Hostile attribution bias

Last updated

Hostile attribution bias, or hostile attribution of intent, is the tendency to interpret others' behaviors as having hostile intent, even when the behavior is ambiguous or benign. [1] [2] [3] For example, a person with high levels of hostile attribution bias might see two people laughing and immediately interpret this behavior as two people laughing about them, even though the behavior was ambiguous and may have been benign.

Contents

The term "hostile attribution bias" was first coined in 1980 by Nasby, Hayden, and DePaulo who noticed, along with several other key pioneers in this research area (e.g., Kenneth A. Dodge), that a subgroup of children tend to attribute hostile intent to ambiguous social situations more often than other children. [1] [2] Since then, hostile attribution bias has been conceptualized as a bias of social information processing (similar to other attribution biases), including the way individuals perceive, interpret, and select responses to situations. [4] [5] While occasional hostile attribution bias is normative (particularly for younger children), researchers have found that individuals who exhibit consistent and high levels of hostile attribution bias across development are much more likely to engage in aggressive behavior (e.g., hitting/fighting, reacting violently, verbal or relational aggression) toward others. [3] [6]

In addition, hostile attribution bias is hypothesized to be one important pathway through which other risk factors, such as peer rejection or harsh parenting behavior, lead to aggression. For example, children exposed to peer teasing at school or child abuse at home are much more likely to develop high levels of hostile attribution bias, which then lead them to behave aggressively at school and/or at home. Thus, in addition to partially explaining one way aggression develops, hostile attribution bias also represents a target for the intervention and prevention of aggressive behaviors. [3]

History

The term hostile attribution bias first emerged in 1980 when researchers began noticing that some children, particularly aggressive and/or rejected children, tended to interpret social situations differently compared to other children. [1] [2] For example, Nasby and colleagues presented photographs of people to a group of aggressive adolescent boys (aged 10–16) and observed that a subgroup of these youth exhibited a consistent tendency to attribute hostile intent to the photographs, even when the cues were ambiguous or benign. [1] Similarly, Kenneth A. Dodge and colleagues conducted a study on a sample of school-aged children between 3rd–5th grade and found that children who were rejected were much more likely than other children to exhibit hostile attributions of intent to ambiguous social situations (e.g., when a behavior could have been either accidental or intentional). [2] Furthermore, Dodge and colleagues found that children with high hostile attribution bias then went on to exhibit the most aggressive behaviors later on.

Early studies investigating links between hostile attribution bias and aggression were somewhat mixed, with some studies reporting no significant effects [7] [8] or small effects [2] [4] and other studies reporting large effects. [9] [10] Since then, over 100 studies and a meta-analysis [6] have documented a robust association between hostile attribution bias and aggressive behavior across various samples ranging in age, gender, race, countries, and clinical populations. [3]

Theoretical formulation

Hostile attribution bias is typically conceptualized within a social information processing framework, in which social information (e.g., during an interaction) is processed in a series of steps that leads to a behavioral reaction. [4] [5] Accurate social information processing requires a person to engage in six steps that occur in order. [11]

  1. Accurately encode information in the brain and store it in short-term memory. During this step, an individual will pay attention to and code specific stimuli/cues in their environment, including external factors (e.g., someone bumping into you; other people's reactions to the situation) and internal factors (e.g., your affective reaction to the situation).
  2. Accurately interpret or give meaning to encoded information. During this step, an individual may decide if a behavior or situation was meant to be hostile or benign.
  3. Decide a goal for the interaction
  4. Generate potential responses
  5. Evaluate potential responses and select the "optimal" response
  6. Enact chosen response

Hostile attribution bias is theorized to result from deviations in any of these steps, [4] including paying attention to and encoding biased information (e.g., only paying attention to cues suggestive of hostility), biases toward negative interpretations of social interactions (e.g., more likely to interpret situation as hostile), limited ability to generate a broad range of potential responses, and difficulty appropriately evaluating responses and selecting an optimal response. Furthermore, biases in any of the steps affect the rest of the steps. [5] Hostile attribution bias has been particularly linked to step 2 of social information processing (i.e., interpretation of information), but is linked to impairments in other steps as well, including inaccurate perception/encoding of social situations and problems with generating a broad range of potential behavioral responses. For example, a child with high levels of hostile attribution bias may generate fewer potential responses than other children, and these responses may be limited to hostile or ineffective responses to a situation. [12]

Dodge theorized that hostile attribution bias arises from an individual's hostile schemas about the world that are formed through an interaction between a child's neural dispositions and his/her early exposures to hostile socialization experiences. [3] These experiences may include disrupted parental attachment, child abuse, exposure to family violence, peer rejection or victimization, and community violence.

