Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), Bowling Green State University, 2016, Psychology/Developmental

The present study examined the relations between Theory of Mind and moral development as they impact specific aggressive behaviors and prosociality in preschoolers. Social-Cognitive and Social-Cognitive Domain Theory suggest that behavior should be considered a function of personal factors and environment, whereby each of these three facets impact and interact with one another, especially during the development of moral understanding. The current conceptualized hypothesized that moral judgment would predict socio-moral cognition, and – separately – that inhibitory control would predict Theory of Mind; additionally, a moderation of socio-moral cognition was posed on the expected relation from Theory of Mind to social outcomes. One hundred seventy-six preschoolers (Ma=53.3 months) completed measures of inhibitory control, moral understanding, morally imbedded Theory of Mind, verbal skills, and a traditional Theory of Mind battery consisting of five tasks. In addition, teacher- and child self-report data were collected for four specific aspects of aggressive behavior, and prosociality. The proposed model was a good fit to the data using teacher-report data. Results indicate that for children high in mental state understanding, applied moral cognitive development influences teacher-rated prosociality, such that those who were better able to understand another's motive tended to be less prosocial—for those without motive understanding, there was no relation from ToM on prosocial behavior. Implications are discussed in regards to theoretical development and previous empirical findings.

Committee: Marie Tisak (Advisor); John Tisak (Committee Member); Carolyn Tompsett (Committee Member); Susannah Cleveland (Other) Subjects: Cognitive Psychology; Developmental Psychology; Early Childhood Education; Psychology; Social Psychology

Psy. D., Antioch University, 2014, Antioch New England: Clinical Psychology

Over the past decade, the profusion of literature examining the downward extension of psychopathy to juvenile populations has been met with much debate and controversy. The focus remains on the accuracy of assessment and the negative effects from the premature application of labeling a juvenile a psychopath. The current study investigated the relationship between psychopathy and aggression by exploring the relationship between types of aggression (instrumental and reactive) and psychopathic traits in juvenile offenders. This study examined archived file information for male and female (N = 134) juvenile offenders (ages 13-17) referred for diagnostic and psychological evaluation services by the department of juvenile probation. A mixed gender sample was utilized to explore gender differences in the manifestation of psychopathy and aggression. Based on Cornell et al's (1996) aggression coding system, this study identified three groups: (a) instrumental offenders (IO), (b) reactive offenders (RO) and (c) combined offenders (CO; both instrumental and reactive aggression). These groups were compared on psychopathic traits utilizing the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for Adolescents (MMPI-A; Butcher et al., 1992) scale 4, Psychopathic deviate (Pd) as a measure of psychopathic traits. Consistent with previous research on adult populations, results support the predictive utility of instrumental aggression in assessing psychopathic traits in juvenile offenders. Gender differences revealed that female offenders demonstrate higher rates of psychopathic traits regardless of aggression group.

Committee: Roger L. Peterson Ph.D., ABPP (Committee Chair); Lorraine Mangione Ph.D. (Committee Member); Janay Sander Ph.D. (Committee Member) Subjects: Clinical Psychology

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2008, Psychology

Reactive aggression is displayed in response to a perceived threat or provocation or possibly in response to frustration. Proactive aggression could be motivated to gain a resource, or could be directed toward a person with the purpose of bullying, domination, or intimidation. The purpose of this project was to develop an informant-based scale of the severity and/or frequency of interpersonal aggression among people with intellectual and developmental disability. I also attempted to incorporate a "reactive/proactive" domain as well, using a provocation scale which asked raters whether or not a behavior was more likely to have been provoked or not. Subjects were 512 individuals diagnosed with intellectual disability (an IQ of 70 or lower), and aged 19 to 84 years, inclusive. Raters were 61 staff or family members who were familiar with a subject for at least six months. Factor analysis yielded five subscales: (I) Verbal Aggression, (II) Physical Aggression, (III) Hostile Affect, (IV) Covert Aggression, and (V) Bullying. These subscales had good to excellent internal consistency and fair to excellent interrater reliability statistics. Concurrent validity was supported by comparisons with the results of the BPI Aggressive/Destructive Behavior subscale. Comparisons of mean scores of groups of subjects divided by demographic, diagnostic, and medication variables yielded results which were supportive of the Problem Scale external validity. The Provocation Scale and its subscales had interrater reliability statistics in the fair to good range of clinical significance. Comparisons of mean scores of groups of subjects divided by demographic, diagnostic, and medication variables yielded results which were supportive of the Provocation Scale external validity. A few of the t-test results indicate that the Provocation Scale can provide pertinent information not obtainable with the Problem scale alone. These results are encouraging, but it is also clear that important improveme (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Michael Aman (Advisor) Subjects: Psychology

Master of Science (MS), Ohio University, 2005, Psychology (Arts and Sciences)

The purpose of the current study is to examine the self-report of childhood bullying experiences among college students and their current endorsement of aggression and biases in social information processing. Results indicated that bullies in childhood endorse higher levels of proactive and reactive aggression than those who were not bullies; childhood victims report higher levels of reactive aggression than non-victims. In relation to social information processing, a discriminant function analysis distinguished those who were bullies from those who not bullies on measures of possessing a positive attitude toward aggression and having a low self-efficacy in their belief to stay out of fights. Contrary to previous literature, victims of childhood bullying were no different on scores of hostile attribution bias from non- victims. In conclusion, the current study found support that some of the biases that are characteristic of bullies in childhood were biases for those with a childhood history of bullying.

Committee: Christine Gidycz (Advisor) Subjects: Psychology, Clinical

Master of Arts (MA), Bowling Green State University, 2005, Psychology/Clinical

Researchers have identified two subtypes of aggression, reactive and proactive, that have unique patterns in terms of their etiologies, correlates (i.e., behavioral, affective, cognitive, social), and long-term outcomes. Reactive aggression is associated with angry affect and is enacted in response to a real or perceived provocation, whereas proactive aggression is not associated with angry affect and is directed toward the fulfillment of some instrumental or social goal. The present study investigated the associations between reactive and proactive aggression and victimization experiences, anger control, and several social-cognitive variables in a diverse, 5th grade, urban sample. Children who participated in the evaluation of an aggression prevention program completed surveys assessing their victimization experiences, anger control, and social-cognitive patterns (i.e., predictor variables). Teachers provided reports of children's reactive and proactive aggression. Four hypotheses were addressed: 1) reactive and proactive aggression will have low prevalence in this community sample; 2) reactive and proactive aggression will be highly positively correlated in the total sample and gender sub-samples; 3) reactive and proactive aggression will have distinct correlation profiles with the predictor variables; and 4) reactive and proactive aggression will have distinct profiles of predictors. Results of correlation, regression, and discriminant function analyses provided at least partial support for all hypotheses. Unexpected results emerged including a positive association between low anger control and proactive aggression and greater positive association of several social-cognitive variables with reactive as compared to proactive aggression. Potential explanations for these results and areas for future research are discussed.

Committee: Eric Dubow (Advisor) Subjects: