Males' greater propensity for antisocial (i.e., externalizing) behavior has been well documented. Because males and females generally have evidenced negligible differences in moral judgment stage, we investigated whether the gender discrepancy in antisocial behavior might be attributable to gender differences in other moral cognitive variables, specifically, moral self-relevance and self-serving cognitive distortion. The sample included 88 male and 105 female college students aged 16 to 19 years. In multiple regression analyses, moral judgment and moral self-relevance correlated negatively, and self-serving cognitive distortion correlated positively with antisocial behavior. Path analysis revealed that mature moral judgment and higher moral self-relevance were associated with lower levels of self-serving cognitive distortion, which partially mediated the relationship between those variables and antisocial behavior. Relationships among the moral cognitive variables and antisocial behavior did not vary by gender. Although the genders did not differ in moral judgment stage, females evidenced greater moral self-relevance, less self-serving cognitive distortion, and less antisocial behavior. The implications of these findings for moral developmental theory and the treatment of antisocial behavior are discussed.A gender difference in antisocial behavior has been documented utilizing a variety of methods. Analyses of crime statistics from several countries have consistently revealed higher rates of arrest and conviction for

The authors investigated the prevalence of self-serving and self-debasing cognitive distortions and their specific relations to externalizing and internalizing problem behaviors in 96 incarcerated male and female delinquents and a comparison sample of 66 high school students. The incarcerated participants evidenced higher levels of cognitive distortion (self-serving and self-debasing) and problem behavior (externalizing and internalizing) than did comparison participants. Both self-serving and self-debasing cognitive distortions were associated with unique variance in overall problem behaviors. Most notably, self-serving cognitive distortions specifically related to externalizing behaviors, whereas self-debasing cognitive distortions specifically related to internalizing behaviors. The theoretical and treatment implications of the findings are discussed.

The present study describes the development and preliminary validation of the “How I Think” questionnaire (HIT), a new measure of self‐serving cognitive distortion. The HIT is based upon Gibbs and Potter's [Gibbs, 1993; Gibbs et al., 1995] four‐category typology of cognitive distortion: Self‐Centered, Blaming Others, Minimizing/Mislabeling, and Assuming the Worst. The preliminary HIT exhibited high test‐retest and internal consistency reliability, and generally good construct validity. Correlations between the HIT and self‐reported antisocial or externalizing behavior remained significant after controlling for internalizing disorders [Achenbach, 1991]. The four typological categories performed comparably well. The HIT was partially successful in discriminating criterion groups. The findings are discussed in terms of theory, research, and application. © 1996 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

A SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF RESEARCHhas documented associations between problem behaviors and academic achievement. This topic has relevance from an educational perspective that views problem behaviors as serious impediments to optimal education. From a psychopathology perspective, low academic achievement represents a significant risk factor for poor behavioral outcomes. A systemic viewpoint posits that behavioral and academic problems exert reciprocal influences on one another, which, over time, can negatively affect the development of individuals and their environments. Regardless of perspective, a clear understanding of the relationship between problem behaviors and academic achievement will help generate appropriate assessment, prevention, and intervention strategies for at-risk or troubled youth.We are using the term academic underachievement to denote academic performance that is below normative age level rather than discrepant from one's general cognitive ability (as in the diagnosis of learning disabilities). A wide variety of problem behaviors have been linked to academic underachievement. For example, investigations have consistently revealed that aggression and other forms of antisocial behavior display inverse relationships with academic achievement (e.g., Williams & McGee, 1994).Additionally, the symptoms of attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder have shown a robust inverse relationship with achievement (Faraone et al., 1993). Problem behaviors associated with internalizing have also evidenced connections to academic underachievement, though less consistently. Anxiety and negativism have been identified as key personality traits associated with academic problems (Stevens & Numerous studies have documented relationships between a variety of problem behaviors and academic achievement measures. However, the results of these studies should be interpreted cautiously, given the considerable comorbidity of problem behaviors that often exists among school-age youth.This study addressed the relationships between 8 teacher-reported problem behavior syndromes (withdrawal, somatic complaints, anxiety/depression, social problems, thought problems, attention problems, delinquent behavior, aggressive behavior) and standardized measures of academic achievement (overall, reading, spelling, arithmetic, performance). The sample comprised 41 boys and 17 girls ages 11 to 19 years (M = 15.02, SD = 1.90) enrolled in an alternative school. Although withdrawn, somatic complaints, delinquent behavior, and aggressive behavior syndromes exhibited significant zero-order correlations with the academic achievement measures, each of these relationships was mediated by attention problems. A post hoc analysis suggested that the observed association between attention problems and academic achievement was primarily due to the inattention component of the syndrome rather than the hyperactivity-impulsivity component.The findings are discussed with reference to theoretical, research, and treatment implications.