Measurement

In research settings, hostile attribution bias is typically measured with a laboratory task, in which participants are presented with staged interaction (live actors), video, picture, audio, or written presentations of ambiguous social situations. For example, an ambiguous social situation presented might be a video of a child opening a door, causing the door to knock over a tower of toys that another child was building. After the stimulus is presented, participants would be asked to make attributions about the intent of the actor (i.e., hostile vs. benign). (For example: "Do you think the girl who opened the door was trying to be mean, nice, or could have been mean or nice?"). Multiple trials are administered with various ambiguous scenarios, and these attributions are then used by the researchers to determine the level of the child's hostile attribution bias. Careful selection of stimuli and comparison of stimuli across mediums is helpful for accurately assessing an individual's level of hostile attribution bias. A meta-analysis investigating the link between hostile attribution bias and aggressive behavior found that the strongest effect sizes were linked with actual staging of social interactions, followed by audio presentation of stimuli, then video and picture presentation. [6]

Implications

Aggression

Substantial literature has documented a robust association between hostile attribution bias and aggression in youth. [3] [6] Hostile attribution bias is traditionally associated with overt physical aggression (e.g., hitting, fighting), such that higher levels of hostile attribution bias predict more aggressive behavior. In particular, much evidence suggests that hostile attribution bias is especially linked to "reactive aggression" (i.e., impulsive and "hot-blooded" aggression that reflects an angry retaliation to perceived provocation) rather than "proactive aggression" (i.e., unprovoked, planned/instrumental, or "cold-blooded" aggression). [13] Beyond physical aggression, elevated hostile attribution bias is also associated with increased use of relational aggression (e.g., gossip, spreading rumors, social exclusion). [14] [15] [16] [17] This is particularly the case when youth attribute hostile intent to ambiguous relational situations (e.g., not receiving an invitation to a party or not receiving a response to a text). [18]

Negative adult outcomes

Hostile attribution bias has also been documented in adult populations, and adults with high levels of hostile attribution bias are over four times more likely to die by the age of 50 than adults with low levels of hostile attribution bias. [19] Hostile attribution bias is particularly linked to relational problems in adulthood, including marital conflict/violence [20] and marital/relationship dissatisfaction. [21] Finally, parents with high levels of hostile attribution bias are also much more likely to use harsh discipline and aggressive parenting, [22] [23] which may further contribute to the intergenerational continuity in hostile attribution bias and aggression across time. [24]

Clinical implications for intervention

Hostile attribution bias has been tested as a malleable target for intervention for aggressive behaviors in youth, including in cognitive interventions designed to increase accurate identification of others' intentions and attribution of benign intentions. [25] [26] [27] Relative success has been documented from these interventions in changing levels of hostile attribution bias, although actual enduring changes in aggressive behavior have been modest. [3]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social psychology</span> Study of social effects on peoples thoughts, feelings, and behaviors

Social psychology is the scientific study of how thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the real or imagined presence of other people or by social norms. Social psychologists typically explain human behavior as a result of the relationship between mental states and social situations, studying the social conditions under which thoughts, feelings, and behaviors occur, and how these variables influence social interactions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aggression</span> Social interaction aiming at inflicting damage or unpleasantness

Aggression is overt or covert, often harmful, social interaction with the intention of inflicting damage or other harm upon another individual; although it can be channeled into creative and practical outlets for some. It may occur either reactively or without provocation. In humans, aggression can be caused by various triggers, from frustration due to blocked goals to feeling disrespected. Human aggression can be classified into direct and indirect aggression; whilst the former is characterized by physical or verbal behavior intended to cause harm to someone, the latter is characterized by behavior intended to harm the social relations of an individual or group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social cognition</span> Study of cognitive processes involved in social interactions

Social cognition is a sub-topic of various branches of psychology that focuses on how people process, store, and apply information about other people and social situations. It focuses on the role that cognitive processes play in social interactions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fight-or-flight response</span> Physiological reaction to a perceived threat or harmful event

The fight-or-flight or the fight-flight-or-freeze response is a physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival. It was first described by Walter Bradford Cannon. His theory states that animals react to threats with a general discharge of the sympathetic nervous system, preparing the animal for fighting or fleeing. More specifically, the adrenal medulla produces a hormonal cascade that results in the secretion of catecholamines, especially norepinephrine and epinephrine. The hormones estrogen, testosterone, and cortisol, as well as the neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin, also affect how organisms react to stress. The hormone osteocalcin might also play a part.

