Negative Outcome 2: X 2 (1, N - 68) = 73.5, £<.001 Negative Outcome 3: % Z (1, N = 68) = 65.0, £<.001 Negative Outcome 4: y? (1, N = 68) = 65.0, E<001 Ambiguous Outcome 1: y} (1, N = 68) = 00.2, £>.50 Ambiguous Outcome 2: y? (1, N = 68) = 5.7, £<.05 Ambiguous Outcome 3: (1, N = 68) = 1.9, E<10 Ambiguous Outcome 4: 3C2 (1, N = 68) = 13.6, E<001 Positive Outcome l: X2 (1, N = 68) = 53.1, E<.001 Positive Outcome 2: JX2 (1, N = 68) - 73.5, £<.001 Positive Outcome 3: ^ (1, N = 68) = 7.1, £<01 Positive Outcome 4: J* 2 (1, N = 68) - 53.1, p<.001 Appendix G Scoring Criteria for the Dependent Measures 94 Attribution of Intent For each scenario, the child is asked, "Why did your mom (perform the target behavior)?" If the child does not respond in a manner which can be scored using the coding criteria, he is probed as follows: "Tell me more about why your mom (performed the target behavior)?" If the child's response falls into more than one category, he is probed further and this response is scored. Benevolent intent is recorded when the child indicates that his mother performed the target behavior in an intentional or purposeful manner with the goal of producing a positive effect for the child. This positive effect may refer to positive emotion/affect, behavior, or environmental consequence. Benign intent or accident is recorded when the child responds as follows: a) when he indicates that his mother performed the target behavior in an intentional or purposeful manner with a goal that is unrelated to producing any effect, either beneficial or detrimental, on the child (e.g., "She picked up the sweater because she wanted to look closely at the colors."); b) when he indicates that his mother performed the target behavior in an accidental manner (e.g., "She hit me with the vacuum cleaner because she tripped on the rug."). Hostile intent is recorded when the child indicates that his mother performed the target behavior in an intentional or purposeful manner with the goal of producing a negative effect for the child. This negative effect may refer to negative emotion/affect, behavior, or environmental consequence. If the child responds in a manner indicating a congruence between the mother's intent and the targeted behavior (e.g., "She wanted the screen door to hit my 95 arm."), the child is probed further (e.g., "Why did your mom want the screen door to hit your arm?"). Forced-choice Response After the child responds to the attribution of intent question, he is asked, "Did your mom (perform the target behavior) on purpose or by accident?" Stated Behavioral Response Following the child's response to the forced-choice question, the child is asked, "What would you do to your mom after she (performed the target behavior)?" If the child does not respond in a manner that can be scored using the coding criteria, he is probed as follows: "Tell me more about what you would do to your mom after she (performed the target behavior)." Responses are scored on the basis of the child's reported behavior as opposed to his intent. Benevolent response is recorded when the child reports that he would respond in a manner which is directed toward producing a positive effect for the mother. Examples of responses in this category include: "Give her a hug."; "Clean up the house."; "Tell her that it is ok."; "Tell her that I love her."; "Help her clean up." Non-mother directed response is recorded when the child reports that his succeeding behavior is not directed toward the mother, or toward influencing her affect, emotion, or behavior. Examples include: "Leave the room."; "Keep playing."; "I would not do anything."; "I would keep watching television." Hostile response is recorded when the child reports that he would respond in a manner which is directed toward producing a negative effect for the mother. This category includes behaviors identified by Johnson and Bolstad (1973) as perceived aversively by mothers. These behaviors include: command negative, cry, dependency, disapproval, destructiveness, high rate, humiliate, ignore, 96 noncompliance, negativism, physical