Cognitive insensitivity and cognitive impulsivity as mediators of bullying continuity: Extending the psychological inertia construct to bullying behavior.

Abstract

Psychological inertia, the process by which social-cognitive variables help maintain behavioral patterns over time, has been found to explain crime continuity. The present study sought to determine whether psychological inertia can also be used to explain continuity in bullying behavior. A group of 1,161 youth (567 male) from the Illinois Study of Bullying and Sexual Violence were surveyed 3 times over a period of 1 year in an effort to determine which of two dimensions of precriminal cognition-cognitive insensitivity (callous, self-serving) or cognitive impulsivity (reckless, emotional)-mediated the past bullying-future bullying relationship. Consistent with research on crime continuity, cognitive impulsivity mediated bullying continuity, but cognitive insensitivity did not. Congruent with research on psychological inertia and crime continuity, the main reason why cognitive insensitivity did not mediate bullying continuity was that prior bullying behavior failed to predict subsequent cognitive insensitivity. In addition to providing support for a 2-dimensional (insensitivity, impulsivity) model of bullying development, these results suggest that 1 way bullying behavior can be managed is by challenging and reducing cognitive impulsivity, which in the current study was found to be a major contributor to bullying continuity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Gang Influence: Mediating the Gang–Delinquency Relationship With Proactive Criminal Thinking

“…Item ratings were then summed to produce a score that could range from 9 to 45, with higher scores indicating more proactive or neutralizing criminal thinking. An alternate term for PCT, given the relative youthfulness of the current sample, is cognitive insensitivity, the developmental antecedent to PCT (Walters & Espelage, 2018). The internal consistency of this nine-item scale in the current sample of participants was good (α = .88).…”

“…Scores on the RCT scale, which was constructed exclusively for the purposes of the current study, ranged from 8 to 40, with higher scores indicating greater RCT. Because most of the items on this scale do not directly reference crime, they may be more appropriately described as indicators of cognitive impulsivity, the developmental antecedent to RCT (Walters & Espelage, 2018). Nonetheless, the terms reactive and proactive criminal thinking were used primarily in this article.…”

“…In the current sample of early adolescents, many of whom had no prior criminal involvement, proactive and reactive criminal thinking may seem too strong of terms. As a result, cognitive processes that serve as developmental antecedents to proactive and reactive criminal thinking, cognitive insensitivity (insensitivity to the feelings and rights of others) in the case of PCT and cognitive impulsivity (failure to maintain a consistent train of thought) in the case of RCT (Walters & Espelage, 2018), periodically appear alongside the criminal thinking style terms in the current article. Also, because gang affiliations tend to be intermittent (Pyrooz, Turanovic, Decker, & Wu, 2016) and mediation analysis characteristically produces small effects (Hayes, 2013; Preacher, 2015), the main results obtained using the first three waves of the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.)…”

Positive Parents and Negative Peers: Assessing the Nature and Order of Caregiver and Friend Effects in Predicting Early Delinquency

“…The last two control variables were measures of precriminal thinking: cognitive insensitivity and cognitive impulsivity. Cognitive insensitivity and cognitive impulsivity were controlled because they are antecedents to proactive and reactive criminal thinking, respectively, two thinking styles that might not only affect delinquent peer associations but future delinquency as well (Walters & Espelage, 2018). Cognitive insensitivity was assessed with 9 items (e.g., "a small lie is okay if no one is hurt;" "it is okay to steal from the rich who can replace the item") and cognitive impulsivity with 8 items (e.g., "I make no effort to prepare for the future;" "I act on the spur of the moment"), all rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 2 ¼ disagree, 3 ¼ neither agree nor disagree, 4 ¼ agree, 5 ¼ strongly agree).…”

“…Alternately, Forgatch, Snyder, Patterson Pauldine, Chaw and Richardson (2016) discovered that treatment-related improvements in parental effectiveness predicted reductions in subsequent peer deviance, whereas early delinquency on the part of the child predicted an increase in subsequent peer deviance. Because early antisocial behavior not only predicts peer deviance but also correlates with precriminal thinking styles like cognitive insensitivity and cognitive impulsivity (Walters & Espelage, 2018), it may be advisable to control precriminal thinking when conducting research on the parenting-peer relationship. Studying a group of serious delinquents, Walters (2018b) noted that while involvement in unsupervised routine activities with friends mediated the relationship between parental knowledge and later delinquency, parental knowledge did not mediate the relationship between unsupervised routine activities and delinquency.…”