In psychology, an attribution bias or attributional bias is a cognitive bias that refers to the systematic errors made when people evaluate or try to find reasons for their own and others' behaviors. People constantly make attributions—judgements and assumptions about why people behave in certain ways. However, attributions do not always accurately reflect reality. Rather than operating as objective perceivers, people are prone to perceptual errors that lead to biased interpretations of their social world. Attribution biases are present in everyday life. For example, when a driver cuts someone off, the person who has been cut off is often more likely to attribute blame to the reckless driver's inherent personality traits rather than situational circumstances. Additionally, there are many different types of attribution biases, such as the ultimate attribution error, fundamental attribution error, actor-observer bias, and hostile attribution bias. Each of these biases describes a specific tendency that people exhibit when reasoning about the cause of different behaviors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bobo doll experiment</span> Psychology experiment

The Bobo doll experiment is the collective name for a series of experiments performed by psychologist Albert Bandura to test his social learning theory. Between 1961 and 1963, he studied children's behavior after watching an adult model act aggressively towards a Bobo doll. The most notable variation of the experiment measured the children's behavior after seeing the adult model rewarded, punished, or experience no consequence for physically abusing the Bobo doll.

Passive-aggressive behavior is characterized by a pattern of passive hostility and an avoidance of direct communication. Inaction where some action is socially customary is a typical passive-aggressive strategy. Such behavior is sometimes protested by associates, evoking exasperation or confusion. People who are recipients of passive-aggressive behavior may experience anxiety due to the discordance between what they perceive and what the perpetrator is saying.

Relational aggression or alternative aggression is a type of aggression in which harm is caused by damaging someone's relationships or social status.

Attribution is a term used in psychology which deals with how individuals perceive the causes of everyday experience, as being either external or internal. Models to explain this process are called attribution theory. Psychological research into attribution began with the work of Fritz Heider in the early 20th century, and the theory was further advanced by Harold Kelley and Bernard Weiner. Heider first introduced the concept of perceived 'locus of causality' to define the perception of one's environment. For instance, an experience may be perceived as being caused by factors outside the person's control (external) or it may be perceived as the person's own doing (internal). These initial perceptions are called attributions. Psychologists use these attributions to better understand an individual's motivation and competence. The theory is of particular interest to employers who use it to increase worker motivation, goal orientation, and productivity.

The negativity bias, also known as the negativity effect, is a cognitive bias that, even when of equal intensity, things of a more negative nature have a greater effect on one's psychological state and processes than neutral or positive things. In other words, something very positive will generally have less of an impact on a person's behavior and cognition than something equally emotional but negative. The negativity bias has been investigated within many different domains, including the formation of impressions and general evaluations; attention, learning, and memory; and decision-making and risk considerations.

Social information processing refers to a theory of how individuals, especially children, establish successful relationships with society. Studies show the parts of the brain which are active during the whole social interaction are the amygdala, ventromedial frontal cortices and right somatosensory-related cortex and others.

Relational transgressions occur when people violate implicit or explicit relational rules. These transgressions include a wide variety of behaviors. The boundaries of relational transgressions are permeable. Betrayal for example, is often used as a synonym for a relational transgression. In some instances, betrayal can be defined as a rule violation that is traumatic to a relationship, and in other instances as destructive conflict or reference to infidelity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cognitive bias modification</span>

Cognitive bias modification (CBM) refers to procedures used in psychology that aim to directly change biases in cognitive processes, such as biased attention toward threat stimuli and biased interpretation of ambiguous stimuli as threatening. The procedures are designed to modify information processing via cognitive tasks that use basic learning principles and repeated practice to encourage a healthier thinking style in line with the training contingency.

Social competence consists of social, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral skills needed for successful social adaptation. Social competence also reflects having an ability to take another's perspective concerning a situation, learn from past experiences, and apply that learning to the changes in social interactions.

The frustration–aggression hypothesis, also known as the frustration–aggression–displacement theory, is a theory of aggression proposed by John Dollard, Neal Miller, Leonard Doob, Orval Mowrer, and Robert Sears in 1939, and further developed by Neal Miller in 1941 and Leonard Berkowitz in 1969. The theory says that aggression is the result of blocking, or frustrating, a person's efforts to attain a goal.

Peer victimization is the experience among children of being a target of the aggressive behavior of other children, who are not siblings and not necessarily age-mates.

Cognitive inhibition refers to the mind's ability to tune out stimuli that are irrelevant to the task/process at hand or to the mind's current state. Cognitive inhibition can be done either in whole or in part, intentionally or otherwise. Cognitive inhibition in particular can be observed in many instances throughout specific areas of cognitive science.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kenneth A. Dodge</span> American academic

Kenneth Dodge is the William McDougall Distinguished Professor of Public Policy and Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Duke University. He is also the founding and past director of the Duke University Center for Child and Family Policy and founder of Family Connects International.

Nicki Rae Crick was a psychologist and professor of child development and family studies known internationally for her research on relational aggression, defined as the use of relationships as agents of harm. At the time of her death, she held the position of Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Irving B. Harris Professor of Child Psychology at the Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota.