negative, tease, whine, yell. See Reid (1978) for descriptions of these behaviors. \ Appendix H Consent Form CONSENT FORM Da te I, , v o l u n t a r i l y g i v e / d o not g i v e my c o n s e n t f o r m y s e l f and my c h i l d to be p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t e n t i t l e d " A t t r i b u t i o n o f S o c i a l Cues i n B o y s " to be c o n d u c t e d d u r i n g the p e r i o d "•lay 1984 to December 1984 w i t h D r . Rober t J . McMahon o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a as the P r i n c i p a l I n v e s t i g a t o r . I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t the p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y i s to d e t e r m i n e whether boys a r e a b l e to J . ^ L I y d e t e r m i n e the i n t e n t i o n s o f t h e i r m o t h e r s in the c o n t e x t o f t h e i r d a y - t o - d a y i n t e r a c t i o n s . The p r o c e d u r e s to be f o l l o w e d have been e x p l a i n e d to me, and I u n d e r s t a n d them. They a r e as f o l l o w s : I w i l l p a r t i c i p a t e i n one s e s s i o n i n which I w i l l c o m p l e t e two q u e s t i o n n a i r e s c o n c e r n i n g my p e r c e p t i o n s o f my c h i l d ' s b e h a v i o r . My son w i l l be g i v e n a b r i e f t e s t to a s s e s s h i s r e c e p t i v e l a n g u a g e a b i l i t i e s , l i s t e n to a s h o r t s e r i e s o f a u d i o t a p e d s c e n a r i o s , and r e s p o n d to a b r i e f i n t e r v i e w . I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t the r e s p o n s e s on the i n t e r v i e w s and q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w i l l remain anonymous and c o n f i d e n t i a l . I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t the e n t i r e p r o c e d u r e w i l l l a s t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 h o u r . T h e r e are no d i s c o m f o r t s or r i s k s r e a s o n a b l y to be e x p e c t e d by m y s e l f 'and my c h i l d as a r e s u l t of p a r t i c i p a t i o n in this p r o j e c t . B e n e f i t s from my and his p a r t i c i p a t i o n are as follows: 1. I w i l l be g i v e n f e e d b a c k c o n c e r n i n g my and my c h i l d ' s r e s p o n s e s i n the p r o j e c t . 2. My son will be paid a total of $5 for his p a r t i c i p a t i o n . I u n d e r s t a n d that this c o n s e n t may be w i t h d r a w n at any time without p r e j u d i c e . My q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g this p r o j e c t have been answered to my s a t i s f a c t i o n . I have read and u n d e r s t a n d the f o r e g o i n g , and I have received a copy of this c o n s e n t form. W i t n e s s Parent 99 Appendix I C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i c e s 1 0 0 Conduct D i s o r d e r e d Group: S e l e c t i o n C r i t e r i a Dependent Var i ab1e ECBI I n t e n s i t y S c o r e ECBI Prob1 em S c o r e RCBP A g g r e s s i o n S c o r e I n t e n t N e g a t i v e Outcome Ambiguous Outcome P o s i t i v e Outcome M u l t i p l e C h o i c e I n t e n t N e g a t i v e Outcome Ambiguous Outcome P o s i t i v e Outcome R e p o r t e d Response N e g a t i v e Outcome Ambiguous Outcome P o s i t i v e Outcome 0 9 2 5 0 6 0 8 1 3 4 4 0 8 1 2 0 6 1 3 1 1 1 5 1 7 1 6 3 6 3 2 0 6 0 3 3 7 0 6 1 1 2 0 0 3 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 9 101 Normal Group: S e l e c t i o n C r i t e r i a Dependent V a r i a b l e ECBI I n t e n s i t y S c o r e ECBI P r o b l e m S c o r e RCBP Aggre s s i o n S c o r e I n t e n t N e g a t i v e Outcome Ambiguous Outcome P o s i t i v e Outcome M u l t i p l e C h o i c e I n t e n t N e g a t i v e Outcome Ambiguous Outcome P o s i t i v e Outcome R e p o r t e d Response N e g a t i v e Outcome Ambiguous Outcome P o s i t i v e Outcome 1 1 .04 01 01 .09 ,07 29 .33 25 22 1 3 06 08 1 6 01 1 2 3 1 34 2 1 .06 04 1 6 03 1 1 1 3 23 3 1 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096980/manifest

Comment

Related Items