Response decision processes and externalizing behavior problems in adolescents

Abstract

Externalizing behavior problems of 124 adolescents were assessed across Grades 7-11. In Grade 9, participants were also assessed across social-cognitive domains after imagining themselves as the object of provocations portrayed in six videotaped vignettes. Participants responded to vignette-based questions representing multiple processes of the response decision step of social information processing. Phase 1 of our investigation supported a two-factor model of the response evaluation process of response decision (response valuation and outcome expectancy). Phase 2 showed significant relations between the set of these response decision processes, as well as response selection, measured in Grade 9 and (a) externalizing behavior in Grade 9 and (b) externalizing behavior in Grades 10-11, even after controlling externalizing behavior in Grades 7-8. These findings suggest that on-line behavioral judgments about aggression play a crucial role in the maintenance and growth of aggressive response tendencies in adolescence.Inquiry in social-cognitive psychology (e.g., the association between cognitive processing and maladaptive social development.

Development of a social emotional information processing assessment for adults (SEIP‐Q)

“…In the current paper we also analyze data on response evaluation and decision (RED) processes that make up the latter stages of the current SEIP model (Fontaine, Burks, & Dodge, 2002;Fontaine & Dodge, 2006;Fontaine, Yang, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2009). In order to assess these processes, the participant was asked to imagine each of three possible responses to Person B's behavior in turn.…”

Real‐time decision making and aggressive behavior in youth: a heuristic model of response evaluation and decision (RED)

“…The response-valuation subprocess is characterized by appraising individual responses across "means-focused" domains of sociomoral acceptability [e.g., Crick and Dodge, 1994;Fontaine et al, 2002;Guerra et al, 1994], By the term "means-focused," we focus on appraisals of the action itself (e.g., "Is this a good behavior?") and not evaluations of the consequences (or outcomes) that may occur as a result of the act.…”

“…Socialcognitive correlates of individual differences in aggression in children and adolescents include normative beliefs [e.g., Huesmann and Guerra, 1997], self-efficacy judgments [e.g., Erdley and Asher, 1996], outcome expectancies [e.g., Cuddy and Frame, 1991;Perry et al, 1986Perry et al, , 1989, social goals [Chung and Asher, 1996;Erdley and Asher, 1996], and outcome values [e.g., Boldizar et al, 1989;Guerra and Slaby, 1989]. For example, compared to their nonaggressive peers, aggressive children have been found to expect tangible rewards to result from acting aggressively [Perry et al, 1986], to believe that aggression increases self-esteem [Slaby and Guerra, 1988], and to valuate aggressive responses as sociomorally acceptable [Fontaine et al, 2002]. A different literature has supported the hypothesis that aggressive children fail to act rationally and instead respond impulsively [Dodge and Newman, 1981].…”

Conduct Problems Moderate Self-Medication and Mood-Related Drinking Consequences in Adolescents

“…For example, adolescents with greater conduct problems show deficits in generating and selecting successful options for problem-solving. These deficits may exacerbate distress and increase the likelihood of selecting poor coping alternatives, such as drinking (Fontaine, Burks, & Dodge, 2002). As such, conduct problems may increase risk for self-medication due to cognitive styles that promote risky behaviors as a coping response to negative mood (Hussong & Chassin, 1994;Pardini, Lochman, & Wells, 2004).…”