Interpretive bias or interpretation bias is an information-processing bias, the tendency to inappropriately analyze ambiguous stimuli, scenarios and events. One type of interpretive bias is hostile attribution bias, wherein individuals perceive benign or ambiguous behaviors as hostile. For example, a situation in which one friend walks past another without acknowledgement. The individual may interpret this behavior to mean that their friend is angry with them.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Nasby, W., Hayden, B., & DePaulo, B. M. (1980). Attributional bias among aggressive boys to interpret unambiguous social stimuli as displays of hostility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89 (3), 459.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and children's aggressive behavior. Child Development, 162-170.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dodge, K. A. (2006). Translational science in action: Hostile attributional style and the development of aggressive behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 18 (03), 791-814.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of social competence in children. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), The Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology: Vol. 18. Cognitive perspectives on children's social and behavioral development (pp. 77-125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  5. 1 2 3 Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment.Psychological Bulletin, 115 (1), 74.
  6. 1 2 3 4 De Castro, B. O., Veerman, J. W., Koops, W., Bosch, J. D., & Monshouwer, H. J. (2002). Hostile attribution of intent and aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 916-934.
  7. ↑ Dodge, K. A., Lochman, J. E., Harnish, J. D., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Reactive and proactive aggression in school children and psychiatrically impaired chronically assaultive youth. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106 (1), 37.
  8. ↑ Matthys, W., Cuperus, J. M., & Van Engeland, H. (1999). Deficient social problem-solving in boys with ODD/CD, with ADHD, and with both disorders.Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38 (3), 311-321.
  9. ↑ Graham, S., Hudley, C., & Williams, E. (1992). Attributional and emotional determinants of aggression among African-American and Latino young adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 28 (4), 731.
  10. ↑ Waldman, I. D. (1996). Aggressive boys' hostile perceptual and response biases: The role of attention and impulsivity. Child Development, 67 (3), 1015-1033.
  11. ↑ Ostrov, J. M., & Godleski, S. A. (2010). Toward an integrated gender-linked model of aggression subtypes in early and middle childhood. Psychological Review, 117 (1), 233.
  12. ↑ Richard, B. A., & Dodge, K. A. (1982). Social maladjustment and problem solving in school-aged children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50(2), 226.
  13. ↑ Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information‐processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67 (3), 993-1002.
  14. ↑ Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of children's future social adjustment. Child Development, 67 (5), 2317-2327.
  15. ↑ Crick, N. R., Grotpeter, J. K., & Bigbee, M. A. (2002). Relationally and physically aggressive children's intent attributions and feelings of distress for relational and instrumental peer provocations. Child Development, 73 (4), 1134-1142.
  16. ↑ Crick, N. R., & Werner, N. E. (1998). Response decision processes in relational and overt aggression. Child Development, 1630-1639.
  17. ↑ Werner, N. E. (2012). Do hostile attribution biases in children and parents predict relationally aggressive behavior?. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 173(3), 221-245.
  18. ↑ Bailey, C. A., & Ostrov, J. M. (2008). Differentiating forms and functions of aggression in emerging adults: Associations with hostile attribution biases and normative beliefs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37 (6), 713-722.
  19. ↑ Barefoot, J. C., Dodge, K. A., Peterson, B. L., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Williams Jr, R. B. (1989). The Cook-Medley hostility scale: item content and ability to predict survival. Psychosomatic Medicine, 51 (1), 46-57.
  20. ↑ Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Hutchinson, G. (1993). Attributing negative intent to wife behavior: the attributions of maritally violent versus nonviolent men.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102 (2), 206.
  21. ↑ Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107 (1), 3.
  22. ↑ MacBrayer, E. K., Milich, R., & Hundley, M. (2003). Attributional biases in aggressive children and their mothers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112 (4), 698.
  23. ↑ Nix, R. L., Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & McFadyen-Ketchum, S. A. (1999). The relation between mothers' hostile attribution tendencies and children's externalizing behavior problems: The mediating role of mothers' harsh discipline practices. Child Development, 896-909.
  24. ↑ Berlin, L. J., Appleyard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (2011). Intergenerational continuity in child maltreatment: Mediating mechanisms and implications for prevention.Child Development, 82 (1), 162-176.
  25. ↑ Guerra, N. G., & Slaby, R. G. (1990). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders: II. Intervention. Developmental Psychology, 26 (2), 269.
  26. ↑ Hudley, C., & Graham, S. (1993). An attributional intervention to reduce peer‐directed aggression among African‐American boys. Child Development, 64 (1), 124-138.
  27. ↑ Sukhodolsky, D. G., Golub, A., Stone, E. C., & Orban, L. (2006). Dismantling anger control training for children: A randomized pilot study of social problem-solving versus social skills training components. Behavior Therapy, 36 (1), 15-23.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.